1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[burrheadd]

Good stay out with your filth.
You people are like freedom devouring locusts.

Steers and queers we know that’s at least half right

 

[upsgrunt]

You do realize women vote..you white guys have great difficulty in understanding DEMOGRAPHICS

Why do you feel the need to insert the word white in all your posts?

 

[wilberforce15]

Why should I care if a woman dies while trying to commit murder?

If she tries to kill her kid with a coat hanger, I'm not going to cry if she kills herself with it on accident.

 

[sailfish]

You do realize women vote..you white guys have great difficulty in understanding DEMOGRAPHICS

Yes. It's called pandering. You can thank that for the welfare state completely blowing the up.

 

[sailfish]

How can one call it pro-"choice" when the man is forced to pay no matter what? What if he doesn't want to be a dad? Even if he later finds out it's not even his kid he's still ed.

 

[Non liberal]

It is said that Clarence Thomas doesn't ever say much in court. He was the one asking about Constitutional language and statute/amendments.....

The left's position is clear: Roe set precedent(50 years ago) and that's that. Asked if abortion was always considered "legal" and accepted practice....."Yes, all through history....abortion was common...". Abortion at any time, anywhere for any reason up to and including "inconvenience" must be without question. And ONLY by the mother. With "liberty" having the only hint of constitutionality. Equality made it in there too. Meaning, a woman is not as equal as a man if she can't choose....that childbirth was so potentially life altering that only the mother can decide course. This was reiterated over and over. And their basic strategy. No exception for rape/incest was touched on briefly.

There was discussion of Roe being decided correctly......in the first place. Viability some. The pro abortion folks saying viability could never be established exactly.....so no.

Again, baby's rights or the father or any of that was never discussed.

Discussion of the court should be neutral and leaving it to the "people" or "states". The point was also made of taking sides, meaning law was/could be determined through "politics".

Thoughts....
Official abortions from Roe: 1.5 million per year. Imagine Covid deaths approaching that.....while this goes on year after year after year.....with "people of color" being substantially impacted....being a bit ironic. Think about this number.....65,000,000 deaths from Covid....into perpetuity as an analogy.

I don't think 9 people are smart enough or qualified enough to decide this. With decisions made along party lines/liberalism. With liberals/left always choosing yes.

I don't think religion should have anything to do with this subject.

I really don’t see why smarts would be needed. You don’t kill… period. You don’t have to be a genius to recognize individual right to life. As far as the woman’s rights, she doesn’t have to have sex. The man doesn’t need to get his rocks off. As far as rape and incest, that is also a tragedy that deserves every bit of government funding that we can throw at it to help the woman and child. All the funding that we pay to kill the babies of irresponsible people can be used to help the tragic cases of rape and incest. And religion doesn’t need to play a role because it’s such an obvious violation of human rights. It’s just that religious people are the only ones who care enough to want to do something about it.

 

[BrownFlush]

Why do you feel the need to insert the word white in all your posts?

Dare I say....racist?

 

[floridays]

How can one call it pro-"choice" when the man is forced to pay no matter what? What if he doesn't want to be a dad? Even if he later finds out it's not even his kid he's still ed.

Excellent point, often asked.

The answer lies in the fact this is the only situation the government feels they are dispersing their own, their individual money.

It saves the state money, the only time they are concerned with spending money.

 

[sailfish]

the government feels they are dispersing their own, their individual money.

The gubmint has none of their own, individual money. All of it is someone else's.

 

[The Driver]

The gubmint has none of their own, individual money. All of it is someone else's.

The government literally mints all the money for people to earn and spend. We all do our part.

You're implying that there's no role for government and they don't do anything productive? You wanna axe the military and see how long it takes China and Russia to invade and destroy us?

 

[bottomups]

The government literally mints all the money for people to earn and spend. We all do our part.

You're implying that there's no role for government and they don't do anything productive? You wanna axe the military and see how long it takes China and Russia to invade and destroy us?

We always have the Wolverines.

 

[wilberforce15]

The government literally mints all the money for people to earn and spend. We all do our part.

You're implying that there's no role for government and they don't do anything productive? You wanna axe the military and see how long it takes China and Russia to invade and destroy us?

Without the military, neither Russia nor China could invade or conquer us. Lol.

I understand the point you wish to make. But your ignorance is showing.

 

[wilberforce15]

We always have the Wolverines.
View attachment 362519

Yes, actually, and that's all we would need. A well-armed people can only ultimately be conquered if they quit.

An invasion here would be suicidal for even all the global powers put together.

 

[wilberforce15]

Let's get back to how cool it is for women to murder their kids.

 

[bottomups]

Yes, actually, and that's all we would need. A well-armed people can only ultimately be conquered if they quit.

An invasion here would be suicidal for even all the global powers put together.

Wrong. A few well placed nukes and we'd all be toast.

 

[wilberforce15]

Wrong. A few well placed nukes and we'd all be toast.

The topic was invasion, not nuking from space. Try to keep up.

 

[bottomups]

The topic was invasion, not nuking from space. Try to keep up.

Does it really make a difference? We'd all be dead.

 

[wilberforce15]

Does it really make a difference? We'd all be dead.

No, we wouldn't all be dead if they nuked a few spots. We'd all be dead if they nuked everything. But what kind of point is that? A nonsense point.

It matters because he said invasion, and so I addressed invasion. Find a dictionary or go away.

 

[wilberforce15]

Does it really make a difference? We'd all be dead.

By the way, how many kids have you killed?

 

[sailfish]

Wrong. A few well placed nukes and we'd all be toast.

What a place worth conquering. A radioactive wasteland full of dead people. Lol!