I support abortion because I don't think rapists should be allowed to be fathers

[Dulles]

Good thing you're not a Doctor or clinician then.

You don't need a PhD to conclude that. I'm a bit concerned after reading your posts too.

[RazorV66]

Lame

Nothing lame about the truth and reality.

You guys have believed in alternate reality biology for decades.

How many biological sexes are there?

[Stealth Blimp]

You don't need a PhD to conclude that. I'm a bit concerned after reading your posts too.

Come of it - all I've said is that rapists shouldn't be allowed to breed.

[Stealth Blimp]

According to the mouth foaming logic of members such as FlyersFan, women who have abortions are child murderers and presumably should be serving life sentences? But they aren't. 

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

You know what's interesting?

I've spoken up several times -- about actual experience with an abortion.

Not once has anyone really tried to have a conversation with me about it.

Responding posters only make it about themselves.

I admire your ability to play with the inflatable boppo toy that is defending pro-choice here. The "living children" argument especially. 

There's a concurrent personal line and the one that you leave up to privacy to decide because it has nothing to do with you.  That doesnt get separated enough.  And it seems like it should for "pro choice." 

If an Incubus ever gave me an immaculate Rosemary Satan baby, my age says it would likely be born autistic or with downs Syndrome, and there is also the chance I will eat it. (Joking)

In that unlikely event I am not going to carry it and would prefer to catch it before the medical concensus for when pain could be felt. 

Because once viable I'd be morally compelled to safe harbor it with a note saying it might be the antichrist baby... if i could, which isn't a given until im in that place. 

I really tried to find compromise in "states rights," but theres no privacy protection, so it just comes off as another step to the ultimate goal all-along.

First was Unborn Victims of Violence Act, then they tossed out 50 years of precedent on the grounds "50 years of precedent wasn't long enough to qualify it as tradition," and now nothing stops a national ban except a few dissenting republicans. Which is all that's left. 

Its "wait and see" mode, and this administration has thus far been too distracted by everything else to focus attention yet...

Sure was nice when it was the state reinforcing federal protection, though. It's no longer insulated from religiousity.

And sorry to respond by talking about myself, that's unrelated narcissism..

[ANNEE]

I really tried to find compromise in "states rights," but theres no 14th privacy protection, so it just comes off as another step to the ultimate goal all-along.

Women’s right to their reproductive choices should not be divided by states.  It should be federal applying equally for all women. 

Actually — It should not be legislated on at all — by anyone. 

What gives any person that right?

[Stealth Blimp]

I admire your ability to play with the inflatable boppo toy that is defending pro-choice here. The "living children" argument especially. 

There's a concurrent personal line and the one that has nothing to do with t h you that you leave up to privacy to decide. That doesnt get separated enough.  And it seems like it should for "pro choice." 

If an Incubus ever gave me an immaculate Rosemary Satan baby, my age says it would likely be born autistic or with downs Syndrome, and there is also the chance I will eat it. (Joking)

In that unlikely event I am not going to carry it and would prefer to catch it before the medical concensus for when pain could be felt. 

Because once viable (unless theres a reason) I'd safe harbor it with a note saying it might be the antichrist baby... if i could, which isnt a given.

I really tried to find compromise in "states rights," but theres no privacy protection, so it just comes off as another step to the ultimate goal all-along.

First was Unborn Victims of Violence Act, then they tossed out 50 years of precedent on the grounds "50 years of precedent wasn't long enough to qualify it as tradition," and now nothing stops a national ban except a few dissenting republicans. Which is all that's left. 

Its "wait and see" mode, and this administration has thus far been too distracted by everything else to focus attention yet...

Sure was nice when it was the state reinforcing federal protection, though. It's no longer insulated from religiousity.

Directness and economy of language are not your strong points are they?

[Stealth Blimp]

If a woman had aborted my baby I might feel differently on the subject but they didn't. 

No woman has ever wanted to be intimate with me. Not one. Not once!

So screw those men whose babies are aborted. Most of them probably didn't deserve to be a parent anyway.

[DBCowboy]

Women’s right to their reproductive choices should not be divided by states.  It should be federal applying equally for all women. 

Actually — It should not be legislated on at all — by anyone. 

What gives any person that right?

The right to life is a human right.

We're arguing about when and how to kill a living human being ffs!

[ANNEE]

The right to life is a human right.

We're arguing about when and how to kill a living human being ffs!

Who says?  You?

Thousands, probably 100s of thousands of already LIVING CHILDREN need care. 

This world does not need one more unwanted child.