Where's Dazzler gonna go for his next abortion? I hear men can become pregnant.
Calm yourself, PDX.
I’m not woke enough to be a pregnant person.
Calm yourself Nancy. Your side will still be allowed to murder babies Gosnell style.
“Allowed” is a funny way to describe something that landed him in prison.
Gosnell was delivering babies and murdering them outside the womb. If he would have just killed them in the womb a couple weeks earlier your party would have supported him.
Dazzler’s party enabled him with a hands off approach in PA. They all have the blood of those babies on their hands. Might as well have been standing next to him. Right Dazzler?
Correct, but Gosnell was in violation of the law and thus the conviction. But with the law Dazzler is now supporting Gosnell wouldn't be violating any laws if just makes sure to kill the baby as it's head crowns.
Pesky details. Dazzler and his party will never wash Gosnell’s blood off their hands. Remember, we’re all responsible for everything Trump said and did that the Dazzler’s of the world suffered hurt feelers over.
What he’ll never acknowledge is that most of the state abortion laws that were used to convict Gosnell will be wiped out if the Rats he votes for are able to pass their pro-abortion law.
And that’s why we get nothing of substance and only the Kunt act from the Dazzler
Yup, Dazzler wants to pretend Gosnell was operating in a vacuum. PA officials were not inspecting clinics like Gosnell’s, one well known pro-choice group was providing the pressure.
There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
That's a logical and brave conclusion. As much as I want to have the most heinous of murderers put to death, i came to the same conclusion regarding capital punishment and there was no way around the logic for me.
I would be crushed if I got a gal preggers and she got an abortion. Against everything I believe in
Prohibition was also good. Before it Americans were basically drunk if they were awake
Drugs are bad for you and the country
But back ally abortion would return and that's bad secular policy
Prohibition doesn't work. Not even in Iran
People still murder people but we keep it illegal.
Back alleys will back alley. It’s a person or it’s not. No line? Then it is. Can’t kill it. Period. No circumstances. The Catholics nailed this one.
Has there every been an abortion performed in and alley? Front alley or back alley?
I doubt it.
Oh yeah man. It's quite common and rusty wire hangers are used. And then the woman dies. It happens all the time because I hear angry white women say it routinely on CNN and FOX and a lot of them are CEOs of this activist group or that so they must be really smart and telling the truth.
Adding to Creepy's logic-based explanation is the fact that premature babies commonly survive at ever more shorter gestation periods than in 1973, so this problem of when the state's interest overrides the mother's has been bearing down upon the Roe standards and time periods for at least 3 decades now. Lefty-Libs have satisfied themselves for decades by distinguishing between a baby and a fetus. Well, if it can survive outside the womb, then it's a baby folks. A viable, living, human baby. So abortion at that point is, to me, taking a life, and I don't see how any thoughtful person can argue otherwise.
That said, I think it's a woman's right to choose and if they choose to kill their unborn child, that's up to them. But killing is killing, and there's no way around it IMO.
Hmm, hard to argue with that take but murder is still against the law. The states should allow their voters to decide whether it should be legal. As a people, we desperately need the states to start taking hard stands. If a minority of states along with the federal government want to trample the rights of the majority, then we're heading for civil war.
But all these women are insistent that this is about controlling women instead of just not wanting to abort a heart beat.
It's actually pissing me off. I realize there is a chunk of men who want to control women. There is also a chunk who want the baby to be born and don't want to hold women back.
do they not realize that many of these aborted babies are females? Wouldn’t saving these potential females be considered pro women?
Something a lot of beta males say because they think it will get them laid. I'm amazed what these fucking freaks will say and do to garner any attention from a girl.
I remember arguing with creep about this before and I'm not sure if I'm being parodied or I have a new ally but so far I've enjoyed this thread.
It is a good thread and creepy is presenting the lock them up no abortion ever side quite nicely
It's just not a realistic option for a secular society
I'm old enough to remember 3 weeks ago when Creep argued abortion was an 'unfortunate necessity of the modern world' (or something to that effect).
People also forget - rather they didn't read the ruling - that Roe v. Wade is actually about the State's obligation to protect the life of the mother. Not the unborn. People forget that.
Irregardless, the State shouldn't be involved with the medical decisions of an individual. My body MY choice.
And on that point, fuck the hypocrite leftist faggots who spent the last two years arguing against body autonomy. You worthless bags of shit, stealing oxygen from the rest of us, abdicated your right to an opinion with that flip flop bullshit. Have some fucking principals.
I remember arguing with creep about this before and I'm not sure if I'm being parodied or I have a new ally but so far I've enjoyed this thread.
It is a good thread and creepy is presenting the lock them up no abortion ever side quite nicely
It's just not a realistic option for a secular society
I'm old enough to remember 3 weeks ago when Creep argued abortion was an 'unfortunate necessity of the modern world' (or something to that effect).
People also forget - rather they didn't read the ruling - that Roe v. Wade is actually about the State's obligation to protect the life of the mother. Not the unborn. People forget that.
Irregardless, the State shouldn't be involved with the medical decisions of an individual. My body MY choice.
And on that point, fuck the hypocrite leftist faggots who spent the last two years arguing against body autonomy. You worthless bags of shit, stealing oxygen from the rest of us, abdicated your right to an opinion with that flip flop bullshit. Have some fucking principals.
I remember arguing with creep about this before and I'm not sure if I'm being parodied or I have a new ally but so far I've enjoyed this thread.
It is a good thread and creepy is presenting the lock them up no abortion ever side quite nicely
It's just not a realistic option for a secular society
I'm old enough to remember 3 weeks ago when Creep argued abortion was an 'unfortunate necessity of the modern world' (or something to that effect).
People also forget - rather they didn't read the ruling - that Roe v. Wade is actually about the State's obligation to protect the life of the mother. Not the unborn. People forget that.
Irregardless, the State shouldn't be involved with the medical decisions of an individual. My body MY choice.
And on that point, fuck the hypocrite leftist faggots who spent the last two years arguing against body autonomy. You worthless bags of shit, stealing oxygen from the rest of us, abdicated your right to an opinion with that flip flop bullshit. Have some fucking principals.
Once upon a time, the country was crawling with pro-life liberals and leftists. Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, one of the period's preeminent liberal Democrats, once declared that the right to life begins at "the very moment of conception," a position he held until 1975. Further left, the Black Panther Party fiercely denounced abortion, a procedure it associated with eugenics. When New York liberalized its abortion rules in 1970, the party paper declared the change a "victory for the oppressive ruling class who will use this law to kill off Black and other oppressed people before they are born….How long do you think it will take for voluntary abortion to turn into involuntary abortion to turn into compulsory sterilization?" Like Kennedy, the Panthers didn't reverse themselves on the issue until the mid-'70s.
Feminist readers might object here that the Panther Party was infamously rife with sexism, that Kennedy wasn't exactly known for treating women well either, and that Jackson had a strong socially conservative streak in the 1970s. And that would all be true. But you can't simply reduce the left's old anti-abortion wing to misogyny. From Daniel Berrigan to Nat Hentoff, more than a few progressives sincerely believed that fetuses had human rights. In Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, historian Daniel Williams demonstrates that many anti-abortion leaders of the day saw their movement as a liberal "effort to extend state protection to the rights of a defenseless minority." This was especially true in the pre-Roe era, when much of the debate focused on whether the law should include a specific exception to allow abortions in cases of fetal deformity.
In that landscape, it was possible for Gov. Ronald Reagan, of all people, to sign California's Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which extended the number of circumstances in which the procedure could be performed legally. The most notable thing here isn't Reagan's role—in Defenders of the Unborn, Williams shows that the future president was ambivalent about the law and reluctant to sign it. (He wanted to ensure abortions were available in the case of rape and when necessary to save the life of the mother, but he still worried, in Williams' words, that the bill "might be too permissive" and that the lack of a residency requirement could make his state an "abortion center." The day the state Senate voted for the legislation, he publicly vacillated about it.) No, the most notable thing here is the background politics. "Many Republicans in the state legislature, including members of the conservative wing of the party, supported [the law]," Williams writes. Meanwhile, "Many of the opponents of the bill were Democrats who would never have supported Reagan under any circumstances. Some of the strongest attacks on the bill in the Assembly came from the liberal Democrat John Vasconcellos, whose impassioned statements against the bill also included a denunciation of the Vietnam War and the death penalty."
It's not that left and right were reversed; it's that they were scrambled. The bill's sponsor was also a liberal Democrat, and the forces pressuring Reagan to veto it included conservative Catholics who had backed his campaign.
Two years later, when Richard Nixon became president, he strained to remain neutral on the issue. In practice, he was making abortion easier in modest ways, not on freedom-of-choice grounds but because he was worried about population. (His vice president, the combative culture warrior Spiro Agnew, wasn't a likely pro-life icon either: As governor of Maryland, he had signed a liberalization bill in 1968.) But the grounds were shifting. When Ed Muskie, running in the Democratic presidential primaries, started stressing his pro-life bona fides, the man in the White House worried that the liberal Maine senator would pick up support among the Catholic voters Nixon needed. So Nixon moved further in an anti-abortion direction as the 1972 race proceeded.
Nixon's eventual opponent, George McGovern, is widely remembered as the party's most left-wing presidential nominee, a man whose foes famously derided him as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." But McGovern's running mate, Sargent Shriver, was the last pro-lifer to appear on a national Democratic ticket. Shriver wasn't McGovern's original pick: He replaced the Missouri senator Thomas Eagleton after it came out that Eagleton had received electroshock treatments. But Eagleton was pro-life too. Indeed, that "acid, amnesty, and abortion" slogan was a slightly modified version of a quote that Eagleton himself had said anonymously to a columnist during the primaries. (McGovern's own position was that the question should be left to the states—the same outcome the bulk of the anti-abortion movement is rooting for now. In those pre-Roe days, this was not an innately pro-life stance.)
Comments
What he’ll never acknowledge is that most of the state abortion laws that were used to convict Gosnell will be wiped out if the Rats he votes for are able to pass their pro-abortion law.
And that’s why we get nothing of substance and only the Kunt act from the Dazzler
I am still very fucking worried about where repealing the right to privacy leads.
Vax mandates were just the start. Don't forget ABC supported them in principle if not in letter.
The right to actual property is never coming back and the right to privacy is one of the last bullworks we have left that has bipartisan support.
People also forget - rather they didn't read the ruling - that Roe v. Wade is actually about the State's obligation to protect the life of the mother. Not the unborn. People forget that.
Irregardless, the State shouldn't be involved with the medical decisions of an individual. My body MY choice.
And on that point, fuck the hypocrite leftist faggots who spent the last two years arguing against body autonomy. You worthless bags of shit, stealing oxygen from the rest of us, abdicated your right to an opinion with that flip flop bullshit. Have some fucking principals.
Your life is on video and the government has access to it. Your phone and car leave a trail that a 7th grader can follow
HIPPA doesn't apply to covid vaccines!!!! According to fact checkers and experts
And yes the EPA can designate your farm as wetlands which is a taking but they don't have to pay
About the only thing left is Great Britain can't force you to house troops anymore
Yet
idiot
Once upon a time, the country was crawling with pro-life liberals and leftists. Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, one of the period's preeminent liberal Democrats, once declared that the right to life begins at "the very moment of conception," a position he held until 1975. Further left, the Black Panther Party fiercely denounced abortion, a procedure it associated with eugenics. When New York liberalized its abortion rules in 1970, the party paper declared the change a "victory for the oppressive ruling class who will use this law to kill off Black and other oppressed people before they are born….How long do you think it will take for voluntary abortion to turn into involuntary abortion to turn into compulsory sterilization?" Like Kennedy, the Panthers didn't reverse themselves on the issue until the mid-'70s.
Feminist readers might object here that the Panther Party was infamously rife with sexism, that Kennedy wasn't exactly known for treating women well either, and that Jackson had a strong socially conservative streak in the 1970s. And that would all be true. But you can't simply reduce the left's old anti-abortion wing to misogyny. From Daniel Berrigan to Nat Hentoff, more than a few progressives sincerely believed that fetuses had human rights. In Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, historian Daniel Williams demonstrates that many anti-abortion leaders of the day saw their movement as a liberal "effort to extend state protection to the rights of a defenseless minority." This was especially true in the pre-Roe era, when much of the debate focused on whether the law should include a specific exception to allow abortions in cases of fetal deformity.
In that landscape, it was possible for Gov. Ronald Reagan, of all people, to sign California's Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which extended the number of circumstances in which the procedure could be performed legally. The most notable thing here isn't Reagan's role—in Defenders of the Unborn, Williams shows that the future president was ambivalent about the law and reluctant to sign it. (He wanted to ensure abortions were available in the case of rape and when necessary to save the life of the mother, but he still worried, in Williams' words, that the bill "might be too permissive" and that the lack of a residency requirement could make his state an "abortion center." The day the state Senate voted for the legislation, he publicly vacillated about it.) No, the most notable thing here is the background politics. "Many Republicans in the state legislature, including members of the conservative wing of the party, supported [the law]," Williams writes. Meanwhile, "Many of the opponents of the bill were Democrats who would never have supported Reagan under any circumstances. Some of the strongest attacks on the bill in the Assembly came from the liberal Democrat John Vasconcellos, whose impassioned statements against the bill also included a denunciation of the Vietnam War and the death penalty."
It's not that left and right were reversed; it's that they were scrambled. The bill's sponsor was also a liberal Democrat, and the forces pressuring Reagan to veto it included conservative Catholics who had backed his campaign.
Two years later, when Richard Nixon became president, he strained to remain neutral on the issue. In practice, he was making abortion easier in modest ways, not on freedom-of-choice grounds but because he was worried about population. (His vice president, the combative culture warrior Spiro Agnew, wasn't a likely pro-life icon either: As governor of Maryland, he had signed a liberalization bill in 1968.) But the grounds were shifting. When Ed Muskie, running in the Democratic presidential primaries, started stressing his pro-life bona fides, the man in the White House worried that the liberal Maine senator would pick up support among the Catholic voters Nixon needed. So Nixon moved further in an anti-abortion direction as the 1972 race proceeded.
Nixon's eventual opponent, George McGovern, is widely remembered as the party's most left-wing presidential nominee, a man whose foes famously derided him as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." But McGovern's running mate, Sargent Shriver, was the last pro-lifer to appear on a national Democratic ticket. Shriver wasn't McGovern's original pick: He replaced the Missouri senator Thomas Eagleton after it came out that Eagleton had received electroshock treatments. But Eagleton was pro-life too. Indeed, that "acid, amnesty, and abortion" slogan was a slightly modified version of a quote that Eagleton himself had said anonymously to a columnist during the primaries. (McGovern's own position was that the question should be left to the states—the same outcome the bulk of the anti-abortion movement is rooting for now. In those pre-Roe days, this was not an innately pro-life stance.)
Nothings changed with me