Woman Yelling At Cat

In my opinion, only in extreme circumstances. Like rape, or that the pregnancy would endanger the female's life, which is 1% of abortions.

The problem with that position, is a rape trail typically takes longer than 9 months. If a mere accusation is sufficient, then you encourage false accusations. Morally, I agree with you 100%, but I don't think it's the law's place to enforce morality.

If you argue that the fetus is a life deserving of legal protections, why the rape exemption. It's still a life regardless of how it was created. If it's not a life, then it ultimately the women's choice.

The problem is there is no distinct line we can effectively draw to suit all situations.

I'm more concerned with the movement to cast abortion as a positive choice. No, it is always a bad choice. It may be least bad choice of the bad choices you have available, but if you are pregnant with an unwanted child, then something(s) already went wrong. And if you have to get an abortion for medical reasons, that's obviously a horrible situation as well.

The 'female's life'? Ah, you're Ferengi!

You don't get to force other people to take risks with their bodies against their consent although you are clearly champing at the bit to be able to.

Thankfully people with more humanity than you disagree with you.

"What a HUMANE reason to kill a baby."

I really shouldn't have to explain this but, reasons aren't humane, methods are.

Abortions are carried out in a humane way. Forcing someone to endure the body changing process of pregnancy and all its risks, suffering and side-effects against their consent is not humane.

Pregnancy carries a whole host of health implications and also carries the risk of post-partum depression, psychosis and death.

Obviously, like you, if I'd been aborted I'd be none the wiser.

I'm am not surprised that you're not familiar with/don't understand the expression or that you hate disabled people so much that you'd bastardize a slur for them and use it as an insult.

How very Right-wing of you.

Abortions are carried out in a "humane" way? Are you daft? Watch this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8

No, I'm not opening whatever right-wing propaganda that is.

Not daft, informed.

Almost all abortions take place within the first few weeks before the fetus has properly formed.
It involves the woman taking two pills and can take place at home.

Late stage abortions only happen if there is a serious medical reason and they require the permission of more than one healthcare provider.

No, you're misinformed. First, it's not right-wing propaganda. It's an abortion physician who describes the process of administering one.
Second, late stage abortions can occur not because of medical reasons, but if the woman believes it would cause psychological harm.

"Late-term abortions are very rare. In 2015, more than 400,000 abortions took place in the US. Of those, just 5,597 (or 1.3%) happened on or after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The vast majority (91%) of abortions take place at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy.

Women sometimes choose to have a late-term abortion because the pregnancy poses a threat to their health or there are fetal medical conditions. But some women also have late-term abortions simply because they were unable to access one earlier due to difficulty in getting a referral or insurance problems. Studies have found this is particularly true for poorer women."

This makes it clear that what's needed for humane abortions is to make sure that women are not prevented by finances or geography by accessing them as soon as possible.

Abortions have always taken place whether it's legal or not, the most responsible thing to do is make sure it can take place before significant fetal development in a safe clean environment by a qualified doctor.

Late stage abortions are also traumatic for the woman, nobody *wants* to go through that.
It's a huge decision to make and not one that's made lightly.

Ultimately, people have their reasons and it is unethical to force pregnancy and childbirth on someone against their consent.

i hate when women say its their body they get to decide, like bitch its not yours it different living body inside yours

Right? 💯

So...it's a process that is literally happening inside their body but according to you "it's not their body"?

Riiiiight.

💯💯💯

You've gotten your history a bit confused there, kid.

Way to flag yourself as both a misogynist and a racist, although just being Right-wing pretty much implies those things already.

Democrats were the party of slavery, dumbass. Republicans fought to free them.

Way to flag yourself as a complete f*cking moron.

You have flagged yourself as a complete f**king moron.

I didn't appreciate quite how weak your grasp of history was or that you thought terminology was everything.

Your original comment was about 'leftists' today, you then accused me of commenting on Democrats/Republicans historically.

You are either being obtuse or you are genuinely worryingly ignorant of how vastly the party ideologies have changed over time.

The only change is that Republicans went from wanting Big Government to wanting little government interference. The Democrats went the other way. The Leftist bullsh*t about party ideologies switching is to try and get away from their racist ideas.

The current President of the USA is a Democrat and has been a racist scumbag for decades, yet they still put him up for election.

The last President was a racist scumbag and was Republican.

Your belief that Democrats are racist and Republicans are not is reductive nonsense.
The current President is at least making an effort to be inclusive and offer roles based on ability rather than gender and skin color.

He also isn't spending his time provoking other countries from his bathroom via Twitter, so that makes a nice change.

"1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination.

1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Brown said. “It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back.”

1989: In a controversial case that’s been characterized as a modern-day lynching, four Black teenagers and one Latino teenager — the “Central Park Five” — were accused of attacking and raping a jogger in New York City. Trump immediately took charge in the case, running an ad in local papers demanding, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” The teens’ convictions were later vacated after they spent seven to 13 years in prison, and the city paid $41 million in a settlement to the teens. But Trump in October 2016 said he still believes they’re guilty, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.

1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly made explicitly racist and otherwise bigoted remarks, from calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, to proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US, to suggesting a judge should recuse himself from a case solely because of the judge’s Mexican heritage.

Racist Joe Biden has been involved in numerous racist acts. He was against desegregation. He voted for ‘Jim Crow’ style laws. This happened from the time he started in politics decades ago all the way up to last year.

Trump chose a white man, those were HIS only criteria.

(Unlike you, I am actually aware that other factors were taken into consideration.)

I really hope you're not stupid enough to believe what you just said, you think Kamala Harris was just some black woman who happened to be nearby when he was looking? Just some rando off the street?

Go educate yourself.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that Trump's criteria for VP was explicitly "white dude only."

Not just because Pence is one. I mean an actual soundbite or written word that defines his criteria as such.

Because Biden clearly and openly advertised his criteria as being entirely based on melatonin content and crotch configuration.

Harris dropped out of the 2020 campaign with polling numbers lower than the margin of error. She was an also-ran that was supremely unliked and soundly rejected by the Democrats. And now I'm supposed to believe that she is seen within the same party as the perfect person to succeed Biden once his undeniable late-stage dementia finally reaches the base functions of his brain?

He's right. You're wrong.

You are both wrong. I’m right.

Let's check the scoreboard again: Southern Democrats in favor, 8. Southern Republicans in favor, ZERO.

Oh, you want to play on the Northern scoreboard instead? Democrats 95%, Republicans 85%.

You're wrong. You've ALWAYS been wrong.

Alright, let's check the scoreboard AGAIN again.

Southern Democrats in favor of the CRA, 8.

Southern Republicans in favor, ZERO.

Northern Democrats 95%, Northern Republicans 85%.

Where do you find your
bullshit stats? Show me
your research.

Here’s my research, and
the REAL scoreboard:

well now actually you know it takes a man and a women to make a baby the women cant do it alone so if you wanna play that games then its two bodies not just the womens body bcuz apart of the mans body is inside hers plus its still a different body bcuz well its a baby also who wouldnt want a baby maybe you should be more careful

Punctuation called: it misses you.

"It takes a man and a woman", so you're not a Christian then?... *cough* immaculateconception *cough*

"So it's two bodies" Oh, cool. You're acknowledging that men can get pregnant, that's really progressive of you.

Very brief biology lesson: A sperm is not "a part of the mans body".

"Bcuz well it's a baby", no, it's not: it's a fetus.

"Who wouldn't want a baby?" Lots of people: isn't it great that nobody is forced to against their will?
I mean, what kind of sick, control-weilding, sadistic fascism is that, hey?

"Maybe you should be more careful". Aw, that's nice that you're concerned for my wellbeing, maybe expand that attitude to women whose bodies you want control over?

I have the right to refuse donation of my kidney EVEN IF A PERSON DIES BECAUSE I REFUSED. It's called medical autonomy. You can't even take a kidney from a dead body if that person explicitly said that when they were alive that they didn't want their organs donated.

Why should women have less autonomy than a dead body?

Because it’s not their body, that’s why!

It's a medical procedure performed on the woman's body. EVEN IF A PERSON DIES FROM YOUR AUTONOMY, you still have the right of autonomy. Why should women have less autonomy than a dead body?

It’s a medical procedure performed on a living body inside another living body. Why should the baby have less rights than a dead body?

Because it's not born yet.

It concerns their body because the fetus is literally inside it shoving all their internal organs out of the way and leeching nutrients from it; They are attached.

People get to make decisions about what happens to their body. Pregnancy with all it's risks and side-effects and childbirth are things that happen to the woman's body.

Have you ever actually studied biology?

There is no reason to have an abortion in this day and age.

There are many good medical reasons to need to terminate a pregnancy and that's half the argument right there: it's a complicated enough decision when it's just between the doctor and the expecting parents, and for the government to step in and force the decision is just plain wrong.

I'm a tax payer. I'm good with it.

So then you should pay for all of them. I for one don’t want my taxes paying for their poor decisions. I didn’t get them pregnant, so why do I have to pay for it?

Guess what? Taxes don't work that way. You pay them even if you don't agree what we spend them on.

We take a vote on how we spend them - but then you have ANOTHER problem: pro-lifers are about 30% of the vote ON A GOOD DAY. You do not and never have had a majority on this.

Hahaha

You always have to take off about ten percent when it's Gallup. That's just who they are, their sample bias is world famous.

I'm not even discussing this: Gallup is THE textbook case study of intentionally badly run polls to skew their results to what they want to show.

What about the other ones? Or will you just ignore them because they don’t fit your narrative?

Like Reuters and Pew? Sure.

Does your Google not work?

So you're supporting infanticide?

I'm not supporting skipping six logical steps in your argument, if that's what you're getting at.

But seriously though. Do you support infanticide or not?

Infants are already born. By definition.

Allow me to rephrase: why do you support abortion?

Because it's a difficult decision between the expectant parents and their doctor and it's nobody else's business to make it more difficult than that.

And what about the life of an unborn child?

It's not born yet. There's a million things that can go wrong in a pregnancy - happens all the time.

If a woman miscarried, abortion is needed.
But when a woman got pregnant after she voluntarily slept with her partner and dispose the unborn child, that is beyond irresponsible.
You are fully aware that there are infertile married couples who wanted to adopt, right?

Are you fully aware that there are already so many children needing adopted that many of them will never have a home?
Are you fully aware that couples looking to adopt have a preference for babies? Every new baby that enters the system causes an older child to be trapped in it for longer.

When children reach adulthood they are ejected from the system and given no support, they often have mental health issues and are vulnerable to abuse and addiction.

You recommend that people fill up an already overburdened care system with babies, trapping older children in it who have an increased likelihood of turning to crime and addiction. These are the same people that you will then criticize for being addicts or criminals or unemployed; these are the people you will argue have no excuse for their circumstances while YOU RECOMMEND THAT THEY ARE PUT IN THEM.

How many children have you adopted/plan to adopt?

Why are Christians having their own children when the care system is full of children that they insisted were born?

You're judging again!

a) The majority of terminations are for medical decisions. Many women who have abortions have ALREADY HAD children. The careless teenager is a minority of cases. You're being judgemental and inaccurate.

b) The shortage isn't on children up for adoption - it's on the other side; the shortage is on parents looking to adopt.

Did I also told you of what abortion really is?

So I'm judgemental for telling it as it is? It looks to me that you're being judgemental as well.

DID I NOT CLEARLY SAY THAT YOU WERE TELLING IT NOT AS IT IS?

You're on the internet right now. Google it.

I named them. You can do the rest yourself. You see at the top where it says imgflip.com? Change that to Google or any search site and hit enter.

Hahahahaha no, no they don't. Both of them break down the polls in a much more nuanced way and you obviously haven't looked at them.

Yes I did.

I also see a poll made by a group with a known leftist bias.

The problem is you expect me to believe the Leftist site while ignoring the information from 2 sites that are considered to have NO BIAS.

Sorry, that “alternative fact” bullshit is worthless garbage. I prefer ACTUAL FACTS, especially when more than one site has a near 50/50 split and the Leftist site shows a Leftist split.

The bla bla bla bit is kind of important. Funny how you skimmed the exact bit you're wrong about.

It’s funny how 100% of those who support abortion are alive right now because their mom didn’t kill them. It’s too bad their moms was more pro-abortion.

Plenty of dead people also support both sides of the debate. They can't vote, though.

You mean the part about it being more than the 30% bullshit you tried to foist off as actual data?