A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Mertex]

"Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".

 

[g5000]

Another favorite tactic of the pro-abortion sickos is to use the victims of some of the most heinous crimes as human shields.

Less than one percent of abortions are the result of rape or incest, but that doesn't stop the pro-abortionists from grabbing these victims to protect the three quarters of a million abortions a year that have NOTHING to do with rape or incest.

 

[Czernobog]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

 

[g5000]

"Don't have an abortion but don't ask me to help with your kid, I don't care if he starves".

No matter how you slice it, you are holding the kid hostage. "Pay for my kid, or I will kill it." Your post is a demand for money, no matter how you say it.

 

[Mertex]

Another favorite tactic of the pro-abortion sickos is to use the victims of some of the most heinous crimes as human shields.

Less than one percent of abortions are the result of rape or incest, but that doesn't stop the pro-abortionists from grabbing these victims to protect the three quarters of a million abortions a year that have NOTHING to do with rape or incest.

Another favorite tactic of the anti-abortion....they claim they are pro-choice when it comes to a woman at risk, but they still don't want to be called pro-choice.

Also, they claim they are okay with abortions if the woman is at risk or for rape and incest, and most states have laws covering that, but they really just want to end all abortions, and the women at risk, rape or incest can just go to hell as far as they're concerned.

 

[g5000]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand what Roe v Wade says.

After the first trimester, Roe v Wade says abortion can be regulated, but not outlawed.

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)



If you think abortions should be illegal DURING the second trimester, you are opposed to Roe v Wade.

 

[Czernobog]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point that you do not understand what Roe v Wade is saying.

Roe v Wade says second trimester abortions can be regulated, BUT NOT OUTLAWED.

Idiot.

Yes, regulated, as in restricted. Not banned - restricted. You know, like, restricted to health, rape, or incest, like we suggest.

 

[Czernobog]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand what Roe v Wade says.

After the first trimester, Roe v Wade says abortion can be regulated, but not outlawed.

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)



If you think abortions should be illegal DURING the second trimester, you are opposed to Roe v Wade.

You're quite right. If, on the other hand, you think it should only be restricted to the health of the mother, rape, or incest, you are still in full agreement with Roe v. Wade. And here's the thing, that poll is incomplete. I would be willing to bet, that many of that majority who said it should be "illegal" would agree that in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother, there should be exceptions.

 

[Czernobog]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand what Roe v Wade says.

After the first trimester, Roe v Wade says abortion can be regulated, but not outlawed.

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)



If you think abortions should be illegal DURING the second trimester, you are opposed to Roe v Wade.

Again, the problem isn't my reading comprehension; it is your simplistic linear thinking. Go into your corner, wipe the drool off your face, and see if you can't suss out the difference between outlaw/ban, and restrict.

Then you might be able to wrap your tiny little brain around the Roe v Wade opinion, and how it relates, or doesn't relate as it were, to the Gallup poll.

 

[g5000]

When you ask Americans if they support Roe v Wade, you get about a 50-50 split. But when you ask them about second trimester abortions, you get this:

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision


Almost two-thirds of Americans are in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade, with many of them believing they support it.

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand what Roe v Wade says.

After the first trimester, Roe v Wade says abortion can be regulated, but not outlawed.

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)



If you think abortions should be illegal DURING the second trimester, you are opposed to Roe v Wade.

Again, the problem isn't my reading comprehension; it is your simplistic linear thinking. Go into your corner, wipe the drool off your face, and see if you can't suss out the difference between outlaw/ban, and restrict.

Then you might be able to wrap your tiny little brain around the Roe v Wade opinion, and how it relates, or doesn't relate as it were, to the Gallup poll.

How have you been able to walk around and breathe? I mean, you thought second trimester abortions could be outlawed!

How is it possible you have been sucking air and not noticed there isn't a single state in the Union which has successfully outlawed second trimester abortions?

How is it possible you did not know the WHOLE POINT of the Texas law which was just overturned by the Supreme Court was an attempt to regulate second trimester abortions out of existence in that state in an end run around Roe v Wade?

You came to this forum and started an abortion topic, all condescending and smarmy, while being COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the Roe v Wade decision, and COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the fact not one pro-life state has managed to outlaw second trimester abortions!

Wow. Just...wow.

I am so glad I dropped in on this topic and helped you to realize that two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v Wade, and that many of them don't even know it. INCLUDING YOU!

 

[Czernobog]

Why lie?

The percentage of folks supporting Roe v. Wade is more like 53% to 29%; with 18% offering no opinion.

While you tried to portray support for Roe v. Wade as somewhat evenly split, in reality, it's almost 2 to 1 in favor of it as opposed to it.

Again, when you get specific, like ask about second trimester abortions, you find two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It isn't 53 to 29 (which is nowhere near 2 to 1 as you tried to claim) in favor, it is 64 to 27, which actually is MORE than 2 to 1.

I was very clear that many people who think they support Roe v. Wade are actually in direct opposition to it.

If you believe second trimester abortions should be illegal, which two thirds of Americans do, you do not support Roe v Wade.

Nice try.

Wrong. Clearly you are not familiar with the majority opinion of Roe v Wade:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
...
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

I'm sorry...tell me, again, how favouring restrictions on abortions after viability is contrary to the Majority Opinion of Roe v. Wade?

You really should learn about the topic you're discussing, before you make such easily disproven, retarded claims.

Reading comprehension fail. Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand what Roe v Wade says.

After the first trimester, Roe v Wade says abortion can be regulated, but not outlawed.

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)



If you think abortions should be illegal DURING the second trimester, you are opposed to Roe v Wade.

Again, the problem isn't my reading comprehension; it is your simplistic linear thinking. Go into your corner, wipe the drool off your face, and see if you can't suss out the difference between outlaw/ban, and restrict.

Then you might be able to wrap your tiny little brain around the Roe v Wade opinion, and how it relates, or doesn't relate as it were, to the Gallup poll.

How have you been able to walk around and breathe? I mean, you thought second trimester abortions could be outlawed!

How is it possible you have been sucking air and not noticed there isn't a single state in the Union which has successfully outlawed second trimester abortions?

How is it possible you did not know the WHOLE POINT of the Texas law which was just overturned by the Supreme Court was an attempt to regulate second trimester abortions out of existence in that state in an end run around Roe v Wade?

You came to this forum and started an abortion topic, all condescending and smarmy, while being COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the Roe v Wade decision, and COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the fact not one pro-life state has managed to outlaw second trimester abortions!

Wow. Just...wow.

I am so glad I dropped in on this topic and helped you to realize that two thirds of Americans are opposed to Roe v Wade, and that many of them don't even know it. INCLUDING YOU!

Okay. Now you're just flat out telling lies. Not a single state is trying to restrict 2nd trimester abortions. Every attempt to "regulate" abortions, without exception, has been to ban them outright. period. Without exception, other than for cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Not 2nd trimester abortions - all abortions, from the moment of conception.

When you cocksplats come up with some reasonable regulation restricting 2nd trimester abortions, while simultaneously recognising a woman's unrestricted right to to what she wishes with her body during the first trimester, then we might have something to discuss.

 

[P@triot]

However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

What punishment is reasonable for a woman who murders her husband? The same standard applies.

 

[P@triot]

One can always count on liberals to contradict their own position and never apply their own views consistently...

I have an idea. The federal government needs to compile a list of women who shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. The criteria for getting on the list must be flexible. If an official at, say, the NIH or FBI think that a woman should be a mother for some reason or other, he or she can block an abortion. Maybe the woman has great genes or a high IQ or the sorts of financial resources we need in parents. Let’s leave that decision where it belongs: in the hands of the government.

No-Gun List? How About a No-Abort List?

 

[P@triot]

Very simple...... the penalty for an abortion should be sterilization. We can discuss the specific type, but I'm in favor of complete removal of the ovaries.

But if it is murder as you righties believe it is, shouldn't the doctor and the woman both be convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death?

Yep. I'm not sure about the "sentenced to death" though as the overwhelming majority of murderers found guilty do not receive the death penalty. But they should receive what any murder in the 1st would receive (generally 25 years to life if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Witchit]

You're a fucking moron. I'm done with you.

Good. They're getting off on the womb talk.

 

[P@triot]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

 

[Witchit]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

 

[P@triot]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

That of course is astoundingly ignorant. Typical of liberals.

 

[Witchit]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

That of course is astoundingly ignorant. Typical of liberals.

Typical of any woman who knows that what happens in HER body is none of YOUR business.

 

[P@triot]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

That of course is astoundingly ignorant. Typical of liberals.

Typical of any woman who knows that what happens in HER body is none of YOUR business.

It's not "her" body sweetie. It's the body of the baby. When she has an abortion - is she killed or is the baby killed? When she has an abortion, is her skull caved in or is the baby's skull caved in? When she has an abortion, is her arm vacuumed off or is the baby's arm vacuumed off?

Oops.....thanks for play hon.