Hitting Democrats On Abortion

[Independent thinker]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

 

[Votto]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

I think it's better just to stick with the narrative the JD Vance wants to stop all abortion and call it a day.

LOL.

The Progressive media would never allow such intelligent conversations, for obrious reasons.

Now that states across the country are putting abortion into their Constitutions with no age limits on abortion, it is less regulated than ever before. However, halfwits still think because Roe was overturned, there is less freedom to do so.

As a result, democrats get the best of both worlds which telling their base a false narrative that Trump has restricted their abortion rights to energize them to vote, and at the same time enjoy the fact that there are now more abortions after the Roe decision was overturned than before.

God love the low information voters. In fact, once Kamala and her crew is done with the economy, they may all be eating out of garbage cans soon like they are in Venezuela.

 

[martybegan]

I think it's better just to stick with the narrative the JD Vance wants to stop all abortion and call it a day.

LOL.

The Progressive media would never allow such intelligent conversations, for obrious reasons.

Now that states across the country are putting abortion into their Constitutions with no age limits on abortion, it is less regulated than ever before. However, halfwits still think because Roe was overturned, there is less freedom to do so.

As a result, democrats get the best of both worlds which telling their base a false narrative that Trump has restricted their abortion rights to energize them to vote, and at the same time enjoy the fact that there are now more abortions after the Roe decision was overturned than before.

What the abortion restrictions side needs is another Gosnell, although this time he gets just a wrist slap because the laws in Blue States decriminalize what Gosnell did (in part at least).

That moves anger and disgust back to the other side.

 

[Votto]

What the abortion restrictions side needs is another Gosnell, although this time he gets just a wrist slap because the laws in Blue States decriminalize what Gosnell did (in part at least).

That moves anger and disgust back to the other side.

Nobody even knows who Gosnell is, even though he is the biggest mass murderer in US history

That is how good the media is at controlling the sheeple.

Go ahead, ask anyone. They will just stare into space like Joe Biden during a debate with Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Nobody even knows who Gosnell is, even though he is the biggest mass murderer in US history

That is how good the media is at controlling the sheeple.

Go ahead, ask anyone. They will just stare into space like Joe Biden during a debate with Trump.

And the ones who know dismiss what he did.

The problem is finding out about another one is pretty well hidden via privacy and HIPPA laws.

 

[candycorn]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

Every medical procedure is a decision between someone and their caregiver. The Only implication that can be drawn by your statement is that you don’t have a dictionary handy to look up the meaning of words or can’t understand concepts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

Yes, please bring up abortion.

Repeatedly.

I hope Trump does.

 

[BULLDOG]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

Imagine my best Br'er Rabbit impression as I say. "Please don't make abortion an issue in the presidential race!!"

 

[Votto]

Someone did a movie called "Gosnell", but most have never heard of it.

The story of Dr. Gosnell is very disturbing. For you see, he started to practice right after the Roe vs. Wade decision back in the 70's. However, when visited by local government inspections, it was found did not meet criteria for practicing safe medicine. But instead of making him comply to their standards or shutting him down, they simply stopped coming round because back then abortion was a political football like it is now. It was thought that any abortion is a good abortion. So he was allowed by the state to use and abuse his patients any way he saw fit.

Turn the clock ahead to the 1990's. It was then that Dr. Gosnell crossed paths with the FBI who was investigating narcotics issues with his practice. Local law enforcement joined forces with the FBI to investigate Gosnell. However, local law enforcement was appalled at the working conditions in the abortion clinic as filthy and unsafe. They were especially taken back on how he disposed of the unborn fetus's that he aborted, including a jar of them on his desk he liked to look at every day. But the FBI could not prove their narcotics case involved Gosnell, so they wanted to move on. The trouble was, local law enforcement was more focused on the horrible abortion clinic that they knew was not safe, but they could not convince the FBI to investigate them.

So, what to do? The officers that visited the clinic decided to investigate themselves, but the person leading the investigation was warned that her reputation and career would be in jeopardy if she continued to insist on investigating the abortion clinic. Once again, abortion was a political football and it was viewed that any restriction of it would impede women from getting an abortion. But the lead investigator could not sleep at night after what she saw, and continued to investigate anyway. Keep in mind, she was even prochoice.

To make a long story short, they proved he had murdered viable infants and even women. Gosnell even had the nerve to treat white women better because they were more likely to sue him because they had more money and better connected legally., but not a word from the NAACP about it. Then it went to court and they prepared for a media circus due to the fact he was the biggest mass murderer in US history. Funny thing, no media showed up to cover the trial. And when he was convicted and sent to jail, no media really covered it.

Once someone wanted to do a movie about it, no one in Hollywood wanted to make the movie, so they started a grass roots movement to fund the movie, which they did and completed it. But even though it was a good movie, not many movie theatres wanted to play it.

The Gosnell was essentially aborted from the consciousness of society, much like the 60 million plus dumped in dumpsters all across the nation behind Planned Parenthood centers.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Someone did a movie called "Gosnell", but most have never heard of it.

The story of Dr. Gosnell is very disturbing. For you see, he started to practice right after the Roe vs. Wade decision back in the 70's. However, when visited by local government inspections, it was found did not meet criteria for practicing safe medicine. But instead of making him comply to their standards or shutting him down, they simply stopped coming round because back then abortion was a political football like it is now. It was thought that any abortion is a good abortion. So he was allowed by the state to use and abuse his patients any way he saw fit.

Turn the clock ahead to the 1990's. It was then that Dr. Gosnell crossed paths with the FBI who was investigating narcotics issues with his practice. Local law enforcement joined forces with the FBI to investigate Gosnell. However, local law enforcement was appalled at the working conditions in the abortion clinic as filthy and unsafe. They were especially taken back on how he disposed of the unborn fetus's that he aborted, including a jar of them on his desk he liked to look at every day. But the FBI could not prove their narcotics case involved Gosnell, so they wanted to move on. The trouble was, local law enforcement was more focused on the horrible abortion clinic that they knew was not safe, but they could not convince the FBI to investigate them.

So, what to do? The officers that visited the clinic decided to investigate themselves, but the person leading the investigation was warned that her reputation and career would be in jeopardy if she continued to insist on investigating the abortion clinic. Once again, abortion was a political football and it was viewed that any restriction of it would impede women from getting an abortion. But the lead investigator could not sleep at night after what she saw, and continued to investigate anyway.

To make a long story short, they proved he had murdered viable infants and even women. Gosnell even had the nerve to treat white women better because they were more likely to sue him because they had more money and better connected legally., but not a word from the NAACP about it. Then it went to court and they prepared for a media circus due to the fact he was the biggest mass murderer in US history. Funny thing, no media showed up to cover the trial. And when he was convicted and sent to jail, no media really covered it.

Once someone wanted to do a movie about it, no one in Hollywood wanted to make the movie, so they started a grass roots movement to fund the movie, which they did and completed it. But even though it was a good movie, not many movie theatres wanted to play it.

Gossnel was a murdering ghoul

 

[marvin martian]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

It's a lost cause. Leftists tell all kinds of lies about why they support abortion, but the truth is that they enjoy the idea of killing a child.

There's no reasoning with that.

If you doubt this, check out the vile site shoutyourabortion.

 

[Curried Goats]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

Moron, it means the doctor isn't a slave and gets to decide for himself what procedures they're comfortable performing.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

She should always have a right to choose what happens to her body. At the point of viability she shouldn't have the right to terminate the other life, just her pregnancy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Someone did a movie called "Gosnell", but most have never heard of it.

The story of Dr. Gosnell is very disturbing. For you see, he started to practice right after the Roe vs. Wade decision back in the 70's. However, when visited by local government inspections, it was found did not meet criteria for practicing safe medicine. But instead of making him comply to their standards or shutting him down, they simply stopped coming round because back then abortion was a political football like it is now. It was thought that any abortion is a good abortion. So he was allowed by the state to use and abuse his patients any way he saw fit.

Turn the clock ahead to the 1990's. It was then that Dr. Gosnell crossed paths with the FBI who was investigating narcotics issues with his practice. Local law enforcement joined forces with the FBI to investigate Gosnell. However, local law enforcement was appalled at the working conditions in the abortion clinic as filthy and unsafe. They were especially taken back on how he disposed of the unborn fetus's that he aborted, including a jar of them on his desk he liked to look at every day. But the FBI could not prove their narcotics case involved Gosnell, so they wanted to move on. The trouble was, local law enforcement was more focused on the horrible abortion clinic that they knew was not safe, but they could not convince the FBI to investigate them.

So, what to do? The officers that visited the clinic decided to investigate themselves, but the person leading the investigation was warned that her reputation and career would be in jeopardy if she continued to insist on investigating the abortion clinic. Once again, abortion was a political football and it was viewed that any restriction of it would impede women from getting an abortion. But the lead investigator could not sleep at night after what she saw, and continued to investigate anyway. Keep in mind, she was even prochoice.

To make a long story short, they proved he had murdered viable infants and even women. Gosnell even had the nerve to treat white women better because they were more likely to sue him because they had more money and better connected legally., but not a word from the NAACP about it. Then it went to court and they prepared for a media circus due to the fact he was the biggest mass murderer in US history. Funny thing, no media showed up to cover the trial. And when he was convicted and sent to jail, no media really covered it.

Once someone wanted to do a movie about it, no one in Hollywood wanted to make the movie, so they started a grass roots movement to fund the movie, which they did and completed it. But even though it was a good movie, not many movie theatres wanted to play it.

The Gosnell was essentially aborted from the consciousness of society, much like the 60 million plus dumped in dumpsters all across the nation behind Planned Parenthood centers.

The Gosnell tragedy happened a long time ago, and several regulations have been put into place to prevent that ever happening again. Gosnell was rightfully dealt with, and his actions, back then, have nothing to do with current abortion discussion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gossnel was a murdering ghoul

No doubt.

 

[Zincwarrior]

There are two things I have never understood about Republican responses to the abortion issue, which they never really seem to bring up in their arguments:

1. If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, then doesn't that imply that a woman doesn't really have the right to choose if her doctor theoretically has veto power over her decision? Yes, I know that the woman will of course choose a doctor that agrees with her but, still, it doesn't change the fact that if it is a decision between her and her doctor, that clearly implies he could have veto power over her decision, meaning she doesn't really have the right to choose solely by herself, so a woman does not have the right to choose.

There is another thread where we are debating abortion. Its a Class One debate though, so please avoid the usual insults.
Here I would note they would say its the woman's decision in consultation with her doctor.

2. Why don't we corner democrats into stating at which week of the pregnancy a woman no longer has the right to choose? I mean the left claim that women don't ever choose to abort a late term pregnancy and that it doesn't happen unless the mother's life or the babies life is at risk. So, that implies that barring the life of the mother or the fetus being in real jeopardy (not fake jeopardy), there would actually be a point in the pregnancy where they would agree that if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy then a woman no longer has the right to choose. So, why don't we put more pressure on the left to state at which week the woman no longer has the right to choose? If they refuse to answer then they are admitting that a woman has the right to choose all the way up to a full term pregnancy, even if the mother's life or the fetus's life is not at risk. So, which week is it that women no longer have the right to choose? Or, do they have the right to choose all the way up to 9 months, even if her life or the fetus's life is not in jeopardy. Force the left to pick either one or the other.

Most polling shows that US voters prefer on the order of no limits for first trimester, with increasing limits, except that life of the mother is never stopped.

Another view is that this is not an issue for government at all, and its strictly up to the woman and her doctor.

 

[Independent thinker]

It's a lost cause. Leftists tell all kinds of lies about why they support abortion, but the truth is that they enjoy the idea of killing a child.

There's no reasoning with that.

If you doubt this, check out the vile site shoutyourabortion.

I debated once with someone on another site about abortion and they called the fetus nothing but a gob of goo. So, you're right.

 

[Independent thinker]

There is another thread where we are debating abortion. Its a Class One debate though, so please avoid the usual insults.
Here I would note they would say its the woman's decision in consultation with her doctor.


Most polling shows that US voters prefer on the order of no limits for first trimester, with increasing limits, except that life of the mother is never stopped.

Another view is that this is not an issue for government at all, and its strictly up to the woman and her doctor.

Another thing is the left extend the term of "life of the mother being at risk" to simply saying that just giving birth is a risk to the mother, even if she doesn't have any health issues. In other words, they can always use the excuse life of the mother even if there are no known risks to the mother, which is kind of a coded way of saying abortions are OK, even up to nine months.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Another thing is the left extend the term of "life of the mother being at risk" to simply saying that just giving birth is a risk to the mother, even if she doesn't have any health issues. In other words, they can always use the excuse life of the mother even if there are no known risks to the mother, which is kind of a coded way of saying abortions are OK, even up to nine months.

As stated, they don't view it as an issue the government should be involved in, in any way.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The dum dums are going to attack Women's Rights.

 

[Independent thinker]

As stated, they don't view it as an issue the government should be involved in, in any way.

Yeah, that's kind of hypocrisy now that they are trying to get not only local governments but the federal government to enshrine their right to abortions into law.