Pro-abortion rights activists sending coat hangers to GOP senator

[koshergrl]

People murder whether it's legal or not, period.

That doesn't mean you accommodate them, fund them, and tell them it's their right.

Baby killers will go down in history as the most abjectly evil group of people to ever pollute the face of the earth.

 

[koshergrl]

The right is dead wrong on this issue ... snip .... I'm pretty sure it's been shown that abortion rates actually go down when women have access to safe avenues that will help educate them about everything. Believe it or not Planned Parenthood prefers it when women decide to keep their babies.

Yeah and Sears likes it when you shop on line with Amazon.

Abortion is only a small part of what they do. It's a sad necessity in the modern world. Most people that support abortion find it to be very sad regardless of believing it should be legal.

Yes the Germans who helped nazis kill jews said exactly the same thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Hopefully she'll listen. Her statements indicate she'll vote no.

Pro-abortion rights activists sending coat hangers to GOP senator: report

Pro-abortion rights activists are reportedly sending Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) wire coat hangers in the mail in an effort to press her to vote against any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Cut reported Monday that advocates are sending Collins wire coat hangers as a graphic reminder of some of the steps historically taken when access to abortion has been restricted.

All RvW did was de-criminalize butchers with hangers. It makes sense that they send their threats in the form of wire hangers.
Remember as you read this that baby killers have fought tooth and nail against any oversight of abortion clinics. They have fought to keep butchers who cannot gain admitting privileges at hospitals. They have fought to prevent women from being diagnosed using the most up to date diagnostic equipment available. They have fought to keep information away from the women they exploit, butcher, and kill:

"When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.”

"Over the years, there were hundreds of “snippings.” Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the “snipping” was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff."

Gosnell House of Horrors: Just One of Many Abortion Slaughterhouses

 

[Confounding]

The right is dead wrong on this issue ... snip .... I'm pretty sure it's been shown that abortion rates actually go down when women have access to safe avenues that will help educate them about everything. Believe it or not Planned Parenthood prefers it when women decide to keep their babies.

Yeah and Sears likes it when you shop on line with Amazon.

Abortion is only a small part of what they do. It's a sad necessity in the modern world. Most people that support abortion find it to be very sad regardless of believing it should be legal.

Yes the Germans who helped nazis kill jews said exactly the same thing.

I find your comparison to be both lacking and overused. Come up with a better argument.

 

[Confounding]

Baby killers will go down in history as the most abjectly evil group of people to ever pollute the face of the earth.

No they won't. Abortion is becoming more and more accepted all over the world; just look at Ireland. In reality it's those that think like you do that will be judged by future generations.

 

[koshergrl]

The right is dead wrong on this issue ... snip .... I'm pretty sure it's been shown that abortion rates actually go down when women have access to safe avenues that will help educate them about everything. Believe it or not Planned Parenthood prefers it when women decide to keep their babies.

Yeah and Sears likes it when you shop on line with Amazon.

Abortion is only a small part of what they do. It's a sad necessity in the modern world. Most people that support abortion find it to be very sad regardless of believing it should be legal.

Yes the Germans who helped nazis kill jews said exactly the same thing.

I find your comparison to be both lacking and overused. Come up with a better argument.

I don't need to, it is sufficient.

 

[grainbely]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

Falsehood. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. It is the body of a separate human being.

And if she jumps off a cliff she is killing two people.

 

[grainbely]

The right is dead wrong on this issue and they can't really logically defend it. People are going to seek abortions whether it's legal or not. I'll take safe and clean over sketchy back ally abortions. I'm pretty sure it's been shown that abortion rates actually go down when women have access to safe avenues that will help educate them about everything. Believe it or not Planned Parenthood prefers it when women decide to keep their babies.

People commit murder whether it is legal or not. Don't be stupid.

The situation is worse when it's illegal. Sometimes you have to let go of what's ideal in favor of what's logical.

So true. It's a big mistake to ignore the realistic circumstance and impacts, and instead cling to the fantasy talking points about adoption and the next einstein. Put yourself in the shoes of a poorly educated and impoverished woman who is in a verbally and physically abusive relationship and can't find a way out. The pregnancy and possible child would cement that awful life or even make it worse for the mom and the kid. I personally would not be able to bring a kid into that sort of situation. Reality is a messy and often tragic place.

 

[grainbely]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

Falsehood. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. It is the body of a separate human being.

And if she jumps off a cliff she is killing two people.

That's entirely different from saying that the man has ownership over the unborn child though, which my point was disputing.

With regard to the double homicide, theres a distinction to be made between a person killing a woman and her unborn child, circumventing the woman's autonomy and wronging her vs. The woman making this choice for herself. Jumping of a cliff is of course an extreme example meant to show autonomy. Whether it's legal or not she's in the drivers seat.

If the woman doesn't have autonomy over her body including the fetus, and the father doesn't either, who does? Is it the government that interjects ownership and control over the fetus until the child is born and benefits from citizenship and legal responsibility by both parents? Think about that for a minute. The government controls your fetus. That's the step that would need to be taken to supersede the womans autonomous control over her fetus as part of her body.

I'll add that the fetus can't be removed until very late stages, confirming that it is part of her body and dependent. If pro lifers have a problem with these natural truths then they should innovate the science and policy behind all this to be able to extract the fetus and change legal responsibility to the government. Or something along those lines.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

" Garbage Arguments "

* More Drivel *

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

The dred scott argument is an extension of the slavery argument and its analogy with abortion is true for those without competent skills of comparison .

As the stupid slavery analogy with abortion , the dred scott decision deals with sentient beings that is therefore based upon a valid basis in empathy for suffering , whereas empathy based upon sentience for an inchoate foetus is stupid .

How about you respond to my actual post?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

Falsehood. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. It is the body of a separate human being.

And if she jumps off a cliff she is killing two people.

That's entirely different from saying that the man has ownership over the unborn child though, which my point was disputing.

With regard to the double homicide, theres a distinction to be made between a person killing a woman and her unborn child, circumventing the woman's autonomy and wronging her vs. The woman making this choice for herself. Jumping of a cliff is of course an extreme example meant to show autonomy. Whether it's legal or not she's in the drivers seat.

If the woman doesn't have autonomy over her body including the fetus, and the father doesn't either, who does? Is it the government that interjects ownership and control over the fetus until the child is born and benefits from citizenship and legal responsibility by both parents? Think about that for a minute. The government controls your fetus. That's the step that would need to be taken to supersede the womans autonomous control over her fetus as part of her body.

I'll add that the fetus can't be removed until very late stages, confirming that it is part of her body and dependent. If pro lifers have a problem with these natural truths then they should innovate the science and policy behind all this to be able to extract the fetus and change legal responsibility to the government. Or something along those lines.

It's his child as much as the mother's. To deny him equal rights under the law violates the equal protection clause.

Let the father decide whether or not the child lives. It's just as arbitrary as putting the entire onus on the mother.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

She entered a contract upon fertilization.
The father is the other party to the contract.
If two people agree to share a winning lottery ticket the person holding the ticket is still subject to the contract. Even if they eat the ticket and make a stupid claim about their body.

 

[grainbely]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

She entered a contract upon fertilization.
The father is the other party to the contract.
If two people agree to share a winning lottery ticket the person holding the ticket is still subject to the contract. Even if they eat the ticket and make a stupid claim about their body.

You're helping my point that it must then be the government that controls the fetus and enforces the contract. Thats a bad precedent to set that I'd think people on the right would not want to do. Also it doesn't change that the woman has autonomous control over her body and will ultimately do as she pleases. Theres an organization that mails abortion pills to women in areas where it is illegal.

 

[grainbely]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

Falsehood. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. It is the body of a separate human being.

And if she jumps off a cliff she is killing two people.

That's entirely different from saying that the man has ownership over the unborn child though, which my point was disputing.

With regard to the double homicide, theres a distinction to be made between a person killing a woman and her unborn child, circumventing the woman's autonomy and wronging her vs. The woman making this choice for herself. Jumping of a cliff is of course an extreme example meant to show autonomy. Whether it's legal or not she's in the drivers seat.

If the woman doesn't have autonomy over her body including the fetus, and the father doesn't either, who does? Is it the government that interjects ownership and control over the fetus until the child is born and benefits from citizenship and legal responsibility by both parents? Think about that for a minute. The government controls your fetus. That's the step that would need to be taken to supersede the womans autonomous control over her fetus as part of her body.

I'll add that the fetus can't be removed until very late stages, confirming that it is part of her body and dependent. If pro lifers have a problem with these natural truths then they should innovate the science and policy behind all this to be able to extract the fetus and change legal responsibility to the government. Or something along those lines.

It's his child as much as the mother's. To deny him equal rights under the law violates the equal protection clause.

Let the father decide whether or not the child lives. It's just as arbitrary as putting the entire onus on the mother.

It's his DNA in the fetus and if uninterrupted would most likely become a viable human being and a citizen and no longer defendant and part of the womans body.

Yours is a fairly unrealistic solution considering women are sometimes getting abortions while they're stuck in an abusive relationship. Also there isn't a structure to provide that functionality. Making one and paying for it would price people out of that choice.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

She entered a contract upon fertilization.
The father is the other party to the contract.
If two people agree to share a winning lottery ticket the person holding the ticket is still subject to the contract. Even if they eat the ticket and make a stupid claim about their body.

You're helping my point that it must then be the government that controls the fetus and enforces the contract. Thats a bad precedent to set that I'd think people on the right would not want to do. Also it doesn't change that the woman has autonomous control over her body and will ultimately do as she pleases. Theres an organization that mails abortion pills to women in areas where it is illegal.

Procreation is tantamount to murder and the gov has pretty strict laws about murder.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

Falsehood. It is not the woman's body that is being killed. It is the body of a separate human being.

And if she jumps off a cliff she is killing two people.

That's entirely different from saying that the man has ownership over the unborn child though, which my point was disputing.

With regard to the double homicide, theres a distinction to be made between a person killing a woman and her unborn child, circumventing the woman's autonomy and wronging her vs. The woman making this choice for herself. Jumping of a cliff is of course an extreme example meant to show autonomy. Whether it's legal or not she's in the drivers seat.

If the woman doesn't have autonomy over her body including the fetus, and the father doesn't either, who does? Is it the government that interjects ownership and control over the fetus until the child is born and benefits from citizenship and legal responsibility by both parents? Think about that for a minute. The government controls your fetus. That's the step that would need to be taken to supersede the womans autonomous control over her fetus as part of her body.

I'll add that the fetus can't be removed until very late stages, confirming that it is part of her body and dependent. If pro lifers have a problem with these natural truths then they should innovate the science and policy behind all this to be able to extract the fetus and change legal responsibility to the government. Or something along those lines.

It's his child as much as the mother's. To deny him equal rights under the law violates the equal protection clause.

Let the father decide whether or not the child lives. It's just as arbitrary as putting the entire onus on the mother.

That's a fairly unrealistic solution considering women are sometimes getting abortions while theyre stuck in an abusive relationship. Also there isn't a structure to provide that functionality and making one and paying for it would price people out of that choice.

That is the choice foisted on men as is. Unfairly applied and breaking the equal protection under the law clause.

There are already laws against abuse.

 

[grainbely]

Roe v Wade is Dred Scott.
Women deciding the value of a man's child by virtue of gender is the same as white people determine the value of a black by virtue of race.

It's the women's body. She has autonomous control over it. I don't think theres a law or precedent that states that the sperm donater has any ownership of the woman or fetus until its born. She can go for a run, have her teeth cleaned, drink and smoke, or go jump of a cliff.

She entered a contract upon fertilization.
The father is the other party to the contract.
If two people agree to share a winning lottery ticket the person holding the ticket is still subject to the contract. Even if they eat the ticket and make a stupid claim about their body.

You're helping my point that it must then be the government that controls the fetus and enforces the contract. Thats a bad precedent to set that I'd think people on the right would not want to do. Also it doesn't change that the woman has autonomous control over her body and will ultimately do as she pleases. Theres an organization that mails abortion pills to women in areas where it is illegal.

Procreation is tantamount to murder and the gov has pretty strict laws about murder.

Try harder. I'm not going to waste my time telling you why that's wrong if you're too lazy or ignorant to show why it's right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hopefully she'll listen. Her statements indicate she'll vote no.

Pro-abortion rights activists sending coat hangers to GOP senator: report

Pro-abortion rights activists are reportedly sending Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) wire coat hangers in the mail in an effort to press her to vote against any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Cut reported Monday that advocates are sending Collins wire coat hangers as a graphic reminder of some of the steps historically taken when access to abortion has been restricted.

Love it! Better than calling her a deplorable or a twat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you want an abortion post Roe overturn, Soros will buy you a bus ticket to the nearest abortion friendly state.

Since its protected by doctor patient privilege, unless Mueller sheds that too, no one can testify against you