Question I've Always Wondered: Why is the Left So Adamant about Abortion Remaining Legal?

You are being deliberately obtuse now. The law very specifically prohibits teachers from talking about gays.

Thus, "Don't Say Gay".

Now where did Disney say they want to groom kids for pedophilia?
Did you ever hear a pervert go public with their sick evil desires?
 
No one cares, really. The problem is government shoving it down our throats and forcing us to accept it as normal when it's a mental illness.
Ipse dixit.

It is not recognized as a mental illness. That's just your opinion, not fact, snowflake.
 
You clearly meant that murdering a child up to the moment they are born is okay
NO I DID NOT

If I did I would say so. I said the OPPOSITE when I explained to you that I support heavy abortion restrictions in third trimester.

Why do you insist on lying about my position? Are your anti-abortion arguments so damn weak that this is what you are down to?
 
DISNEY: Gays should have equal rights and legal protections.

TARD: GROOMER!
 
NO I DID NOT

If I did I would say so. I said the OPPOSITE and in fact said I support havy abortion restrictions in third trimester.

Why do you insist on lying about my position? Are you arguments so damn weak that this is what you are down to?
Did you or did you not say you are not a person until you are born?

You did.

Now you are just trying to backpedal. It's transparent.

If abortions should be regulated in the third trimester, why? They aren't people, right?

Are you schizophrenic or something?
 
Ipse dixit.

It is not recognized as a mental illness. That's just your opinion, not fact, snowflake.
Many people recognize it as mental illness. You have an opinion and I have an opinion. Live and let live.
 
Did you or did you not say you are not a person until you are born?
NO I DID NOT

I was talking about legal Constitutional rights applying only to born.

Why can't you get that concept? How many times do we need to go back to square one?
 
NO I DID NOT

I was talking about legal Constitutional rights applying only to born.

Why can't you get that concept? How many times do we need to go back to square one?
One of those Constitutional rights is the right to life, yes?

So you don't believe the unborn have a right to life until after the moment of birth.

Ipso facto, schizo.
 
One of those Constitutional rights is the right to life, yes?

So you don't believe the unborn don't have a right to life until after the moment of birth.

Ipso facto, schizo.
Look you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Consitution currently DOES NOT give personal rights to unborn.

You can bitch, you can moan, you can lie about what I say, you can call me names, but thats A FACT.
 
Look you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Consitution currently DOES NOT give personal rights to unborn.

You can bitch, you can moan, you can lie about what I say, you can call me names, but thats A FACT.
You say the unborn don't have rights. That is a view even more extreme than the liberals on the Burger Supreme Court!

Therefore, you cannot deny you support the murder of the unborn up to the moment of birth since you bleev they don't have rights.

You are positively schizophrenic!
 
Most people do not recognize it as a mental illness. Only those who are bigots, do.
Again, that's your opinion, only. Gender dysphoria is real and recognized as a mental illness by medical professionals.
 
Rape and incest are less than two percent of abortions.

Your tactic of using the victims of these most heinous of crimes as human shields for the 98 percent of abortions is one of the most disgusting debate tactics there is.

Pro-abortionists like yourself would NOT be satisfied with exceptions for rape and incest. You want the whole shebang.

So stop with the bullshit.
First off, I'm not "pro-abortion". I believe the choice to have an abortion or to give birth should rightly belong to the pregnant woman rather than grandstanding politicians.

Your side wants to do away with all abortions without exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc., but I'm the "extreme" one that wants the whole shebang?
 
Last edited:
It's not about what I say about Constitution, it is a well established legal fact of the matter.

You can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.


What I say on this is that there is no way there is a person to speak of before higher brain function that only develops in third trimester. And so because there maybe a person to speak of in the third trimester, I support third trimester abortion restrictions.

How many times does this needs to be explained to you? Are you too stupid to get it?
 
Last edited:
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.

Definition sucks. No offense to you. They (or Zwee or Zims or whatever pronoun) failed to SEPARATE GENDER from Sex. Because they cited girls, women, boys, men. THOSE behaviors, expressions, and identities are just interesting footnotes in psychology.

But then added as almost as an afterthought -- ....... and gender diverse people -- THAT"S a cop-out and a TRULY LOUSY circular definition. Using the SAME TERM to define itself.

What does this have to do with leftist views on abortion? Only "menstruating persons" as AOC calls womxn, or birthing persons ---- get pregnant.
 
Last edited:

Question I've Always Wondered: Why is the Left So Adamant about Abortion Remaining Legal?​


My five pence:

A human beings starts to live biologically as a human being in the moment of procreation. A cow bears cows, a dog dogs, a cat cats and a human being? Human beings, isn't it? Nothing new! Never anyone had been able to find a date with the accuracy of natural science between procreation and death of a human being when a human being is not a human being any longer. And the god given human rights say very clear that no one has the right to kill a human being.

But what would be human beings if they would not like to know everything better than the allknowing god on his own? So they define human rights as rights which are made from human beings - and define "reasons" to kill other human beings. What they are doing the same time: They are destroying the human rights. It's impossible to create a human right to kill human beings. This is logically a contradiction per se like for example P1: "A stick stands in the corner" and P2: "A stick stands not in the corner". Whatever someone is reasoning out of such two self-contradictionary premises is always true. Indeed such an evidence is worthless but "always to be right" (because everything is now always only true and nothing is wrong any longer) might produce a feeling like to be allknowing. And who likes not to be allknowing like god? But this is only a self-delusion.

And before you like to try now to disqualify anyone who fights for abortion - ask yourselve also about your own opinion in context of death penalty.

 
Societal definitions don’t need any underpinning in science. One is biological, tbe other is societal.
Nope. Science drives the societal definition. It helps us assess which gender roles to assign.

Also, the human perception of gender predates any social construct. Even earlier iterations of our species knew the difference without having science or societal paradigms guiding them. They went purely by what they saw.

As humanity evolved, so too did our understanding of gender and sex. First the science, then the societal. They are linked whether you like it or not.
 

Forum List

Back
Top