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

Church actually want it as a wedge issue...It gives them political power, the ability to lobby politicians heavily, they have the GOP wrapped around their little finger... They invented Abortion as a wedges issue 5 years after Roe v Wade, were open about before as a 'Catholic Issue' only before that...

They lost school segregation and they needed another wedge issue and calling the other side murders seemed good.. Solidified there base evangelical vote and created the most powerful voting block in America...
I don't think anti-abortion activists are so thoroughly morally misshapen as were segregationists. The LBJ/liberal answer to segregation and poverty is probably an even worse clusterfk than Vietnam or Iraq, but that doesn't make segregation a positive, which some people still argue.

There is an element of patriarchy to the opposition to a right to chose. And, imo, that is evil. And that patriarchy has support in the Bible, and it's one reason organized religion is losing support. But there are also Christians who sincerely believe zygots and fetuses should not be intentionally destroyed.

The real evil is those who use "laws" to say Roe is wrong because there's no "right to liberty" in the const. But in actuality there's nothing in the constitution that allows the Sup Court to determine a law is or is not constitutional. All Roe did, really, was apply the common law in effect at the time of the const's ratification that the State could regulate abortion after a fetus quickened. It was bipartisan effort to achieve some social resolution to allow us to live together and women to obtain safe healthcare.
 
Abortion, most women want legal for two major reasons. Not because they plan on having an abortion, but because there is always a chance that they would have to have one in case of rape, or something wrong with the fetus.
Bullshit.

If that was true, then the Left would be satisfied with abortion being illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother. And those make up a tiny, tiny, negligible fraction of all abortions.

They want the WHOLE shebang. They want to be able to be irresponsible and use abortion as birth control. Period.
 
why doesn't a fetus have a birthday, if it's a human life, my friends?
But that's not really the argument of principled Christians. Rather, it's do we destroy "things" that may become humans simply because it makes sense financially. I mean we could pass laws that would give enough support to pregnant women that they wouldn't have live with dangerous men and wouldn't have to worry about feeding and having the financial support to raise children.

Personally, I don't think that's a realistic goal, nor do I want any power over women in general. I mean who am I kidding. I live in fear of my wife and daughter.
 
Notice how when you explain facts they just ignore you...

Thing is the Abortion just a made up piece of crap for the Religious right..

Are you down wit' infanticide, too???


Your party is.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to support the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Senate Democrats block Republicans’ anti-infanticide bill






Do you prefer 'good day,' or your more traditional 'Sieg Heil'?????
 
Lets not have moot discussions.

You and OP don't recognize the right to abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy, with or without pains and smiles, so whats the point of wasting everyone's time?
wrong, I think abortion should be allowed for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, but not if the pregnancy is inconvenient. and never after the actual birth. if you allow abortion after birth why not allow it us to 2 years old if the kid is a problem?
 
I don't think anti-abortion activists are so thoroughly morally misshapen as were segregationists. The LBJ/liberal answer to segregation and poverty is probably an even worse clusterfk than Vietnam or Iraq, but that doesn't make segregation a positive, which some people still argue.

There is an element of patriarchy to the opposition to a right to chose. And, imo, that is evil. And that patriarchy has support in the Bible, and it's one reason organized religion is losing support. But there are also Christians who sincerely believe zygots and fetuses should not be intentionally destroyed.

The real evil is those who use "laws" to say Roe is wrong because there's no "right to liberty" in the const. But in actuality there's nothing in the constitution that allows the Sup Court to determine a law is or is not constitutional. All Roe did, really, was apply the common law in effect at the time of the const's ratification that the State could regulate abortion after a fetus quickened. It was bipartisan effort to achieve some social resolution to allow us to live together and women to obtain safe healthcare.
I agree there would have been some Christians but it was the Cathloic issue in 1973...


The Evangelical Churches were probably looking for power to protect there exemption status, they were shopping for issue. They had no more interest in Abortion up until 1978... No body really cared that much except the Catholics and they were more nod to the priest on Sunday about it...

Now look at the polling:
1652890806577.png

This was power grab, the issue was meant to Catholic issue and they are pretty indifferent about it...
 

Attachments

  • 1652890678145.png
    1652890678145.png
    14.1 KB · Views: 7
wrong, I think abortion should be allowed for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, but not if the pregnancy is inconvenient.
You've just explained that I'm in fact correct.

Your position is that a parent who has had consensual sex that resulted in fertilization of the egg (aka conception) has to be forced to carry pregnancy to term and give birth to the child.

Your position is that a fertilized egg over-rides people's freedom to elect to not have a child. I do not, so our conversation of anything past that fundamental disagreement is moot.
 
Last edited:
the sides will never agree on this, so lets allow each state to vote, why do you libs fear the voters?
well
1. Abortion (or the banning of it) was a made up wedge issue by the Evangelical Movement, this was about creating a power base and next to nothing to do with the bible..

2. When conceal carry in New York comes up in front of the SC soon are you going to state the same thing?
 
You've just explained that I'm in fact correct.

Your position is that a parent who has had consensual sex that resulted in fertilization of the egg (aka conception) has to be forced to carry pregnancy to term and give birth to the child.

Your position is that a fertilized egg over-rides people's freedom to elect to not have a child. I do not, so our conversation of anything past that fundamental disagreement is moot.
If you elect to "not have a child" you should abstain from sex. Pretty simple.

Wanting to kill a baby just because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions is pathetic.
 
Why is the left so adamant about Abortion?

I don't know or there are so many reasons. THis is one. Satanic influence.



They will still be able to kill their babies. So what is the problem? Is it that they want the whole nation to bear the brunt of judgement when it might be just states that will face judgement. yes. I think so. Look how the left behaves. 'We don't want guns so you can't have one either'. We want open borders so you must go along with that'. We want to kill babies as a nation, YOU must go along with it because....women, freedom, tolerance.'
 
You've just explained that I'm in fact correct.

Your position is that a parent who has had consensual sex that resulted in fertilization of the egg (aka conception) has to be forced to carry pregnancy to term and give birth to the child.

Your position is that a fertilized egg over-rides people's freedom to elect to not have a child. I do not, so our conversation of anything past that fundamental disagreement is moot.
you are a very confused libtardian. the decision to have or not have a child should be made BEFORE screwing, not after. There are many methods of contraception that work. Your negligence is not a valid excuse to kill another human being. it has nothing to do with YOUR rights, it has to do with being responsible for your actions.
 
you are a very confused libtardian. the decision to have or not have a child should be made BEFORE screwing, not after. There are many methods of contraception that work. Your negligence is not a valid excuse to kill another human being. it has nothing to do with YOUR rights, it has to do with being responsible for your actions.

That's a nice fantasy you live in. People are perfectly thoughtful, only have sex to procreate, condoms never break and partners never break up and divorce.

But here in real world people are at times faced with a pregnancy when they do not want and are not ready to have a child.

You want to force them to have that child, want to intrude in their life so drastically? YOU BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON, and I have never seen a good one given for why a even a few cells can over-ride people's freedom in such fundamental way.
 
That's a nice fantasy you live in. People are perfectly thoughtful, only have sex to procreate, condoms never break and partners never break up and divorce.

But here in real world people are at times faced with a pregnancy when they do not want and are not ready to have a child.

You want to force them to have that child, want to intrude in their life so drastically? YOU BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON, and I have never seen a good one given for why a even a few cells can over-ride people's freedom in such fundamental way.
Question: If you make the decision to jump off an 11-story building, should you be forced to hit the ground? What if you're not ready to die? Should you be made to?
I've never seen such a bunch of whining childish ignoramuses as leftwingers acting like they should be absolved for ANY responsibility of having sex and bringing a child into the world. The WOMAN made the decision up front. It is HER responsibility. I get so sick of "it's the woman's body; it's her choice". No, it is NOT her body. It's the baby's body. And her selfish desire for convenience doesn't hold a candle to importance of that baby's life.
 
Last edited:
Are you down wit' infanticide, too???


Your party is.




Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to support the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Senate Democrats block Republicans’ anti-infanticide bill






Do you prefer 'good day,' or your more traditional 'Sieg Heil'?????
4be7y47rpe091.jpg
 
For decades, I have wondered why the the leftist leaders fights tooth and nail to keep abortion legal.
There's the reason they put forth, that they care about women's health which is obviously nonsense. Camouflage to hide the real reason.

But what IS the real reason?

1) Is it money? Is it driven by the billion dollar abortion mill industry led by PP?
2) Is it political power? Does the left think blacks value abortion so much, they have to fight to keep it legal in exchange for votes? I find it hard to believe abortion would be THAT important to blacks.
3) Is it a ideological, meaning is it a tool of the Marxist left to create the notion that devaluing human life is acceptable, thereby setting the table for a Marxist takeover?

I'm really not sure. Does anyone know the answer?
Because those democRats get a good buzz when they murder an innocent child Just the thought of using a vacuum to rip a baby from limb to limb. then crushing the head so it slides down the birth canal is better than snitching a bunch of Trump supporters while soiling your draws
 






Let's cut to the chase, and re-visit your reputation as a lying ignoramus:



Which party is for life, and which party demands the "right" to slaughter innocent human beings?




Here's a hint:


Infanticide now mainstream Democrat policy.

"Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills"
Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills


"Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’
The former [Democrat] governor of Colorado, who has expressed support for population control and said that the elderly have a “duty to die,” has come out against a state amendment that would recognize the rights of unborn children, calling the pro-life measure “a monster.”
Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’ — The Rights Writer


The Democrats are true to their forebears:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


. The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

4. The Democrat governor of Virginia agreed with the bill for infanticide.

5. "New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

6. "Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats




Spend some time reforming yourself from scummy low-life liar.
 

Forum List

Back
Top