Trump is currently addressing the March against Women's Reproductive Rights

[irosie91]

I a person murders a woman that is 20 weeks pregnant they will be charged with 2 murders.

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?

If you believe

1. Life begins at conception, then,

2. a twenty week old fetus is no different that a 2 year old child, therefore,

3. the penalty for killing one should be no different than the penalty for killing the other.

eh?

Yep.......the only reason to end the life of a baby is if giving birth will end the mother's life.....that is the only reason. That isn't murder, that is triage....trying to save a life...and then, even that should be up to the mother as there are many women who will give up their lives to allow their babies to be born.....

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger. I think this is very reasonable, because it illustrates compassion for those cases but illustrates that Abortion on Demand aka using abortion as a means of contraception is to be held in the highest contempt for what it is, deliberately and in pre meditated fashion killing your own baby as it slumbers in the womb.

I do not support Abortion on Demand, which is Killing For Convenience. What is the difference between killing your own baby In Utero and drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old?

How can someone say that killing it in the womb is not murder....but drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old is murder?

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle. If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

 

[Dschrute3]

Trying to save babies' lives is an honorable endeavor. I've always been repulsed by 'Pro-Choice' rallies where they ghoulishly celebrate killing babies. All those celebrities getting up there ranting & raving about the pious 'virtues' of killing babies. All that festive music and dancing. Very ghoulish. Killing a baby is nothing to celebrate. I'm much more comfortable seeing these folks get out there and defend babies' lives.

All that being said, i am very reluctantly Pro-Choice. The Government should stay out of the issue of Abortion. And no Taxpayer funding of Abortion either. You wanna be a lazy slut and get pregnant, that's all on you. You don't have the right to demand Taxpayers pay for that behavior.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?

If you believe

1. Life begins at conception, then,

2. a twenty week old fetus is no different that a 2 year old child, therefore,

3. the penalty for killing one should be no different than the penalty for killing the other.

eh?

Yep.......the only reason to end the life of a baby is if giving birth will end the mother's life.....that is the only reason. That isn't murder, that is triage....trying to save a life...and then, even that should be up to the mother as there are many women who will give up their lives to allow their babies to be born.....

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger. I think this is very reasonable, because it illustrates compassion for those cases but illustrates that Abortion on Demand aka using abortion as a means of contraception is to be held in the highest contempt for what it is, deliberately and in pre meditated fashion killing your own baby as it slumbers in the womb.

I do not support Abortion on Demand, which is Killing For Convenience. What is the difference between killing your own baby In Utero and drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old?

How can someone say that killing it in the womb is not murder....but drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old is murder?

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle. If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

No I am totally in touch with the situation with social victims. I already commented that my exemptions are for rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

You obviously support full on Abortion on Demand ie. Abortion as a means of contraception.

 

[irosie91]

There was no march against reproductive rights. The thread title is deliberately misleading, and thus a violation of the rules of the forum.

It illustrates how demented and perverted Leftists are, they use this term Reproductive Rights which to them Reproductive Rights mean that women have a right to have their baby killed In Utero because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. We also cannot have any rational discussion with this crowd because it's them who are the fanatics and not us, they fanatically DEMAND that women be allowed to use abortion as a means of contraception ie. Killing for Convenience.

I would support Retrograde Abortion on Demand and round up all the Leftist Maniacs are have them all aborted.

I made a mistake once-------with my son. He asked "mom---what do you think of abortion"-----he was senior
in HS at the time. I answered "ONLY POSTNATAL---with an option until the kid reaches 21" He was
a bright kid and understood. Unfortunately he repeated it to his very cynical history teacher (the teacher
got the gist of the comment ok-----but I was still horrified)

 

[irosie91]

Yep.......the only reason to end the life of a baby is if giving birth will end the mother's life.....that is the only reason. That isn't murder, that is triage....trying to save a life...and then, even that should be up to the mother as there are many women who will give up their lives to allow their babies to be born.....

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger. I think this is very reasonable, because it illustrates compassion for those cases but illustrates that Abortion on Demand aka using abortion as a means of contraception is to be held in the highest contempt for what it is, deliberately and in pre meditated fashion killing your own baby as it slumbers in the womb.

I do not support Abortion on Demand, which is Killing For Convenience. What is the difference between killing your own baby In Utero and drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old?

How can someone say that killing it in the womb is not murder....but drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old is murder?

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle. If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

No I am totally in touch with the situation with social victims. I already commented that my exemptions are for rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

You obviously support full on Abortion on Demand ie. Abortion as a means of contraception.

you ASSUMPTION as to what I support-------is at your usual level------very shallow

 

[koshergrl]

There was no march against reproductive rights. The thread title is deliberately misleading, and thus a violation of the rules of the forum.

It illustrates how demented and perverted Leftists are, they use this term Reproductive Rights which to them Reproductive Rights mean that women have a right to have their baby killed In Utero because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. We also cannot have any rational discussion with this crowd because it's them who are the fanatics and not us, they fanatically DEMAND that women be allowed to use abortion as a means of contraception ie. Killing for Convenience.

I would support Retrograde Abortion on Demand and round up all the Leftist Maniacs and have them all aborted.

Yup.

 

[koshergrl]

There was no march against reproductive rights. The thread title is deliberately misleading, and thus a violation of the rules of the forum.

It illustrates how demented and perverted Leftists are, they use this term Reproductive Rights which to them Reproductive Rights mean that women have a right to have their baby killed In Utero because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. We also cannot have any rational discussion with this crowd because it's them who are the fanatics and not us, they fanatically DEMAND that women be allowed to use abortion as a means of contraception ie. Killing for Convenience.

I would support Retrograde Abortion on Demand and round up all the Leftist Maniacs are have them all aborted.

I made a mistake once-------with my son. He asked "mom---what do you think of abortion"-----he was senior
in HS at the time. I answered "ONLY POSTNATAL---with an option until the kid reaches 21" He was
a bright kid and understood. Unfortunately he repeated it to his very cynical history teacher (the teacher
got the gist of the comment ok-----but I was still horrified)

You should have been horrified. What a nasty thing to say to your kid...I'd be ashamed too. And also exposes you as a staunch believer in negative eugenics.

Also.how on earth did abortion come up in a history class? Kind of interesting..and speaks to what I already know. They don't teach history in school anymore. It's all baby killing ideology.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger. I think this is very reasonable, because it illustrates compassion for those cases but illustrates that Abortion on Demand aka using abortion as a means of contraception is to be held in the highest contempt for what it is, deliberately and in pre meditated fashion killing your own baby as it slumbers in the womb.

I do not support Abortion on Demand, which is Killing For Convenience. What is the difference between killing your own baby In Utero and drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old?

How can someone say that killing it in the womb is not murder....but drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old is murder?

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle. If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

No I am totally in touch with the situation with social victims. I already commented that my exemptions are for rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

You obviously support full on Abortion on Demand ie. Abortion as a means of contraception.

you ASSUMPTION as to what I support-------is at your usual level------very shallow

I made that comment because you seem upset that I use Killing for Convenience, how is it not Killing for Convenience when women use abortion as a means of contraception because for them to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle?

 

[irosie91]

There was no march against reproductive rights. The thread title is deliberately misleading, and thus a violation of the rules of the forum.

It illustrates how demented and perverted Leftists are, they use this term Reproductive Rights which to them Reproductive Rights mean that women have a right to have their baby killed In Utero because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. We also cannot have any rational discussion with this crowd because it's them who are the fanatics and not us, they fanatically DEMAND that women be allowed to use abortion as a means of contraception ie. Killing for Convenience.

I would support Retrograde Abortion on Demand and round up all the Leftist Maniacs are have them all aborted.

I made a mistake once-------with my son. He asked "mom---what do you think of abortion"-----he was senior
in HS at the time. I answered "ONLY POSTNATAL---with an option until the kid reaches 21" He was
a bright kid and understood. Unfortunately he repeated it to his very cynical history teacher (the teacher
got the gist of the comment ok-----but I was still horrified)

You should have been horrified. What a nasty thing to say to your kid. And also exposes you as a staunch believer in negative eugenics.

wrong again------my kid was and remains a SHARP WIT. The comment exposes me as a sharp wit in
response to a sharp witted kid (a child after my own heart) I should add that the kid lived-----passed 21

 

[irosie91]

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

No I am totally in touch with the situation with social victims. I already commented that my exemptions are for rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

You obviously support full on Abortion on Demand ie. Abortion as a means of contraception.

you ASSUMPTION as to what I support-------is at your usual level------very shallow

I made that comment because you seem upset that I use Killing for Convenience, how is it not Killing for Convenience when women use abortion as a means of contraception because for them to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle?

I have never met a woman who had a "life-style" abortion. The only woman I knew
who avoided pregnancy for "life-style" or "waist circumference" was SCARLETT O'HARA

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question?

If you believe

1. Life begins at conception, then,

2. a twenty week old fetus is no different that a 2 year old child, therefore,

3. the penalty for killing one should be no different than the penalty for killing the other.

eh?

Yep.......the only reason to end the life of a baby is if giving birth will end the mother's life.....that is the only reason. That isn't murder, that is triage....trying to save a life...and then, even that should be up to the mother as there are many women who will give up their lives to allow their babies to be born.....

I'm anti-abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger. I think this is very reasonable, because it illustrates compassion for those cases but illustrates that Abortion on Demand aka using abortion as a means of contraception is to be held in the highest contempt for what it is, deliberately and in pre meditated fashion killing your own baby as it slumbers in the womb.

I do not support Abortion on Demand, which is Killing For Convenience. What is the difference between killing your own baby In Utero and drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old?

How can someone say that killing it in the womb is not murder....but drowning it at birth or stabbing it to death when it's two years old is murder?

You don't get to kill a baby because it's going to be inconvenient and get in the way of your lifestyle. If a woman doesn't want a baby it's simple use contraception.

you have never interviewed women with a history of abortion. I have-----HUNDREDS (if not thousands)
Your "killing for convenience" statement is DISGUSTING -----why not accuse the women of
RECREATIONAL ABORTION

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

The majority of people who are anti-Abortion do not support the extreme of outlawing ALL abortion.

The majority of people who are anti-Abortion do have the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

The pro-Abortion crowd are the Extremists, they want Abortion on demand, Abortion to be allowed as a contraception option.

I'll repeat it once again then.

I'm anti-Abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the Mother is concerned, I don't support abortion being used as a means of contraception that is murdering a child because it's an inconvenience.

Abortion on demand, getting pregnant and then saying you want an abortion because a baby isn't convenient and will mess up your career or lifestyle, that's using abortion as contraception.

If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant it's simple, use contraception, there are a variety of contraceptives that can be used, either use the contraception or keep her legs closed.

In the cases of rape, women who have been raped have a right not to suffer psychological damage and scarring by being forced to carry a rapists child for nine months and then give birth to it.

This is a very complex issue, that involves both physical trauma but more devastatingly enduring psychological trauma that could last for the rest of the womans life and also lead to suicidal tendency, so to avoid all of that it's imperative that if a woman is raped she is allowed the right for her own psychological well-being to have an abortion if she wishes to.

In the cases of incest, many of the same reasons as with rape, but also with the added complications of Inbreeding and the problems, specifically health issues with regard to the immune system that Interbred children suffer from.

In the cases where the life of the Mother is concerned, I fail to see how it's moral to allow a woman to die in order to save the foetus, sometimes the decision has to be to save the life of the Mother and most women can go on to have healthy pregnancies and thus more children, allowing the woman to die also doesn't allow that possibility of course.

To me this is being rational and reasonable re. abortion, it's illustrating compassion for social victims but at the same time it's condemning women who choose to have their baby murdered as it slumbers in the womb because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. Those women are no different than a woman who drowns her baby at birth or stabs it to death when it's aged two years in age.

 

[irosie91]

blah blah blah

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

blah blah blah

^^^^ Meaning you are unable to respond to any rational argument. You just want Abortion on demand, as I comment the pro Abortion crowd are the extremists they just want as many babies murdered In Utero as possible.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

There is no moral difference between Killing for Convenience and Recreational Abortion, they are the same thing, they are having an abortion because to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle and it would get in the way.

Many of your statements are disgusting you Pottymouth, but that's for another thread.

you are disgusting-----and very out of touch with the lives of social victims

No I am totally in touch with the situation with social victims. I already commented that my exemptions are for rape, incest and where the life of the mother is concerned.

You obviously support full on Abortion on Demand ie. Abortion as a means of contraception.

you ASSUMPTION as to what I support-------is at your usual level------very shallow

I made that comment because you seem upset that I use Killing for Convenience, how is it not Killing for Convenience when women use abortion as a means of contraception because for them to have the baby would be inconvenient to their lifestyle?

I have never met a woman who had a "life-style" abortion. The only woman I knew
who avoided pregnancy for "life-style" or "waist circumference" was SCARLETT O'HARA

Well if they have not been a victim of rape, incest or if by having the baby it will put their life in danger then why are they having abortions to begin with? There is no actual reason why they should be having an abortion, but they are, so what's the reason for them choosing to have their baby killed as it slumbers in the womb?

 

[irosie91]

blah blah blah

^^^^ Meaning you are unable to respond to any rational argument. You just want Abortion on demand, as I comment the pro Abortion crowd are the extremists they just want as many babies murdered In Utero as possible.

abortion on demand, YUP. Advil on demand, too. EDUCATION----
on the dangers of abortion and -------the dangers of too much advil

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years.

Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion.

Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.

Nonsense.

A ridiculous lie.

Republicans clearly do not believe all men are created equal as they seek to deny gay and transgender Americans their right to equal protection of the law, women their right to privacy, minorities their right to vote, Muslims their right to religious liberty, and immigrants their right to due process of the law.

Moreover, abortion and slavery are completely unrelated – attempting to link the two fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Democrats acknowledged the settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, the protected liberty of the woman being paramount, and that individual rights manifest as the consequence of birth.

Indeed, conservatives today seek to violate the rights of women as did conservatives sought to violate the rights of African-Americans subject to slavery during the 19th Century.

What hasn’t changed in over 150 years is conservatives’ fear of change, diversity, and dissent, and conservative opposition to affording all Americans their rights and protected liberties.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

blah blah blah

^^^^ Meaning you are unable to respond to any rational argument. You just want Abortion on demand, as I comment the pro Abortion crowd are the extremists they just want as many babies murdered In Utero as possible.

abortion on demand, YUP. Advil on demand, too. EDUCATION----
on the dangers of abortion and -------the dangers of too much advil

^^^^ Huh?

Re. Education, no thats a mega fail already everyone knows how you get pregnant, it does not take a rocket scientist to know if you don't want a baby you use contraception, so more education is not an excuse as to use to lower the rate of abortions.

 

[koshergrl]

There was no march against reproductive rights. The thread title is deliberately misleading, and thus a violation of the rules of the forum.

It illustrates how demented and perverted Leftists are, they use this term Reproductive Rights which to them Reproductive Rights mean that women have a right to have their baby killed In Utero because to allow it to be born would be inconvenient to their lifestyle. We also cannot have any rational discussion with this crowd because it's them who are the fanatics and not us, they fanatically DEMAND that women be allowed to use abortion as a means of contraception ie. Killing for Convenience.

I would support Retrograde Abortion on Demand and round up all the Leftist Maniacs are have them all aborted.

I made a mistake once-------with my son. He asked "mom---what do you think of abortion"-----he was senior
in HS at the time. I answered "ONLY POSTNATAL---with an option until the kid reaches 21" He was
a bright kid and understood. Unfortunately he repeated it to his very cynical history teacher (the teacher
got the gist of the comment ok-----but I was still horrified)

You should have been horrified. What a nasty thing to say to your kid. And also exposes you as a staunch believer in negative eugenics.

wrong again------my kid was and remains a SHARP WIT. The comment exposes me as a sharp wit in
response to a sharp witted kid (a child after my own heart) I should add that the kid lived-----passed 21

No, it exposes you as a stupid bitch who thinks it's okay to kill people.

 

[2aguy]

Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years.

Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion.

Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.

Nonsense.

A ridiculous lie.

Republicans clearly do not believe all men are created equal as they seek to deny gay and transgender Americans their right to equal protection of the law, women their right to privacy, minorities their right to vote, Muslims their right to religious liberty, and immigrants their right to due process of the law.

Moreover, abortion and slavery are completely unrelated – attempting to link the two fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Democrats acknowledged the settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, the protected liberty of the woman being paramount, and that individual rights manifest as the consequence of birth.

Indeed, conservatives today seek to violate the rights of women as did conservatives sought to violate the rights of African-Americans subject to slavery during the 19th Century.

What hasn’t changed in over 150 years is conservatives’ fear of change, diversity, and dissent, and conservative opposition to affording all Americans their rights and protected liberties.

The democrats hate the Constitution.....they attack every aspect of the Bill of Rights and willingly hand over Constitutional powers to the first democrat President that takes office.

The democrats owned slaves....nice try lying about conservatives...trying to conflate democrat southerners with modern American Conseravatives.....you lying piece of crap. Democrats owned slaves, democrats fought to keep slaves, democrats created jim crow and turned to the kkk and murder to suppress the black slaves that Republicans freed......moron.

 

[koshergrl]

Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years.

Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion.

Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.

Nonsense.

A ridiculous lie.

Republicans clearly do not believe all men are created equal as they seek to deny gay and transgender Americans their right to equal protection of the law, women their right to privacy, minorities their right to vote, Muslims their right to religious liberty, and immigrants their right to due process of the law.

Moreover, abortion and slavery are completely unrelated – attempting to link the two fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Democrats acknowledged the settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law – beyond dispute – that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, the protected liberty of the woman being paramount, and that individual rights manifest as the consequence of birth.

Indeed, conservatives today seek to violate the rights of women as did conservatives sought to violate the rights of African-Americans subject to slavery during the 19th Century.

What hasn’t changed in over 150 years is conservatives’ fear of change, diversity, and dissent, and conservative opposition to affording all Americans their rights and protected liberties.

The democrats hate the Constitution.....they attack every aspect of the Bill of Rights and willingly hand over Constitutional powers to the first democrat President that takes office.

The democrats owned slaves....nice try lying about conservatives...trying to conflate democrat southerners with modern American Conseravatives.....you lying piece of crap. Democrats owned slaves, democrats fought to keep slaves, democrats created jim crow and turned to the kkk and murder to suppress the black slaves that Republicans freed......moron.

Today their slaves are minorities, illegals, and welfare recipients.