The Necessity of Abortion

Only to those who think of women as nothing more than animals..

 

How about YOU be forced to put BC drugs and foreign object into YOUR body?

NO one is obligated to do that....

..AND many women who used birth control got pregnant....it happens..

 

There are no "pro-Abortion fanatics"...there ARE those who want women to be treated like humans, not broodstock, and retain the choices over their own bodies that YOU enjoy.

They are called Pro-Choice for a reason.


All mothers should be thankful their choice wasn't taken away from them, the right to their own bodies wasn't taken away from them and they won't be forced to have an abortion in the future..

 

You caught me!

All this "girl power" has me petrified from all of their empowerment...

 

Let's also bring back euthanasia not to just relieve suffering but to reduce the population, especially those that are the biggest burden on society. We could set up houses where we could send old people to die, call it Planned Populationhood or something.

You are flipping off hundreds of millions of women who want and take great satisfaction and fulfillment from motherhood. And you are flat out wrong about people being against all forms of birth control; that is simply inane. We did not like the requirement for free birth control in ACA.

Then let's also bring back the progenitor of Planned Parenthood, eugenics. And we should do it up right: not just sterilize imbeciles and low IQers, but dispatch them. It could be done efficiently by doubling up on the use of the elderly death houses.

This could save a ton of money. Carry out capital punishment without the aggravation and expense of police work, trials, and housing awaiting execution. Sure we might get some future non-criminals, but what the hey, no system is perfect.

It is quite obvious that many of the elite scientists and intellectuals, and other expert know-it-alls would be fully supportive. We could easily have government enforced abortion like with any woman pregnant for the third time. And it wouldn't be that costly. Like China makes the relatives of executed criminals pay for the bullets, the woman would have to pay for her abortion.

 

Most of that was hysterical hyperbole but this :


""We could easily have government enforced abortion like with any woman pregnant for the third time"""



Of course, why not? If women's bodies are owned by the government that could very easily happen. If they lose the right to their own bodies that could happen.

What's to stop the government form having women fill out forms when they want a kid, forms to prove they are worthy , rich enough, smart enough , good looking enough to have a baby?




. """""" And it wouldn't be that costly. Like China makes the relatives of executed criminals pay for the bullets, the woman would have to pay for her abortion""



Like they do here , in the USA now.

 

State’s rights. When does life and rights begin?

 

Agreed. In a large part to the fact most abortions are by liberals.

 

.. same reasoning used by the eugenicists, and embraced by national socialists AND communists. ..a great day for human rights and the sanctity of life.

..at least these are more straightforward social engineering arguments, not denials of the humanity of the unborn.

 

Ironic, too, the racist tone of the OP.

Maggie Sanger wanted to limit the inferior Italian immigrants, by forced sterilization and abortion, the nazis wanted to bump off jews, gypsies, and other inferior races, and the OP seems to target ghetto blacks to reduce crime and dependency.

I'm just surprised eugenics and elitist social engineering has taken so long to come back as a mainstream option for the progressive left.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What case/reason/argument will be used to overturn RvW ?

No, it shouldn't be states rights...EVERY AMERICAN citizen should have the same right to their own body...

of course Anti-Choicers would like that eliminated in their state because then others could be declared "less than" and used as slaves..




Life began millions of years ago....and full rights as a legal person start at birth.

And please don't bring up that old crap about well how can somebody be charged with murder if they kill a pregnant woman and her fetus.....

That is in accordance with the UVVA....and does NOT deem fetuses as legal PERSONS, just victims. It does emphasize how WRONG it is to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her fetus.

 

Who denied that human fetuses are human ? I didn't and if anyone did they would be wrong.




Now, please do tell me at what point in the history of the world life was deemed to be "sanctified" and everyone stopped slaughtering each other?

 

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

It's refreshing to see a trumper openly display their bigotry.

 

Of course you couldn't address the rest of the post : No, women always had equal rights but little frightened men and a sexist society kept them for being able to exercise those rights.

 

Murder is not a federal crime. The states define murder and when life begins. Kill a pregnant woman in Texas and you get tried for 2 murders.

 

It's amazing what people will to do justify their desire to end defenseless humans lives they find inconvenient or otherwise undesirable.

 

Some are. Murder a postal worker and you go to a federal prison .

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What case/reason/argument will be used to overturn RvW ?





No, it shouldn't be states rights...EVERY AMERICAN citizen should have the same right to their own body...

of course Anti-Choicers would like that eliminated in their state because then others could be declared "less than" and used as slaves..




Life began millions of years ago....and full rights as a legal person start at birth.

And please don't bring up that old crap about well how can somebody be charged with murder if they kill a pregnant woman and her fetus.....

That is in accordance with the UVVA....and does NOT deem fetuses as legal PERSONS, just victims. It does emphasize how WRONG it is to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her fetus.

Well, it seems you can only address part of my post ….and still had no point...

 

YUP! They start wars …..

 

So for most of human history women were just poor oppressed victims? Only for the past 100 years or so have we started to get it right? Or maybe women have started to go against their nature by powers controlling them who they do not understand, for the past Century or so...

All of the stats show free and working women are not happier individuals than traditionalist Housewives and mothers.

 

There's no need to outlaw abortion -- simply require the woman to obtain a $500 permit, and then impose a $1000 tax on the procedure.
Since this does not prevent her form getting an abortion, her right to do so is not infringed.

 

Except for that pesky Constitution forbidding acts as heinous and unfair as that..

 

Sanger the founded of planned parenthood seems to have wanted to keep minority populations down. The lower average IQ groups, which would not pertain to blacks and hispanics.

Perhaps we should promote abortion to increase the higher average IQ races by aborting the groups with lower average IQs? Use abortion as Sanger wanted to use it.

Make abortion free for these lower IQ groups? If you want to control populations, perhaps you should get rid of the dumb arses? And elevate average IQs within american society?

And allow the democrats to continue to love abortion.

 

Personally I'm against eugenics (Not a Nazi). I am glad we got Stephen Hawking's in before your plan eliminates people like him from society.

And your plan is coming, how long? Who knows but it's coming. Compulsory testing and then compulsory abortion will come from the left and it will be "for the better good" all atrocities are for the "better good".

 

Correct. There were exceptions but they were exceptions.

Oh, some more intelligent people got it right before that but, yes, it wasn't until the 20th century that women started to have the same rights as as men..

That's a pretty garbled sentence but everyone even men are allowed to go against their "nature" whatever the f that is.

That has no bearing on women's right to choose what to do with their own bodies...YOU don't get to dictate to women what does and doesn't make them happy nor anything else....is that the problem?