Trump drives women's rights back to the back alleys.
- Thread starter jgg
- Start date
It won't pass Congress but will get through the Senate only to be confirmed by the Repugnant Stacked Supreme Court. It's gonna get uglier south of the border if you can believe it.
Welcome back to the 1950's
Welcome back to the 1950's
its all talk trump is all show buzz trust me there went be wall maybe fence and supreme court don't like him so its that stacked its all show the appenctice 2019 style your fired
So where is the line that you can't abort anymore?
Currently its within the first trimester. I didn't see the State of the Union, but i believe his comments may be related to Virgina Democrat Northam (who coincidentally was found in blackface in his yearbook photos) who just made a proposal that would allow abortion at the point of conception (infanticide), that even the Democratic party was reluctant to endorse, with many Senators and representatives refusing to comment on it and just dodging the subject alltogether.
You think allowing the killing babies is propelling woman's rights?
Trump is a chronic pervert yet the religious right adore him.
Cheats on all three wives, lies constantly, leers at young girls, but he is doing "God's work".
Pence is worse, he thinks electro shock can cure the gay.
Amazing that a country of three hundred million could not find someone better.
Cheats on all three wives, lies constantly, leers at young girls, but he is doing "God's work".
Pence is worse, he thinks electro shock can cure the gay.
Amazing that a country of three hundred million could not find someone better.
I think Roe Vs Wade should go back to court. I don't disagree in spirit, but the basis for the ruling is -- well, absent.
Unless you have a uterus, your opinion about a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus (or the rest of her body).
Abortion is not & never has been about "killing babies'; it is about terminating pregnancies. Late term abortion saves women from the trauma of having to deliver a stillborn infant, or one with such massive scale deformities that it cannot survive. Right to life rhetoric about 'killing babies' is just false.
Abortion is not & never has been about "killing babies'; it is about terminating pregnancies. Late term abortion saves women from the trauma of having to deliver a stillborn infant, or one with such massive scale deformities that it cannot survive. Right to life rhetoric about 'killing babies' is just false.
It never cease to amaze me that the Republicans who are about less rules and regulations for companies, the environment, people ( gun rights, freedom of speech ) are so adamant about regulating the body of women and what they are allowed to do .
I can't imagine a woman ever wanting to abort a late term baby. If the woman has gone through the second trimester, it's apparent she wants the baby.
It's a procedure purely based on doctor's recommendations if there are catastrophic consequences of going through with the pregnancy. i.e. danger to the mother's health, still born, a fetus would be born in a vegetative state and worse etc.
What Dickhead Donny Dorito said was the Govt will ban late term abortions. Probably the insult to injury, the woman will have to pay for the severely retarded child for life if it survives.
These self righteous, bible thumping anti abortionists are purely evil.
It's a procedure purely based on doctor's recommendations if there are catastrophic consequences of going through with the pregnancy. i.e. danger to the mother's health, still born, a fetus would be born in a vegetative state and worse etc.
What Dickhead Donny Dorito said was the Govt will ban late term abortions. Probably the insult to injury, the woman will have to pay for the severely retarded child for life if it survives.
These self righteous, bible thumping anti abortionists are purely evil.
So at what point is the unborn determined to be "severely retarded"?
I'm completely for women's rights to choose and how they deal with their own bodies and the health of the mother- even Ms. E's statement that unless one has a uterus then STFU- I get it. "Catastrophic consequences"- then yes.
But when it comes to " I really want a baby I'm going to have a baby I can't wait to have my baby I'm going to be a mommy- Uh-oh! Nope! The kid's got Down's syndrome- time to end it." I'm not on board at all.
It's a really fine fucking line here as far as I'm concerned, and that line seems to move around for some.
Last edited:
Politicians are people with thinly veiled eithics.. A male politician needs a nice spouse and children cause it looks like he is a family man. That same politician who gets his mistress pregnant will always ask her to get an abortion, because a child would look bad politically.... despite his religious temperament.
A woman's right to choose, its her life. We not in the good old days where the tribe had to increase its numbers to survive. That is the mentality of these right wing Christians whose origins comes from ancient fertility cults... and its about the control of the people... either thru state or religion.
As I mentioned in the Roe vs Wade thread, R vs W is slowly being eliminated by individual state choice by putting so many restrictions on abortion, that women will be seeking illegal means to accomplish it or go outside their state to get an abortion. Due to laws in certain states, most states are losing their abortions clinics due to these state laws.
Peoples rights fall under the state. Religious dictates should not fall or be incorporated into the state. The US constitution separated state and religion; and religion wants to get back together with the state. Very BAD....
A woman's right to choose, its her life. We not in the good old days where the tribe had to increase its numbers to survive. That is the mentality of these right wing Christians whose origins comes from ancient fertility cults... and its about the control of the people... either thru state or religion.
As I mentioned in the Roe vs Wade thread, R vs W is slowly being eliminated by individual state choice by putting so many restrictions on abortion, that women will be seeking illegal means to accomplish it or go outside their state to get an abortion. Due to laws in certain states, most states are losing their abortions clinics due to these state laws.
Peoples rights fall under the state. Religious dictates should not fall or be incorporated into the state. The US constitution separated state and religion; and religion wants to get back together with the state. Very BAD....
Couple terminology corrections:
"Conception" is the beginning of pregnancy not the conclusion of it. It happens within 48 hours of sex. It's the earliest an abortion could possibly be performed. Anything earlier is birth control.
Delivering a late term stillborn is usually induced labour, not an abortion.
"Conception" is the beginning of pregnancy not the conclusion of it. It happens within 48 hours of sex. It's the earliest an abortion could possibly be performed. Anything earlier is birth control.
Delivering a late term stillborn is usually induced labour, not an abortion.
Huh? The State of the Union address is not legislation. This particular one was all over the place, lot's of commentary on that alone. It is the presidents proposals for the up coming legislative period and what he would like Congress do. 45 stated he wants Congress to abolish late term abortions.
“To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb,”
I think women alone should determine what happens with their bodies.
So you think its OK for the mom to abort a baby at the point of birth? This was what Northams proposed bill earlier this week which would allow for, essentially infantcide - i believe this is what is meant by "late term" abortion, within the third trimester where the baby has developed nervous system, brain and can feel pain and suffering, and is capable of surviving outside of the belly.
I"m not anti-abortion, however, i believe there is a line that should be drawn when the baby has developed enough in the womb where the baby has rights. I'm not here to debate where that line should be, but i strongly disagree that its the point of delivery or late in the womb.
I really don't care what you or others think, I"m not religious or anything, but i think its cruel to kill babies which can feel pain and capable of surviving outside the womb, based only on the distinction that its temporarily inside a woman's belly. There 'may' be very limited circumstances where it should be permissible, but it should be the very rare exception. I'm not gonna raise a huge stink about it either, i'm not a lawmaker and i don't care to force my views on anyone, but its just my opinion, its only feminists and soy boys who get offended by it anyways.
Ok, again, conception occurs within 48 hours of sex. You're using that word wrong.
The school of thought on the line for abortion is a question of whether the foetus can survive without the mother or whether it's essentially a parasite that hasn't sufficiently developed, and then staying a respectable distance back from that line. Late term abortions are based on essential need, not whim, and even then C sections can be contemplated.
If you advocate the mother not having a say when her body is required for the survival of an undeveloped foetus, then you should advocate for the government being able to take one of your kidneys without needing your consent in order to save the life of another fully developed person.
Do you have a Down Syndrome Child in your own family or in a close relative's family? If you don't, you really should not be making a judgement unless you have first hand knowledge of the subject.
It's a feel good thing to say you want to protect the rights of an unborn child with or without downs or whatever health issue. It's totally a different world for an entire family when one member has a life long health issue.
I know.
