AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

The fact that you seem to think women can't be trusted to make an informed decision about abortion, whether due to ignorance about subsequent emotional trauma or pressure from a man, is a you problem, not a reason to deny women the right to control their bodies.

This pretty much sums up the feeling of the anti-abortion men on here. As well as the Republican party, check Gosar and Marjorie three toes for their response. Don’t say it doesn’t, this right here is what you guys are after.
https://www.newsweek.com/fdny-denies-em ... 4921?amp=1

emperortk wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

The fact that you seem to think women can't be trusted to make an informed decision about abortion, whether due to ignorance about subsequent emotional trauma or pressure from a man, is a you problem, not a reason to deny women the right to control their bodies.

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

FGITD wrote:

emperortk wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

The fact that you seem to think women can't be trusted to make an informed decision about abortion, whether due to ignorance about subsequent emotional trauma or pressure from a man, is a you problem, not a reason to deny women the right to control their bodies.

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

emperortk wrote:

The fact that you seem to think women can't be trusted to make an informed decision about abortion, whether due to ignorance about subsequent emotional trauma or pressure from a man, is a you problem, not a reason to deny women the right to control their bodies.

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Exactly. This comes back to the religious obsession with virginity. Can’t have the women folk out there having sex unless it’s with their husband who will be there to help raise the child. If they have sex with someone who isn’t committed to them, they must be punished by the burden and shame of pregnancy and single motherhood.

Otherwise, explain why literally NO support is offered once the child is born. Because it’s a punishment for the woman, not a means of creating a positive environment for the child.

FGITD wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Exactly. This comes back to the religious obsession with virginity. Can’t have the women folk out there having sex unless it’s with their husband who will be there to help raise the child. If they have sex with someone who isn’t committed to them, they must be punished by the burden and shame of pregnancy and single motherhood.

Otherwise, explain why literally NO support is offered once the child is born. Because it’s a punishment for the woman, not a means of creating a positive environment for the child.

I haven’t read a thing from the ardent anti abortion activists on here regarding anything other than “No Abortions Period”! Not a thing about what they plan on doing to help the mothers and infants. Fact is they could care less, it’s all about the cells, nothing else.

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Exactly. This comes back to the religious obsession with virginity. Can’t have the women folk out there having sex unless it’s with their husband who will be there to help raise the child. If they have sex with someone who isn’t committed to them, they must be punished by the burden and shame of pregnancy and single motherhood.

Otherwise, explain why literally NO support is offered once the child is born. Because it’s a punishment for the woman, not a means of creating a positive environment for the child.

I haven’t read a thing from the ardent anti abortion activists on here regarding anything other than “No Abortions Period”! Not a thing about what they plan on doing to help the mothers and infants. Fact is they could care less, it’s all about the cells, nothing else.

That is a lot of the silence from the right but also consider the cost of health care carrying a fetus to term. Zero support for that from Republicans, also.

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Exactly. This comes back to the religious obsession with virginity. Can’t have the women folk out there having sex unless it’s with their husband who will be there to help raise the child. If they have sex with someone who isn’t committed to them, they must be punished by the burden and shame of pregnancy and single motherhood.

Otherwise, explain why literally NO support is offered once the child is born. Because it’s a punishment for the woman, not a means of creating a positive environment for the child.

I haven’t read a thing from the ardent anti abortion activists on here regarding anything other than “No Abortions Period”! Not a thing about what they plan on doing to help the mothers and infants. Fact is they could care less, it’s all about the cells, nothing else.

Correct, we even had applause for one's wife making it valiantly through four pregnancies, and refusal to acknowledge the existence of PPD and other maladies for other women. My wife could do it - she's a superstar - screw anyone who's body and emotional makeup are different, they should carry to term and put up for adoption! Just utter lack of empathy. Total nonsense.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

I don't need to 'produce a woman' - I literally related three experiences from women who have been dear to me. The bla bla bla is only stubborn refusal to acknowledge that life is very very gray, especially in this area. Not to mention a complete lack of empathy. I feel sorry for the daughter of anyone with such viewpoints.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

I don't need to 'produce a woman' - I literally related three experiences from women who have been dear to me. The bla bla bla is only stubborn refusal to acknowledge that life is very very gray, especially in this area. Not to mention a complete lack of empathy. I feel sorry for the daughter of anyone with such viewpoints.

Ok then, we are left for men to speak for women as if they can't speak for themselves. I would have also shared many experiences of women who hated doing an abortion, but that's not the point. Would have been great they share their experience here.

Its pretty obvious that this subject of Roe is not really of any interest, only to certain people, specially liberals. It was foretold that if Roe was overturned there would be massive protests and riots. That hasn't happened. Specially since we are told 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Strange I haven't seen that significant reaction.

Oh, but wait I might be right:

Wilson, 61, is pro-choice, voted for Democratic President Joe Biden, and knew all about the news last week that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion.

Yet Wilson said she is undecided about who she will vote for this November, and abortion rights are not a priority for her.

"It's the economy and jobs," Wilson said. She said she was disappointed in Biden, because of high inflation and "too many homeless people on the streets."

Wilson was one of 21 women interviewed by Reuters in the northern suburbs of Phoenix - a key area for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly's efforts to hold onto his seat - after news of the Supreme Court draft ruling broke. Most of the women said inflation, not abortion, was the galvanizing issue for them.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-09/

I guess, massive inflation, stock market crashing, crime, the border are more important topics for people. Or perhaps abortion is not that big of a deal, only to liberals and the MSM. Since there are so much contraception and other tools available that people won't feel as abortion is a 'right' or a 'freedom' that they will all of the sudden lose.

In the same article, this struck me, since I have been saying on the toll on women after abortion:

Sherica Bailey, 33, got tearful talking about her two abortions. She is now adamantly opposed to abortion and says she will vote Republican and for any candidate who is pro-life.

"I do support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. I had abortions during a very dark time in my life. I was naive and stupid," she said.

Methinks this subject of Roe is just a massive distraction attempt by the MSM and Democrats. The real people don't actually care. That's why they are in fear the Supreme court overturning Roe, since voters won't be inclined into voting for Democrats to actually codify it. Democrats don't trust Democracy for really making Roe the law of the land.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Methinks this subject of Roe is just a massive distraction attempt by the MSM and Democrats.

Must be working well. They had you talking about it for the last, what, five pages of this thread?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

I don't need to 'produce a woman' - I literally related three experiences from women who have been dear to me. The bla bla bla is only stubborn refusal to acknowledge that life is very very gray, especially in this area. Not to mention a complete lack of empathy. I feel sorry for the daughter of anyone with such viewpoints.

Ok then, we are left for men to speak for women as if they can't speak for themselves. I would have also shared many experiences of women who hated doing an abortion, but that's not the point. Would have been great they share their experience here.

Its pretty obvious that this subject of Roe is not really of any interest, only to certain people, specially liberals. It was foretold that if Roe was overturned there would be massive protests and riots. That hasn't happened. Specially since we are told 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Strange I haven't seen that significant reaction.

Oh, but wait I might be right:

Wilson, 61, is pro-choice, voted for Democratic President Joe Biden, and knew all about the news last week that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion.

Yet Wilson said she is undecided about who she will vote for this November, and abortion rights are not a priority for her.

"It's the economy and jobs," Wilson said. She said she was disappointed in Biden, because of high inflation and "too many homeless people on the streets."

Wilson was one of 21 women interviewed by Reuters in the northern suburbs of Phoenix - a key area for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly's efforts to hold onto his seat - after news of the Supreme Court draft ruling broke. Most of the women said inflation, not abortion, was the galvanizing issue for them.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-09/

I guess, massive inflation, stock market crashing, crime, the border are more important topics for people. Or perhaps abortion is not that big of a deal, only to liberals and the MSM. Since there are so much contraception and other tools available that people won't feel as abortion is a 'right' or a 'freedom' that they will all of the sudden lose.

In the same article, this struck me, since I have been saying on the toll on women after abortion:

Sherica Bailey, 33, got tearful talking about her two abortions. She is now adamantly opposed to abortion and says she will vote Republican and for any candidate who is pro-life.

"I do support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. I had abortions during a very dark time in my life. I was naive and stupid," she said.

Methinks this subject of Roe is just a massive distraction attempt by the MSM and Democrats. The real people don't actually care. That's why they are in fear the Supreme court overturning Roe, since voters won't be inclined into voting for Democrats to actually codify it. Democrats don't trust Democracy for really making Roe the law of the land.

Maybe if this bothers you it might be time for another sabbatical from here. You stated last time it affected your mental health. Not a slam but an honest observation.

seb146 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Exactly. This comes back to the religious obsession with virginity. Can’t have the women folk out there having sex unless it’s with their husband who will be there to help raise the child. If they have sex with someone who isn’t committed to them, they must be punished by the burden and shame of pregnancy and single motherhood.

Otherwise, explain why literally NO support is offered once the child is born. Because it’s a punishment for the woman, not a means of creating a positive environment for the child.

I haven’t read a thing from the ardent anti abortion activists on here regarding anything other than “No Abortions Period”! Not a thing about what they plan on doing to help the mothers and infants. Fact is they could care less, it’s all about the cells, nothing else.

That is a lot of the silence from the right but also consider the cost of health care carrying a fetus to term. Zero support for that from Republicans, also.

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

Clutch101 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I don't need to 'produce a woman' - I literally related three experiences from women who have been dear to me. The bla bla bla is only stubborn refusal to acknowledge that life is very very gray, especially in this area. Not to mention a complete lack of empathy. I feel sorry for the daughter of anyone with such viewpoints.

Ok then, we are left for men to speak for women as if they can't speak for themselves. I would have also shared many experiences of women who hated doing an abortion, but that's not the point. Would have been great they share their experience here.

Its pretty obvious that this subject of Roe is not really of any interest, only to certain people, specially liberals. It was foretold that if Roe was overturned there would be massive protests and riots. That hasn't happened. Specially since we are told 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Strange I haven't seen that significant reaction.

Oh, but wait I might be right:

Wilson, 61, is pro-choice, voted for Democratic President Joe Biden, and knew all about the news last week that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to an abortion.

Yet Wilson said she is undecided about who she will vote for this November, and abortion rights are not a priority for her.

"It's the economy and jobs," Wilson said. She said she was disappointed in Biden, because of high inflation and "too many homeless people on the streets."

Wilson was one of 21 women interviewed by Reuters in the northern suburbs of Phoenix - a key area for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly's efforts to hold onto his seat - after news of the Supreme Court draft ruling broke. Most of the women said inflation, not abortion, was the galvanizing issue for them.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-09/

I guess, massive inflation, stock market crashing, crime, the border are more important topics for people. Or perhaps abortion is not that big of a deal, only to liberals and the MSM. Since there are so much contraception and other tools available that people won't feel as abortion is a 'right' or a 'freedom' that they will all of the sudden lose.

In the same article, this struck me, since I have been saying on the toll on women after abortion:

Sherica Bailey, 33, got tearful talking about her two abortions. She is now adamantly opposed to abortion and says she will vote Republican and for any candidate who is pro-life.

"I do support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. I had abortions during a very dark time in my life. I was naive and stupid," she said.

Methinks this subject of Roe is just a massive distraction attempt by the MSM and Democrats. The real people don't actually care. That's why they are in fear the Supreme court overturning Roe, since voters won't be inclined into voting for Democrats to actually codify it. Democrats don't trust Democracy for really making Roe the law of the land.

Maybe if this bothers you it might be time for another sabbatical from here. You stated last time it affected your mental health. Not a slam but an honest observation.

No way! People get so involved with a forum on the internet that it has negative consequences on mental health. If it weren’t so sad it would be funny.

PC12Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

I haven’t read a thing from the ardent anti abortion activists on here regarding anything other than “No Abortions Period”! Not a thing about what they plan on doing to help the mothers and infants. Fact is they could care less, it’s all about the cells, nothing else.

That is a lot of the silence from the right but also consider the cost of health care carrying a fetus to term. Zero support for that from Republicans, also.

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

casinterest wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That is a lot of the silence from the right but also consider the cost of health care carrying a fetus to term. Zero support for that from Republicans, also.

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

See that’s the problem. People don’t read the “fine print” all they see is save the cells! They have no idea what kind of drain on the system this will take on their, yours and mine wallet. God help the southern states, as bad off as they are now I can just see us normal northern people having to help out even more.

Clutch101 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

See that’s the problem. People don’t read the “fine print” all they see is save the cells! They have no idea what kind of drain on the system this will take on their, yours and mine wallet. God help the southern states, as bad off as they are now I can just see us normal northern people having to help out even more.

Also pointing out, yet again, that making abortion illegal isn't the most effective means of reducing the abortion rate. It is most effective at crimalising women.

casinterest wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That is a lot of the silence from the right but also consider the cost of health care carrying a fetus to term. Zero support for that from Republicans, also.

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

Horse paste for everything!

MaverickM11 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

Robin Wiliams of all people put it best on Carson one night - "the right to life people say - I'll go with you to save this life, and to help you save this life. But the moment they're born they go - I'm outta here."

I just wonder what Medical insurance and health care will look like in the pro life states. Especially with bans on many drugs used to treat issues related to menstrual cycles.

Horse paste for everything!

You want to actually help people stop doing stupid things? Tell them Ivermectin causes abortions.

Attention Protestors....

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences.

A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences.

A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

Sucks Biden wasn’t president on 01-06-21 huh.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences.

A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences.

A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6

The bipartisan bill, which passed by voice vote with no objections, did not provide additional funding, which could come later. But it aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes. The bill now moves to the House for its consideration.

It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Some but far from all are emotionally scared or life.

Kiwirob wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Some but far from all are emotionally scared or life.

Hard to know if the only woman reference point in life is ‘wife’

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Senate passes bill to boost security for Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-con ... 5fc06540b6

The bipartisan bill, which passed by voice vote with no objections, did not provide additional funding, which could come later. But it aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes. The bill now moves to the House for its consideration.

It's about Judges... which actually IS a world of difference from all of the side issues you just enumerated.
Try to keep on topic about a story about Judges...

Yeah, c'mon Maverick. We're not talking about the doctors, nurses, clinic help, innocent bystanders blown to bits by the anti-abortion activists. You know, the "littler people" We're talking about judges, JUDGES! The beer drinking, handmaid tale followers who make decisions for us. Seriously, what is it about people from Texas? Lastly, DIRECTFLT, are you trying to take over ArchGuy1 shtick? Oh, when you're talking about the left and violence, yeah..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... c-killers/

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So its not about only that, is for the inconvenience, of personal choices such as having fun sex etc. OK

And…. What’s your point? Why should someone have to justify what they do with their own body?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

We can't then agree, if you don't want the responsibility, the 'inconvenience' of raising a child and the disruption and problem it may cause a woman. Why wouldn't then adoption be a choice?

The inconvenience, risk, pain, long term health effects and body disfigurement associated with pregnancy.

Also, and the last reason is the real answer, because they maybe just don’t want to and it’s none of your business why so get out of someone else’s body.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aesma wrote:

I'm sure living in a place where there is so much heated debate about abortion has no implication for the mental state of women confronted with the situation, now or in their past.

Amen. How women feel or why is irrelevant, as quite a few anti-abortion sentiments here aptly demonstrate.

I wish there was as much active protests against Trump and those that supported his attempted coup by terrorism on the US Capitol on 1/6/21 to pressure Congress and the DOJ to prosecute them.

As to the current protests by those that oppose the proposed draft opinion in the Roe v. Wade case, or any case before a judge or the SCOTUS Justices, I have no problem when in front of a courthouse, in a public area in front of a facility where a Justice is in front of a place where making an appearance. However their residence or areas around it should be off limits to assure the independence of the Judiciary.and prevent an act of violence against them, family members and property damage. In 1988 a Federal Judge was murdered by the father of a Plaintiff in a discrimination case. A few years ago, at her home, the son of a Federal Judge was shot and murdered, her husband shot and injured by a 'men's rights' attorney. Calls were made to remove from any government records the home address of Federal Judges. We have the risk of a similar situation where a Justice could be (ironically) murdered by some pro-choice extremist among them. As a post noted above, laws are being considered to ban protests in and around the residences of Federal Judges.

These pro-choice protests and those of anti-abortion protesters seem to be a reflection of the deeper conflicts in our society and willingness of people to express anger if something offends them.

ltbewr wrote:

I w
As to the current protests by those that oppose the proposed draft opinion in the Roe v. Wade case, or any case before a judge or the SCOTUS Justices, I have no problem when in front of a courthouse, in a public area in front of a facility where a Justice is in front of a place where making an appearance. However their residence or areas around it should be off limits to assure the independence of the Judiciary.and prevent an act of violence against them, family members and property damage.

As a post noted above, laws are being considered to ban protests in and around the residences of Federal Judges.

If the current Supreme Court is consistent (which they won’t be) they should remember Madsen vs Women’s Health Centre 1994 where they upheld the right of anti-abortion protesters to protest outside the houses of abortion clinic employees.

The often mentioned US Code 1507 is used by right wing anti-abortionists to demand the arrest of these protesters. However prosecutions for that are only for direct intrusion and attempt to confront a judge in a courthouse or residence. If US code 1507 was used to arrest these pro Roe vs Wade protesters then all the MAGA who protested outside the Supreme Court to get the election overturned would have been similarly arrested. As they weren’t then these pro choice protesters won’t be.

We have the risk of a similar situation where a Justice could be (ironically) murdered by some pro-choice extremist among them.

“Pro choice extremists” do not exist. Thousands of acts of violence, trespass, threats or intimidation are carried out by “pro life” extremists against abortion clinic employees and attendees every year

These pro-choice protests and those of anti-abortion protesters seem to be a reflection of the deeper conflicts in our society and willingness of people to express anger if something offends them.

I can guarantee you pro choice protesters aren’t protesting because something “offends” them, they’re protesting to protect the right to make fundamental decisions about their own bodies.

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

emperortk wrote:

The fact that you seem to think women can't be trusted to make an informed decision about abortion, whether due to ignorance about subsequent emotional trauma or pressure from a man, is a you problem, not a reason to deny women the right to control their bodies.

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Thanks for telling me how I feel. I'm glad you did, since apparently the other stuff I have said must be wrong.

bpatus297 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Thanks for telling me how I feel. I'm glad you did, since apparently the other stuff I have said must be wrong.

Not talking about you - talking about right wing red-state zealots pushing all these insane trigger laws and other malarkey, obviously.

bpatus297 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

What’s impressive to me is how several users have quoted me and applauded my “honesty” and then completely misinterpreted what I said to fit their agenda.

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Thanks for telling me how I feel. I'm glad you did, since apparently the other stuff I have said must be wrong.

Oh the irony…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences.

A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Attention Protestors....



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ce-houses/

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

There wasn't much outrage when in this thread someone accused this whole pro-choice thing of being far left. It's not really the discussion, so keep calm and move on.

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Clutch101 wrote:

This isn’t about the poor cells in the woman’s body. This is about control, nothing more or nothing less. They want control over women, get them back in the kitchen.

Thanks for telling me how I feel. I'm glad you did, since apparently the other stuff I have said must be wrong.

Not talking about you - talking about right wing red-state zealots pushing all these insane trigger laws and other malarkey, obviously.

Except a lot on here like to reference all of the GOP or conservatives. Since I am a conservative leaning libertarian, they are lumping me into that description. Sorry you can't, or don't want to see it, but that doesn't make it not true.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL You people murdered doctors, blew up clinics, and bombed the Olympics, never mind endless additional attempts on lives, perpetual harassment, and doxing of care providers and recipients. Tough to find a more violent group of people than the pro life crowd.

But go on tell us about peaceful protesting.

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

There wasn't much outrage when in this thread someone accused this whole pro-choice thing of being far left. It's not really the discussion, so keep calm and move on.

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

You say it's grey, yet dismiss and try to argue away any dissenting opinion. That makes it black and white for you.

Aaron747 wrote:

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

So if its grey as you say, under what circumstances you don't agree with abortion?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

So if its grey as you say, under what circumstances you don't agree with abortion?

That's pretty easy. At a bare minimum when the pregnant woman doesn't want one.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Those are not my people, I am against those acts, but could you imagine if a conservative said "you people"!?!? Could you imagine the outrage that would be had. BTW, this is rhetorical, I know you wont agree/

There wasn't much outrage when in this thread someone accused this whole pro-choice thing of being far left. It's not really the discussion, so keep calm and move on.

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

You say it's grey, yet dismiss and try to argue away any dissenting opinion. That makes it black and white for you.

Negative - I introduce nuance where it’s often sorely lacking. And I answered questions several times about the manner in which legal abortion ought to be limited.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There wasn't much outrage when in this thread someone accused this whole pro-choice thing of being far left. It's not really the discussion, so keep calm and move on.

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

You say it's grey, yet dismiss and try to argue away any dissenting opinion. That makes it black and white for you.

Negative - I introduce nuance where it’s often sorely lacking. And I answered questions several times about the manner in which legal abortion ought to be limited.

Let me fix that for you-- you introduce nuance where it's often sorely lacking (as long as it's not on the same side of the discussion/topic as your opinion).

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

So if its grey as you say, under what circumstances you don't agree with abortion?

Several:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I certainly call it a choice of convenience for a woman who does a lot of careless ONS and thinks it’s a fall-back. That makes other women look bad and wastes healthcare resources other women might need.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I don’t support it past the medical definitions of viability unless the health of fetus or mother are in jeopardy.

And of course, I’m against making any mother-to-be have one who doesn’t want one.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You say it's grey, yet dismiss and try to argue away any dissenting opinion. That makes it black and white for you.

Negative - I introduce nuance where it’s often sorely lacking. And I answered questions several times about the manner in which legal abortion ought to be limited.

Let me fix that for you-- you introduce nuance where it's often sorely lacking (as long as it's not on the same side of the discussion/topic as your opinion).

If someone is arguing from the perspective that women don’t know what they want or their feelings/motivations for the decision are irrelevant, than yes, the nuance is lacking regardless of ‘side’. In a human issue, if the ‘why’ isn’t even being discussed, side ceases to matter. It’s just ignorance at that point.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The real discussion here is about how an issue people try to make black and white (regardless of motivation or 'side') is actually very gray, because that's what happens in the human experiences of real life.

So if its grey as you say, under what circumstances you don't agree with abortion?

Several:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I certainly call it a choice of convenience for a woman who does a lot of careless ONS and thinks it’s a fall-back. That makes other women look bad and wastes healthcare resources other women might need.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I don’t support it past the medical definitions of viability unless the health of fetus or mother are in jeopardy.

And of course, I’m against making any mother-to-be have one who doesn’t want one.

You are all over the place.

Based on your last sentence, you are OK if it has to be done by due date. If the mother says she doesn't want to on due date, then, its over.

Pretty black and white to me.

On the contrary, all of us who have expressed a negative view on Roe in this thread, are very grey, since we believe (most of us) that rape, incest, and the health of the mother can be an exception.

Who is black and white then? That's a fairly moderate view.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Negative - I introduce nuance where it’s often sorely lacking. And I answered questions several times about the manner in which legal abortion ought to be limited.

Let me fix that for you-- you introduce nuance where it's often sorely lacking (as long as it's not on the same side of the discussion/topic as your opinion).

If someone is arguing from the perspective that women don’t know what they want or their feelings/motivations for the decision are irrelevant, than yes, the nuance is lacking regardless of ‘side’. In a human issue, if the ‘why’ isn’t even being discussed, side ceases to matter. It’s just ignorance at that point.

I'm talking across the spectrum, You like to claim nuance in the arguments that you are making, but I don't know if I have ever seen you cede it to the other side of the argument. Just my observation.

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Some but far from all are emotionally scared or life.

Hard to know if the only woman reference point in life is ‘wife’

AirWorthy or me, I'm happy abortions exist, otherwise I'd have 5 children instead of 3. It should be 4, another girlfriend had a miscarriage, that was devastating, I still think about what could have been, shes never had children the fear of another miscarriage has scared her off, that was 24 years ago.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So if its grey as you say, under what circumstances you don't agree with abortion?

Several:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I certainly call it a choice of convenience for a woman who does a lot of careless ONS and thinks it’s a fall-back. That makes other women look bad and wastes healthcare resources other women might need.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I don’t support it past the medical definitions of viability unless the health of fetus or mother are in jeopardy.

And of course, I’m against making any mother-to-be have one who doesn’t want one.

You are all over the place.

Based on your last sentence, you are OK if it has to be done by due date. If the mother says she doesn't want to on due date, then, its over.

Pretty black and white to me.

On the contrary, all of us who have expressed a negative view on Roe in this thread, are very grey, since we believe (most of us) that rape, incest, and the health of the mother can be an exception.

Who is black and white then? That's a fairly moderate view.

All over the place? Can you be more specific?

In the last sentence ‘have one’ refers to an abortion, not a child. Read it over and over again until that sinks in. Literally the paragraph before I clearly said I don’t support voluntary abortion after medically-designated viability - that’s minimum 12 weeks before due date dude.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Let me fix that for you-- you introduce nuance where it's often sorely lacking (as long as it's not on the same side of the discussion/topic as your opinion).

If someone is arguing from the perspective that women don’t know what they want or their feelings/motivations for the decision are irrelevant, than yes, the nuance is lacking regardless of ‘side’. In a human issue, if the ‘why’ isn’t even being discussed, side ceases to matter. It’s just ignorance at that point.

I'm talking across the spectrum, You like to claim nuance in the arguments that you are making, but I don't know if I have ever seen you cede it to the other side of the argument. Just my observation.

You have a few hundred posts here whereas I’ve been around almost twenty years, so your observation is a little lacking in sample size I guess.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Several:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I certainly call it a choice of convenience for a woman who does a lot of careless ONS and thinks it’s a fall-back. That makes other women look bad and wastes healthcare resources other women might need.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I don’t support it past the medical definitions of viability unless the health of fetus or mother are in jeopardy.

And of course, I’m against making any mother-to-be have one who doesn’t want one.

You are all over the place.

Based on your last sentence, you are OK if it has to be done by due date. If the mother says she doesn't want to on due date, then, its over.

Pretty black and white to me.

On the contrary, all of us who have expressed a negative view on Roe in this thread, are very grey, since we believe (most of us) that rape, incest, and the health of the mother can be an exception.

Who is black and white then? That's a fairly moderate view.

All over the place? Can you be more specific?

In the last sentence ‘have one’ refers to an abortion, not a child. Read it over and over again until that sinks in. Literally the paragraph before I clearly said I don’t support voluntary abortion after medically-designated viability - that’s minimum 12 weeks before due date dude.

Thanks for the clarification.

You are grey then. However, most of the other pro-choice posters aren't. They as you have read have stated or implied there shouldn't be any limits.

None of us on the right have said there shouldn't be NO abortions. We are grey. So no, its not us being part of the black and white group.