Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

FoxHastings said: ↑
Robert said: ↑
If the baby is their body, then since it is shared, it is also the males body. I claim his right to save his child. In fact if her body wants to keep the body intruding on her, let the male wanting out of the deal out. And let him take her to the planned plunderhood doctor and tell the doctor to abort her body and pay no attention to her claims she wants a baby



FoxHastings said: ↑
Oh, I am SURE YOU are all for FORCING women to do things as you have just proven...





YOU advocated FORCE in your post above, YOU.

I have proof (see above bolded in blue) of that but YOU have NO PROOF AS USUAL that I forced anyone to abort.
NOTE: Anti-Choicers HAVE to make up stuff, proving they have NO argument, NO facts, nothing....or they wouldn't have to l...er "misrepresent intentionally" what others post.

So what does that make you?

Her "partner" has NO rights at all concerning HER body....neither does the government nor self righteous old busy bodies nor her Aunt Tilly.

Men do NOT own women because they impregnated them....try to get over that ...








WHAT TF!!!







That is typical of the incoherent rantings of those who have NO idea what the word "choice" means...…


So you still haven't looked up the word "choice" in the dictionary yet.....

Still don't know that women are humans who can decide for themselves what to do....





WHY TF should I ?...YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN PROOF THAT I WANT TO FORCE WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS AS YOU CLAIMED HERE:

"""Robert said: ↑
You spend a lot of time forcing her. Forcing her to abort.""""


Show proof or admit you, say ""Really Misrepresented"",, my posts...

 

Even though it is the government which provides the abortion under the health system. Abortion being legal is NOT the government staying out of women's bodies! Just the opposite!

 

I agree. The pro-abortion extremists who supported Kathy Tran's bill in Virginia are no better or different than the anti-abortion extremists who supported the bill in Alabama.

I'm inclined to believe that most Americans would be happy to be rid of both of them...

 

Sorry - but you don't seem to be getting the whole "pro-choice" thing, there Robert.

Pro-choice means that someone SUPPORTS the right of a woman to KEEP the child just as much as the CHOICE to have her pregnancy terminated.

I don't know why this so difficult for you to grasp - it's a very simple concept.

EVERY post a pro-choice person makes is just as much an advocation for KEEPING the fetus - just as the MOTHER'S choice, not through force.

 

Wow, he did not say any of that. But you did a wonderful job of talking for yourself while operating as if he said those things.

I have not one bit of control over the laws, the opinions, the desires of Democrats nor the women who enjoy sex but classify her own child as a danger, an annoyance and causing her body to go through a living hell.

But she must have had a clue prior to sex one might think.

This is not 1950. Women today have a huge collection of birth control they can use. If the male tricks her by removing a condom, she has back up plans.

I recall in 1961 hearing from a pal that a woman he had sex with, and he was married, but enjoyed telling us how sexual he was, so I talked to her. She invited me for dinner. I had a good meal. She was acting romantic. I did not impose on her. But since she had round heels, we had sex. i did the withdrawal thing. She chided me saying she was using birth control. She was a nurse as well. I did not know she took BC but this is not today but way back in 1961.

The rest of the story is Bill was talking to me later and i told him she was a good lay. And he was so surprised. He had a nice wife who easily could handle his needs and I was not married. I handled her needs and Bill started to object.

I guess he wanted to control her body.

 

Is there also an inherent contradiction between more freedom and no murder?

If government overturned Roe v Wade and then states removed abortion from their health system, how would it be "forcing" abortion?

 

I get pro choice very well.

Say a man enters a bank in need of cash. So he exercises pro choice and wants free cash from the teller. Would you defend pro choice?

I do not believe the words free choice is in the constitution. We have hints I have free choice in speech. I have free choice to own arms.

I simply chose to help you make the argument that her damned fetus was dangering her life and she wanted help. The more I help the poor woman the more kick back i get from Democrats/their surrogates.

 

Who said they would remove abortion from their health system? They would just make it illegal for individuals to seek abortion.

And, as you well know, abortion is not murder.

 

Oh you are so angry. So excited. I am here to talk BACK to you and see if you quit representing Planned Plunderhood. You are so angry you insert posts with tons of wasted bandwidth. Turn colors rid in anger and blue as if you get to control me.

You waste bandwidth with your super huge postings.

You speak well of her going to planned plunderhood to make an abortionist profits. Why object then if I do what you do. I am not forcing the father to do a thing.

If you keep saying that, you need more than quoting me, you need to name this male or that female and show where I forced them to do a thing.

 

Neither you or I have any control over that

Only 5 unelected demigods on the SC have that power

 

Then ask you and your fellow libs to drop the stupid argument that unborn children are a threat to women

Having children is natural and necessary also

 

Pregnancy is positive

Tornados are not

 

Abortions (miscarriage) are natural and necessary at times also. It happens every day. In the end, it doesn't matter to the fetus if it occurred as a process of the woman's unconscious actions or conscious actions - end result is the same - a terminated pregnancy.

 

I agree, and while we're clarifying the meaning of terminology and/or euphemisms, "pro-Choice" means pro-abortion. In the end, the choice is whether abortion should be legal for doctors to perform and women to obtain or not.

 

Say you want a baby as does your spouse, girlfriend, et al.

So you plan with joy an impending birth.

An angry ex husband intrudes killing the child

Is that murder?

If it is murder, why not murder when she does it?

 

Is saying, "no person can murder" about having less freedom too?

Do you find murder objectionable? People don't have the freedom to murder do they?

What freedoms of non-whites does Trump's base want to "reduce?"

 

That is a week argument. Factually I have been married to two woman. I have impregnated some girlfriends.

But never has any of them miscarried. Wife 1 got an abortion. Wife 2 valued life and loved babies. Were it up to her we would have had more than one daughter.

At all times all women knew all about birth control. Had they all used it, there is no way any of them could get pregnant. I can make a claim that their choice was to have unprotected sex and win that argument easily.

 

NO. You are wrong.

Pro-abortion would mean that someone is advocating FOR every woman to abort every pregnancy, all the time.

Pro-choice means that a person supports the right of a woman to keep the child just as much as her right to terminate. And even at that, most pro-choice limit that support to abort to the first 20 weeks.

Why is that such a hard thing for some people to understand?

 

I would say that but for the child in process, we argue a lot in favor of her freedom.

Examine in the history of the USA. Count up laws on the books done by republicans. Count up the enormous pack of laws made by Democrats.

Laws are designed to put people into prison.

So if Democrats are in love with freedom, why have they made hundreds of thousands of laws since 1933?

 

You are talking about an intent by a person to commit a brutal assault against a woman with the intent of killing the unborn and viable fetus inside of her, against her wishes?

Yea, that's probably murder.

The reason it is not murder when she does it is because it is her body and her decision to eliminate a pregnancy, of her own volition, before that fetus has reached viability. After that point, the government interest in a viable fetus outweighs her choice for convenience sake. And yet, that interest still does not outweigh her rights to her own person if that fetus will be born with a severe defect or harm the health of the mother.

 

I see it all as legal interference,. And one sided. It totally cuts out the person that delivers the sperm. He could be forced to pay a lot of money. Since this is the case, how can his choice be ignored?

 

Uh, why the hell would abortion remain in the system following the overturning of Roe if a state was anti-abortion?

Well legally speaking you are correct, but people can see abortion as murder morally speaking. Anyway, I wasn't even talking about abortion. I asked if there is also an inherent contradiction between more freedom and no murder - Or ANY crime - it doesn't have to be murder. Laws, by their very nature, are a restriction of freedom, right? You would just say that laws such as murder are a justified restriction of freedom.

 

You can quit calling her child her body. You can get away with saying her baby is in her body. But there is no known system where when she gets pregnant, the so called her body is able to survive out of her body. (specifically under the age of viability) Suppose we are 500 years into the future. Science has a way for her to get pregnant, and rather than keep that unborn inside of her, science puts the unborn into a system that finishes the job to have a live birth.

She can evade carrying the child and have no risk to her from the child that is in the system to conclude the birth.

Why keep talking of severe fetal imperfections. Abortion is done millions of times on perfectly healthy unborn.

 

No, some pregnancies are NOT a positive. ONLY the pregnant one decides.....

 

********************************