Clarence Thomas Pens Screed Comparing Women Who Obtain Abortions to Eugenicists

Nope, because without the living sperm, there is no conception.

And I suggest you look up the definition of Eugenics.
And since you thing human being is killed, that automatically rules out abortion.

 

Humans have 23 pairs the sperm only has 1 set and the egg has another set. Masturbation and Periods do not kill living humans.

Once its a zygote its a living human because it has the 23 pairs

 

Prove life begins at conception.
A fetus before a certain period is no more “life” than a tumor is life.

 

But LAW says that consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act....

And DUH, a woman can "consent " to get pregnant and have sex a thousand times and NOT get pregnant. Women cannot "consent " to get pregnant...that's biology.

 

EUGENICS???

Want to talk EUGENICS?

OK. To start a good eugenics program first you must control the source.

First you must take away women's right to their own bodies, take away their reproductive rights. ( sound familiar??)

Then there's that short step to further control of women who WANT their baby.

Since the government now OWNS women's reproductive tracts and women no longer have a right to their own bodies the government can then STOP women from gestating .

If a woman wants a baby she must get permission and the government could tell her, NO, you already have one , or you are not smart enough, rich enough, good looking enough, or the "correct" religion, OR THE RIGHT COLOR to have a baby, you must abort.

THERE'S YOUR EUGENICS PLAN...all started by Republicans...

 

I think you misunderstand what he means by eugenics. And he includes contraception in his argument. And it's wrapped up in his Catholic view of life. From a humanist perspective, it is poorer women and women of little social power - like rape and incest victims - who most need the protection of Roe. It's nothing new in Thomas' perspective that he finds the humanist viewpoint as evil. He views abortion and contraception as "breeding out" the less powerful.

 

Sure they are killing living humans. Based on the definition of humans that the RW uses.
Spermatoza has head, body, tail, dna. It's living, if from a human, it's a living human.
Once it's a zygote, it has transformed from 2 living humans into one forming living human thing.

Just a line in the sand. One you agree with, one you don't.

 

Don't forget the back room abortion!

At least it won't be covered by the health insurance the GOP doesn't want you to have!

 

If the democrats would just play it smart they could get a super majority 1/2 of GOP voters vote due to abortion, the dems should go pro life and then take control and implement UHC and free or reduced college paternal leave paid, free daycare, and all the other stuff we want or need. Stop dying on the this issue

 

Why would the dems want to change? If 200K white women votes had shifted in 2016 in Wisc Mich and Pa, Hillary would be potus.

I think Roe was bad law (and Obergefell too) but in terms of social views, the dems need to stay out of the way of the republicans self-destructing.

 

Thomas disagrees with using abortion as a method of racial or gender selection. Is that radical?

Is it ethical for a couple to abort five girls in order to finally get a boy on the sixth try? I think it is. But libs say this is a woman's decision.

 

Does it really count as Eugenics if you're only regulating the inside of your own body? And the reason you're doing it has nothing to do with controlling the human race or trying to do some kind of purposeful selective breeding?

Nope, it's just an old man off his rocker using the same imbecilic outrageousness and idiotic attempts at association that always seems to come from the anti-abortion crowd. This is just the sequel to the "abortion is like slavery" nonsense, since that one didn't seem to do well enough at the box office.

 

Thomas's eugenics opinion is hinged (-: on black women having more abortions than whites … at least on avg. Abortion for selecting the sex of a child cannot be a leading reason for abortion, and I'm sure majorities would support making that illegal without overturning Roe.

 

Congratulations to Missouri on ridding your selves of the slaughter!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aborti...ic-in-missouri-today-2019-05-30-live-updates/

 

IMO the woman's ability to select the father of her child is a key factor in positive human evolution, and it is a threat to our species to undermine this.

 

Well, pretty soon the Republicans will be choosing the fathers for women's children....

afterall, if women lose the right to their own bodies they are OWNED by the government and can be bred like animals...it's not so far to telling them who they are going to breed to...

 

Whatsa matter...can't face the truth?


EUGENICS???

Want to talk EUGENICS?

OK. To start a good eugenics program first you must control the source.

First you must take away women's right to their own bodies, take away their reproductive rights. ( sound familiar??)

Then there's that short step to further control of women who WANT their baby.

Since the government now OWNS women's reproductive tracts and women no longer have a right to their own bodies the government can then STOP women from gestating .

If a woman wants a baby she must get permission and the government could tell her, NO, you already have one , or you are not smart enough, rich enough, good looking enough, or the "correct" religion, OR THE RIGHT COLOR to have a baby, you must abort.

THERE'S YOUR EUGENICS PLAN...all started by Republicans...

 

So you admit that the eugenics movement used abortion to prevent undesirables from reproducing

 

EUGENICS???

Want to talk EUGENICS?

OK. To start a good eugenics program first you must control the source.

First you must take away women's right to their own bodies, take away their reproductive rights. ( sound familiar??)

Then there's that short step to further control of women who WANT their baby.

Since the government now OWNS women's reproductive tracts and women no longer have a right to their own bodies the government can then STOP women from gestating .

If a woman wants a baby she must get permission and the government could tell her, NO, you already have one , or you are not smart enough, rich enough, good looking enough, or the "correct" religion, OR THE RIGHT COLOR to have a baby, you must abort.

THERE'S YOUR EUGENICS PLAN...all started by Republicans...

Obviously it could.

So YOU admit that Republicans have started the new eugenics movement by taking away women's right to their own bodies.

So you admit you cannot deny nor refute one word of the post of mine you quoted.

 

That’s not true, and if Thomas really believes this, he should be ashamed of himself to his core, and for forgetting who he was when he read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged—he knows damn well the immorality of using stolen concepts.

But if you are really that worried about it, fight for an amendment banning the government from interfering in medicine—the State is the only power with enough wide spread force to practice Eugenics.

 

Yeah, but only the mother brings it into existence as a newborn.

 

Don't attempt to reason out Thomas's thinking. Constitution watchers have been doing it for decades without success. His take on eugenics is priceless. And the reality is that its really the same as black power activists of the late 60s, who were aghast at Roe because they saw their path to power through the breeding of poor black women who were financially rewarded for procreating.

 

I have read this article. Disappointing and revolting, Thomas’s views.

 

It was wrong but they were right that shocker if you want your people political or racial to take power, you need to have a lot of babies. Look at the hispanics who took over several states and made them solid blue.

 

What is your definition of slavery ?

Mine is: Taking away people's right to their own body...which is exactly what banning abortion does.