The Media will never report this, and the left will never admit it, but...

That IS what Doofenshmirtz concentrates on....too bad the Anti-Choicers don't care about "life" once it's born.

 

You don't win the electoral college without women. Thanks for clearly illustrating that abortion is not a women's rights issue. Many women oppose abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

So why not kill the born ones without homes? Same thing as aborting future ones.

 

Has anyone said that there aren't women who oppose abortion? There are women who oppose the Equal Rights Amendment as well. There are gays and blacks who vote republican. The Political spectrum is hardly as homogeneous across demographic break downs as the polarizing elements would want people to believe.

 

(Bolding above mine)
You are PROPOSING TO KILL CHILDREN !!!! Really??!! I knew Anti-Choicers hate "life" the second it's born but that's extreme even for them....

 

Hillary's view on abortion didn't cost her the election. It was the intolerance of some pro-choicer feminists who say you can't be a feminist if you are pro-life, coupled with the rabid Clinton supporters smearing Sanders, Stein and Trump supporters during the campaign, Not all Clinton supporters are like that but there were enough of them to turn off voters in battleground states.

 

I won't debate why Clinton lost.....BUT one cannot be a feminist if one wants to take away women's right to their own bodies , that would be an oxymoron.

You can't want equality ( feminism) if you want one sex more equal than the other...

 

No that would be you and the other abortion promoters. Now stop being childish and stick to the topic at hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Flawed logic, the child in utero is his/her own body, not the host woman's.

- - - Updated - - -

So abortion homicide is justifiable on a financial basis? So anyone who has a dependent and thinks he/she cannot afford that dependent human being should be able to kill him/her at will? Interesting theory.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would have to agree, consequently, that abortion is clearly NOT a woman's rights issue.

 

So if the fetus is ""his/her own body"" then it should be able to be taken out of the woman, set on a shelf to grow "it's own body".

 

It is an issue important to many in that movement but not exclusive to that movement.

 

The early feminists who fought for the rights modern feminists take for granted were against abortion.

 

Some were, some weren't. Just because some were against abortion doesn't mean there should be a law against abortion.

 

That's nice.

 

Nice try, but avoiding the question doesn't make it go away. You can prevent death by offering an alternative. Right now, there is a young lady considering abortion and telling her that her baby could be handed over and live as a ward of the state may not be enough to persuade her. How about you step up and offer her an alternative? Is it that you care about life up until the point when you have to take on some responsibility yourself? How is that different than not caring at all?

 

How bout you explain how you claim to know what everyone who posts here is doing or isn't doing to take care of born children. But more importantly, the notion that slaughtering her baby is more appealing than her baby living but under someone else roof is appalling!

Whether you realize it or not, you are stating that financial reasons justify homicide.

 

No "baby " is "slaughtered" in abortion....drama doesn't cut it, only facts.

 

Come back when you understand that a child in utero is brutally killed in the process of committing an abortion. Not drama when it is the truth. Please educate yourself.
Required reading :
https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

Federal law that protects children in utero at any stage of development, you know those people you claim do not exist.

 

LMAO @ 'slaughtering her baby'. You antichoicers are so funny!

BTW, abortion is not homicide.

 

I really think abortion was practically a non issue when compared to other factors people were looking at...immigration, economics, supreme judge selection, trust....

 

HOW many times do you have to be told that the UVVA has nothing to do with abortion, there is even a clause in it that says so and IF you actually knew what the Act was about you would KNOW that ...,.but you don't. ...so quit trying to use it to prove something....



No "baby " is "slaughtered" in abortion....drama doesn't cut it, only facts.......a fetus is killed in abortion, it isn't a child and it isn't slaughtered.

 

I don't claim to know anything. I asked and you told me that you are unwilling to care for these precious humans you tried to convince us you care so much about. I simply pointed out that your level of caring is too low to be any better than not caring at all.

The emotional and physical commitment involved with raising children is why people have abortions or refuse to adopt. (Notice how I lump both groups together?) It has nothing to do with a roof. <Mod Edit> I never stated that finances have any connection whatsoever. In fact, many who adopt or foster children receive financial assistance from the state.

<Rule 3> you are failing to realize that a pregnant lady can abort or give birth regardless of what you think or what the law says. She may have to take a little trip, or take some pills, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it against her will. NOTHING!

<Mod Edit>

 

You don't seem to understand logic. A child cannot be identified as a child in one federal law, yet be considered less than a human being in another logically.
Do you let the govt think for you? Dangerous habit. I know exactly what the act is about. It is about protecting children in utero at any stage of development, just as it says when you read it, but alas, you haven't read it have you!

- - - Updated - - -

So financial reasons justify homicide in your opinion. I disagree.
If it justifies the homicide of a child in utero, why (logically) doesn't it extend to homicides of others who may have already been born?

And once again, how do you claim to know whether or not I have adopted children? Please answer, I am intrigued.
Quit barking and howling at the moon, and answer some questions with logically sound answers.

 

And you refuse to use the law YOU keep referring to and look up the clause that says it doesn't refer to abortion.
The UVVA law references the consent of the woman, without consent it's against the law to harm her fetus......(which you keep confusing with a "child").


Can you show me the law that says abortion is homicide?

 

You still seem to misunderstand logic. The only reason the law needs an exception for abortion is because abortion is the brutal violent homicide of a child in utero. Why else would there, logically, be any need for a stated exception is a law that is designed to penalize violent homicides of children in utero?

 

No reasonable person could extract that from what I posted. I said that the emotional and physical commitment was the main reason; not finances.

I asked how many you adopted and you evaded the question. I will be happy to answer your questions. Why are you afraid to answer mine? How many have you adopted?

 

Because it's causing additional damage to the woman......the person you don't care about. It's taking away her choice,so the assailant has a lot in common with Anti-Choicers.