Roe vs Wade P3

Reproduced via a forum:

I’m not pro-murdering babies.
I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.
I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.
I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I’m pro-life.
Their lives.
Women’s lives.
You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

148 thoughts on “Roe vs Wade P3

      1. A quick glance at your site suggests you are in favour of this abortion ban? Or are you merely in favouring of letting individual states determine what women can and cannot do with their bodies? I see you are in favour of the 2nd Amendment – with that in mind, and presuming your pro-life stance, what steps would you suggest be taken to protect children from gun violence?

        Like

      2. Favor the woman’s right to choose whether to keep her baby or not. In the context of States rights. If a woman lives in a state hostile to what she chooses to do with her baby … the woman has the right to move to a state that respects her opinion.

        Guns do not kill any more than to swords or axes. It takes a person to pull the trigger.

        Therefore the anarchy within our nation where citizens see no alliance with their fellow citizens. Where leaders like Nancy Pelosi think that illegal aliens have Constitutional Rights. Strongly favor aborting Nancy Pelosi and her idiot supporters — off with their heads. National leaders need to address what makes American allies as opposed to foreign enemies.

        Like

      3. OK, so you’re pro-choice. Beyond that, the rhetoric is troubling.

        You see, whilst *technically* you are correct in that someone needs to wield the weapon, a gun is a far more efficient killing weapon than a sword, axe, club, or anything else (short of explosives). This is demonstrated by murder rates. In the US, nearly 80% of all murders involve firearms. The US murder with guns *alone* is higher than the combined total murder rates of the UK, France and Japan. In the US, States set individual gun laws, and this inconsistent mess is part of the reason why gun violence in the US is shockingly high, when compared to other economically developed nations. So, whilst the old adage ‘people kill people’ might be true from a technical viewpoint, the grim reality is that guns make it far easier for people to kill people.

        Your final remarks are the most worrisome aspect of your comment. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are not in fact advocating for violence.

        Like

      4. Am pro the life of the woman takes priority over the life of the unborn baby. Box cutters statistically kill more people than any other weapon. So i don’t know what your statistics your reading but statistics lie.

        No more advocating violence than Congresswoman Waters!

        Like

      5. Guns are the predominant murder weapon of choice in the US, this is a fact. Gun violence in the US is much worse than in Europe. This is also a fact. If you can provide sources that demonstrate guns are not in fact responsible for 80% of US homicides, I’m all ears.

        Like

      6. It sounds more like you’re not interested in *facts*. Why do you suppose the US murder rate is several times higher than most European countries?

        Like

      7. The French twice invaded and occupied by Germans in one Century. Obviously French feel a lot less a connection to Germans than they do to French folk.

        Like

      8. I’m not discussing motive. I’m discussing method. There are means that make committing murder a lot easier, as borne out by the evidence.

        Like

      9. Bunk on method, that’s just the mechanics. A mechanic fixes a carburetor requires knowledge how to take it apart and put it back together again. To understand mass murder by US citizens on US citizens requires more than some silly reactionary non sense of ban guns stupidity.

        Like

      10. Ah, so you advocate for completely ignoring how easy of access to deadly weapons might affect ease of killing? The societal frictions that exist in the US exist in Europe as well. There is similar urban population density too. Yet the US has a gun problem, that accounts for over three-quarters of murders, and the US murder is greater than that of several European countries combined.

        It is woefully ignorant to believe that access to firearms isn’t a major part of the problem.

        Like

      11. You dream about killing children in mass? I do not. So a mass murderer Ted Bundy type requires examination b/c that due he’s different than us.

        Like

      12. Ted Bundy would have found it virtually impossible to get a gun in the UK. In the US, he could own multiple guns without anyone batting an eye.

        Like

      13. When I worked on a Kibbutz my 1st year in Israel. It was the world cup. The kibbutz had Jews from England and France. It took me all of 5 minutes to instigate a brawl between the limeys and the frogs.

        Like

      14. There are less guns in Switzerland, compulsory national service to help learn how to use them, and national laws. Completely different attitudes and gun culture.

        Like

      15. There are still different laws and regulations, as there are across Europe. Different European countries have different yet consistent laws, and they work. The US is a tangled mess of inconsistent laws, and has considerably more gun violence.

        Like

      16. Statistics are not facts. Introduce “statistics” into a court of law and see how fast the Judge throws that out of court together with the idiot who thinks that statistic prove or disprove a case.

        Like

      17. Ya keep preaching “facts”. While ignoring “statistics” aint fact but projected speculations. Fact is that Trump beat bitch clinton in 2016.

        Like

      18. It’s a fact. You may not like it, it might jar with your narrative in your head, but your cognitive disassociation from the facts is your problem to deal with.

        Like

      19. Bunk the 2nd Amendment permits private person to own a gun(s). Ya want to change the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I want to make the British courts to have the power to declare laws passed by Parliament unConstitutional like US Court do with laws past by Congress. HaHaHaHa silly reactionary – that aint going to happen.

        Like

      20. Bullshit again. Gun control does not automatically equate to a ban. There are plenty of guns in Germany, but they have robust, consistent laws, background checks and structures to prevent gun violence. You advocate for doing nothing, which is the go-to response of people who value guns more than life. I really hope that’s not how you think, but you arguing from exactly the same playbook.

        Like

      21. Gun control “banned” private ownership of machine guns. You give me one case where gun control did not “ban” something. HaHaHaHa your pie in the sky non sense.

        Like

      22. Yet, you would still have guns. There are varying forms of gun control, and if you would remove the beams from your eyes, develop a little courage, and do some research, you’d find plenty of evidence that it works. Instead, I have to assume you are afraid to.

        Like

      23. Your fear of evidence is deeply ironic. I thought you were all about facts? Tell you what, why don’t you dazzle me with your research, and use facts to demonstrate that guns aren’t really the problem? My challenge to you is to put together a coherent, structured post, complete with links, sources etc, that goes to show gun control isn’t necessary.

        Like

      24. The subject does not interest me in the least. Guns don’t kill … people kill. What makes a man into a mass murderer? That subject interests me.

        Like

      25. Your inability to understand a simple question is what’s stupid here. You were challenged to do one simple thing – prove your case. You do not appear willing or capable of doing so, and you have employed a typical scatter-gun tactic of multiple quickfire responses, in an attempt to be obtuse. You have a fear of evidence. You have a fear of understanding it and of providing it. I do not have time for your unwillingness to put together a coherent argument. Hence, this is my last response to you. If you can show at least some willingness to engage in a proper conversation, your comments will be let through. If the best you can say is ‘bunk’, whilst not offering a shred of evidence to support your claims, then you can do whatever you want on your own site, but you won’t eat up mine or anyone else’s time here.

        Like

      26. I thought I’d reply to this one, because this is Mosckerr, lying. I am asking them to prove *their* position, to provide evidence for *their* viewpoint, to produce a logical, coherent argument for *their* stance. From his comment, I’ll assume he is incapable of doing so.

        Like

      27. Explain to me my position which you want me to prove? Dont think we are on the same page. Something like Men are from Mars and Women from Venus. Your ad hominem argument just proves the weakness of your case.

        Like

      28. It’s not rocket science, and all your conflating and obscuring won’t change that. You are claiming that murderers will kill regardless of method. However, is it easier to kill with a gun, or without a gun?

        The answer is obvious, and the evidence for that answer is everywhere, yet you have played games and danced around and employed a scatty approach to avoid scrutinising the subject, presumably because you can’t. You’re not willing to face facts. You also seem to think this conversation is akin to a court of law – it isn’t.

        With all that in mind, prove that guns, and ease of access to guns, isn’t actually the source of the USA’s high gun homicide rate, or the source of the USA’s unique gun violence problem. After all, that’s what you’ve been arguing. You seem to believe we shouldn’t consider the method of murder, that it’s somehow irrelevant that lethal weapons are very easy to obtain.

        Since you won’t do any work to actually demonstrate that guns aren’t a factor in gun violence (some truly unique cognitive disassociation there), I’ll put forward *my* case. I’ll start with this:

        https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

        Before you whine about statistics, remember that they don’t exist in a vacuum. The numbers come from *somewhere*. It is a fact that the USA has more gun deaths per 100,000 people than any other economically developed nation – and more gun deaths than several under-developed nations as well.

        https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

        More grim reading, and more facts that you may want to run away from, but the truth doesn’t change, just because you don’t like it. Australia, the UK, Spain, Canada and Germany… you can add up all their gun homicides and it adds up to a rate four times lower than the US gun murder rate. But please, tell me again how guns aren’t a factor in gun violence, I’d be fascinated to know how you reach that conclusion, and what evidence you can present to back up that claim.

        After all, you were the one who said ‘Guns don’t kill … people kill.’ Perhaps that’s technically true, but guns clearly and obviously make it a lot easier to kill no?

        Like

      29. Don’t play dumb. Could the Vegas shooter have slaughtered so many people if he were armed with knives or his fists? Obviously not. The same applies to Buffalo and Uvalde. Once again you are operating in bad faith.

        Like

      30. Even when you do know? What does the Talmud say about honesty? ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, hates a person which says one thing with his mouth and another in his heart” (Pesahim 113b). It is pretty obvious that the Vegas shooter was able to kill as many as he did, because he was armed with ranged, semi-automatic weapons, that he had purchased easily. To achieve the same death toll with a knife or fists would be virtually impossible. Stop pretending that you do not understand this.

        Like

      31. A court only rules upon evidence presented before the court. But the defence attorney does not say to the prosecuting attorney … argue my case and I will argue your position. HaHaHaHa

        Like

      32. Doing a security check on a person, making them wait say 2 weeks before they purchase a weapon does not qualify as gun control. HaHaHaHa

        Like

      33. That silly arrogance compares to Britain attempting to dictate to Israel what and where its national Capital should be and what are its international borders. HaHaHaHa bloody arrogant Brits, give freedom to Scotland and Whales then come to Israel and declare that Jerusalem aint the Capital of the Jewish state!

        Like

      34. The French wrote UN 242. HaHaHa like France defeated Germany in WWII? France merits to sit as a permanent member of the UN Security Council? HaHaHaHa what a joke.

        Like

      35. Britain did a war crime when it unilaterally expelled all Jews from England in 1290. No court ever held any British criminal guilty for war crimes. That’s a fact.

        Like

      36. Oh I have, but it’s painfully clear you haven’t. Why not provide some evidence that guns make things safer, and that their absence makes things more dangerous? Google homicide rates in the US vs the UK.

        Like

      37. Statistics require a random sample. Bitch Clinton relied on the statistics which told her that she had the election hands down. hahahahaha

        Like

      38. In the Goldwater LBJ Presidential election the Republican Goldwater opposed the establishment of the department of Education. Therefore my opinions on that score hardly qualifies as “anarchist”. LOL

        Like

      39. If the horrid national debt and bankruptcy of future generations = anarchy. Then this anarchist despises and abhors the national abortion of our future born children.

        The only way to reduce the National debt, to severely restrict the size and scope of the National government

        Like

      40. States Rights Washington Bites. The huge national debt, it aborts untold future born generations buried under debt. Restore State Legislature control of Federal Senators. Break up the Corporate incest between their lobbies and the Federal bureaucracy revolving doors.

        Like

      41. Exactly, ya see you too qualify as an anarchist. Labels and putting ideas into convenient boxes suck.

        The corporate monopolies exist primarily upon the Federal level. Terminating the 17th Amendment would make US senators servants of the State Legislature which appoint those Senators. Anarchy the opposite of Order. That Order the founding fathers originated.

        Forcing corporate lobbies to address State Legislatures rather than Federal Congress persons this dilutes the power of these corporate monopolies by no less than 50 times! More because the Corporate monopolies do not directly operate in all 50 States.

        Closing the Federal bureaucracies and restoring regulatory powers back to the States of the Republic would dramatically reduce the size of the Federal Government – which employs more people than the tax strapped private industries and workers.

        Like

      42. Currently the Federal government – the largest employer in the United States. This means that the tax paying base … smaller than the tax receiving pyramid!!! An you folks call me an anarchist??? HaHaHaHaHa Floating the base of a pyramid in the air while standing that pyramid upon its head defines unstable. Duh.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.