What white liberals really want: legalize mothers’ freedom to euthanize their children at any time

Loading

Katie Hobbs is the democrat candidate for Governor of Arizona. She says she wants no limits on when women can have an abortion, right up to birth.

The Democrat running for governor in Arizona next month said that she doesn’t support any limitations on abortion after Republicans proposed a nationwide ban after 15 weeks.

Arizona is one of the 13 with trigger laws, which effectively banned abortion in June when the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade.

An 1864 Arizona law is behind upheld and went into effect on September 24 that bans all abortions except for in the case where the mother’s health and life is put at risk by carrying the pregnancy to term.

But why stop there? Why not give democrats what they really want- the freedom for mothers to euthanize children whenever they choose. An internet search for “mother kills her children” yields 686,000,000 hits. This is obviously a popular thing with liberals. In April of this year Odette Lysse Joassaint was charged with the murder of her two children. She called 911 and said “Come get them, I don’t want them anymore”.

In May of this year in Los Angeles, Angela Flores was charged with killing three of her seven children. Clearly, these are not isolated events. This phenomenon, like most cultural aberrations, is largely the domain of white liberals, especially white liberal women- the same women who cannot even define “woman.”

democrats routinely lie about what the limits Republicans seek on abortion. They lie about what Americans think as well. A Harvard-CAPS poll found that 72% of Americans oppose abortion after 15 weeks.

democrats are always bitching about a loss of democracy. The Supreme Court democratized abortion, giving each state the power to decide what to do with abortion, which is how it should have been in the first place. That’s democracy.

I am no absolutist when it comes to abortion. I do favor exemptions for rape and incest, which is in most, if not all GOP proposals. Additionally, I think abortion should be drawn to a stop at the point of brain activity with exceptions for fetuses so impaired that they could not be expected to survive after birth.

Late term abortion is abhorrent. There is simply no difference between a baby one day before birth and the day of birth. The child is no less viable and terminating its life at that point is murder. Viability outside the womb is being pushed back all the time by medical progress.

I’ve had women argue that the unborn are not alive. As a doctor I find that utterly ignorant. There are five principles which ae generally accepted as defining life:

  1. Need for energy
  2. Organization in membrane-bound cells
  3. Genetic information
  4. Ability to replicate
  5. Change over time – growth and response to stimuli

A fetus is alive. So is an embryo. That is the science. What they feel about it is irrelevant. If a fetus is NOT alive, then there is no reason to offer pre-natal care of any kind. Arguing that a baby is not a living being inside the uterus one day and is alive the next day outside the uterus is just stupid. It’s a psychological crutch meant to assuage guilt.

If you are against capital punishment but are pro-abortion you are insane.

Abortion has nothing to do with women’s health.

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Ever notice that if a woman wants a child, the life in-utero is called a baby? If it is not desired, it is called a fetus.

Abortion should not be used as birth control. Use all the contraceptives you wish. Use a morning after pill. That’s all good as far as I am concerned.

Anyone supporting abortion up to the day of birth is in my opinion not well mentally, and that includes Katie Hobbs. Any doctor terminating babies at birth are, IMO, psychopaths, no different from Dahmer or Gacey. If you can euthanize a baby on the day of its birth, there is no valid reason you should not be free to euthanize a baby the day after, the week after or the year after. That would be the ultimate in freeing women from what many liberals consider to be bondage. Planned Parenthood loves abortion as a revenue stream. It could make a lot more money opening euthanizing centers for children. That’s not really any different from what they do now.

We’re watching society be degraded day by day. Liberals are pushing to normalize mental illness and pedophilia now. Soon it will be bestiality and necrophilia. Some might find that extreme, but how extreme is it to force children to be exposed to male genitalia in drag queen shows, be subject to transgender grooming or have them to learn 57 genders in lieu of a STEM education?

Want to see something darkly amusing? Here

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Euthanize their newborns then attend the Save the Polar Bear rally Just typical liberal hypocrisy

Katie Hobbs, a terrible person unfit for any political office

BREAKING: PHOTOS Show Democrat Katie Hobbs Embracing Slavery In High School, Where Students Led Shackled Students by Collar and Chain

I’m all for it. The women who actually want to do this should be sterilized. We don’t want these women breeding.

When you make an exception for rape and incest, every unwanted pregnancy will become a result of rape or incest. There are ways to make sure that a woman does not become pregnant when she is raped. The problem is the process. A report has to be made, then medical authorities can make sure that the victim doesn’t become pregnant. The part about making a report is repugnant to liberals.

Like the person who after attending their Save the Polar Bears protest then attends their Planed Parenthood meeting

The Democrat running for governor in Arizona next month said that she doesn’t support any limitations on abortion after Republicans proposed a nationwide ban after 15 weeks.

This was the brilliance of Graham’s proposal; it flushed out the Democrats’ real goal: abortion up to the moment of birth, for any reason, and even beyond. No reasonable limits or restrictions, just death to whatever hinders their lifestyle.

democrats routinely lie about what the limits Republicans seek on abortion.

Democrats always call limitation a “ban”. NO WHERE is abortion banned, only reasonably regulated. Even Roe called for restrictions, but while Democrats worship Roe v Wade, they ignore that reality. Abortion has gone from a rare necessity for some women who simply are not ready, for whatever reason, for a child to a cult they worship and crave. They brag about having abortions now.

I always try to draw out abortion advocates to see if they will admit there is some time before the moment of birth that life actually begins in the womb; they never have the guts to admit this undeniable fact. Apparently, life begins when you get your Social Security number. No doubt, if a child ever were to express a support for America and American values, they would be post-partum aborted, if possible.

One can’t fail to notice how Comrade Greggie is quick to jump on a story expressing why abortion should be the answer to all questions about inconvenient pregnancies. Remember the sensational story about the 10 year old that was impregnated and had to go to another state for an abortion after she was 16 weeks along? Well, paraphrasing what Paul Harvey used to say…where’s the rest of that story?

Seems the girl was not the only one pregnant by the rapist; her mother was also. And the rapist was not only living with the mother, the daughter but other children as well. And, just to make it even more of a story that the left didn’t want to finish reporting, he’s an illegal alien.

Although it was reported the illegal alien was in jail, what about the other children? Were they allowed to stay with their mother although they had been living with a rapist? Was the mother also illegal? Where the other children, or even the 10 year old girl, being trafficed by the rapist? By the mother? Comrade Greggie is totally silent on this case now that it no longer serves as an example of why he supports the death cult.

It cant be just a lifeless clump of cells supposedly the fetus knows its transgender.
Imagine the mental anguish of the unborn child during a misgender reveal party.

Brody: Transgender identity may form in the womb

Last edited 1 year ago by kitt

The way progressives talk, you’d think they’d celebrate IF a black man paid for his girlfriend’s abortion!
Instead, just because he’s not a “progressive,” they try to demonize him for even the allegation of it.

The Democrats Free Abortions’ but have Codling moth listed aner the ESA

Good Grief, Arizona Democrat Candidate Katie Hobbs is so Bad During Interview, CNN Did Not Provide Replay Video
This is the first time I have watched Ms. Hobbs during a broadcast election interview, and it does not come as a surprise to see CNN not upload the outcome onto their YouTube channel for additional attention and replay. Hobbs is a complete ideological idiot, and I don’t say that lightly. How this woman is even being considered to become a governor is beyond my comprehension.  Seriously, WATCH:

Miss teen America 2022

To provide proper context, here is Kari Lake. After this it is obvious why miss teen America 2022 does not want to debate Kari Lake.

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon

12/07/23 – Texas AG threatens to prosecute doctors in emergency abortion

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday threatened to prosecute any doctors involved in providing an emergency abortion to a woman, hours after she won a court order allowing her to obtain one for medical necessity.

Paxton said in a letter that the order by District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin did not shield doctors from prosecution under all of Texas’s abortion laws, and that the woman, Kate Cox, had not shown she qualified for the medical exception to the state’s abortion ban.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday threatened to prosecute any doctors involved in providing an emergency abortion to a woman, hours after she won a court order allowing her to obtain one for medical necessity.

Paxton said in a letter that the order by District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin did not shield doctors from prosecution under all of Texas’s abortion laws, and that the woman, Kate Cox, had not shown she qualified for the medical exception to the state’s abortion ban.

Cox, 31, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking a temporary restraining order preventing Texas from enforcing its near-total ban on abortion in her case, saying her continued pregnancy threatened her health and future fertility. Guerra Gamble said she was granting the order at a hearing Thursday morning.

Cox’s lawyers have said her lawsuit is the first such case since the U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed states to ban abortion.

Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, said in her lawsuit that she would need to undergo her third Caesarian section if she continues the pregnancy. That could jeopardize her ability to have more children, which she said she and her husband wanted.

“The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” said Guerra Gamble in Austin, Texas, state court, at Thursday’s hearing.

The judge’s ruling applies only to Cox, and does not expand abortion access more broadly.

Cox’s lawyer, Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told reporters on a call after the hearing that Guerra Gamble’s order allowed Cox to obtain the abortion. She declined to provide any details about Cox’s immediate plans, citing concerns for her and her doctors’ safety.

“I want to emphasize how unforgivable it is that Kate had to beg for healthcare in court,” Duane said. “No one should have to do this and the reality is 99 percent of people cannot.”

The state’s abortion ban includes only a narrow exception to save the mother’s life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Cox said in her lawsuit that, although her doctors believed abortion was medically necessary for her, they were unwilling to perform one without a court order in the face of potential penalties including life in prison and loss of their licenses.

Johnathan Stone, a lawyer for the state, had said at Thursday’s hearing that Cox had not shown she qualified for the exception. He said showing that would require a more through hearing on evidence, rather than a temporary restraining order.

Cox’s husband, Justin Cox, and Dr. Karsan are also plaintiffs in the case.

Karsan is also one of 22 plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit seeking a broader order protecting Texas women’s right to abortions their doctors deem medically necessary, in which the state’s highest court heard arguments last week. The court has not ruled in that case.

A State Attorney General, opposing the ruling of a court of his own state…

Paxton is the impeached Attorney General that Texas republican legislators declined to remove from office, despite the fact that he has been under indictment for over 8 years. He’s charged with two counts of securities fraud, a first-degree felony with a punishment of up to 99 years in prison. His impeachment trial involved obstruction of justice, bribery, and abuse of office.

A professional misconduct lawsuit has also been filed against him by the State Bar of Texas—an agency of the judiciary under the administrative control of the Texas Supreme Court—owing to his efforts to overturn Texas election results in favor of Donald Trump.

Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, said in her lawsuit that she would need to undergo her third Caesarian section if she continues the pregnancy. That could jeopardize her ability to have more children, which she said she and her husband wanted.

That’s not a medical emergency. Neither her or her baby’s life is in jeopardy, this is merely her wish.

Not only that, but a good doctor doesn’t repair the uterus in a sloppy fashion that leaves scarring that MIGHT lead to infertility.
It’s a weird case, for sure.
The want children REAL bad so they are aborting this baby???
The woman can always move out of Texas to get her abortion.
At 20 weeks she can travel easily.

I’ll say its weird it would be her 3rd C section seems the only way for her to deliver. We want more just not this one?

I sense a rejection of the sex of the baby. Kill it, try again.

This says more about than it does about the woman in the story.

…Cox’s baby was diagnosed with trisomy 18 and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb, according to the suit…

12/07/23 – A Texas judge ruled a pregnant woman who sued the state seeking an abortion can legally terminate her pregnancy

…Cox, 31, has been to three different emergency rooms in the last month due to severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks, according to her suit. She has had two prior cesarean surgeries – C-sections – and, the suit said, “continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”…

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

A Texas court reviewed the facts and ruled that a medical exception to the Texas abortion ban applied. Enter “Doctor” Ken Paxton, who threatened doctors and patient with criminal prosecution anyway.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

If that’s true, why did you provide a story that said the mother claimed the birth would interfere with future childbirth? Maybe you should get all your lies straight.

Maybe you should let the judge decide in accordance with the law, based on the medical information provided by her doctor.

Repeated C-sections decrease future fertility and increase the likelihood of uterine rupture. Uterine rupture leads to serious fetal brain damage or death from hypoxia.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

But she has on in the belly now, so what is the rationale for killing this one so she can have others? That is such liberal-logic.

Greg already answered that:

Cox’s baby was diagnosed with trisomy 18 and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb, according to the suit

The child has a genetic defect, it does not complicate the pregnancy, her health issues most likely would happen with a normal child as well.

12/09/23 – Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks pregnant woman from emergency abortion

The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion in a ruling issued late Friday.

The court froze a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed Kate Cox, who sued the state seeking a court-ordered abortion, to obtain the procedure. “Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court’s December 7, 2023 order,” the order states.

The court noted the case would remain pending before them but did not include any timeline on when a full ruling might be issued. Cox is 20 weeks pregnant. Her unborn baby was diagnosed with a fatal genetic condition and she says complications in her pregnancy are putting her health at risk.

Following the ruling, Cox’s attorney said they remain hopeful the state’s request is quickly rejected. “We are talking about urgent medical care. Kate is already 20 weeks pregnant,” said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law.”

The ruling came just hours after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the high court to intervene in the case.

Paxton’s petition stemmed from a ruling on Thursday by a Texas judge who granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against the state’s abortion ban, so Cox could legally terminate her pregnancy.

The decision marked a significant development in the ongoing debate over the state’s medical exception to its controversial ban on abortions after six weeks – one of the strictest in the nation.

In the petition filings with the state Supreme Court, Paxton – who has threatened prosecution against anyone who helps facilitate the abortion – asked for an emergency stay of the district court judge’s ruling.

In a letter to three hospitals in Houston where, according to the Texas Medical Board, Cox’s physician has privileges, Paxton wrote Cox has failed to demonstrate she has a “life-threatening” medical condition related to her pregnancy or that her symptoms place her “at risk of death” or major bodily harm.

Apparently she has to die or come close to doing so to demonstrate to this chauvinistic troglodyte that she shouldn’t be forced to give birth to a child likely doomed to die of an incurable genetic disorder.

The state attorney general also warned the hospitals Thursday’s ruling “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability,” including first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation…

…Before the state’s Supreme Court weighed in, attorneys for Cox and the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights legal group representing Cox, said Paxton’s petition to block her procedure was “stunning” and showed a “disregard for Ms. Cox’s life, fertility, and the rule of law.”

“The State claims that it alone has the power to value Ms. Cox’s current nonviable pregnancy more highly than Ms. Cox’s own life and life of the future children she and her husband hope to have, regardless of Ms. Cox’s wishes for her family and the good faith advice of her medical team,” their response states.

The response goes on to say the plaintiffs agree the state Supreme Court should take urgent action, “specifically, to remind the Attorney General that he does not exist outside the systems of laws of which he is an officer, and that he must follow court orders just like the citizens he purports to serve.”…

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

What is the “emergency”? This is the late term abortion the left keeps saying never happens; a purely selective late term abortion.

Trump’s Mini-Me, Ken Paxton, has just given American women an excellent 2024 reminder of exactly what the GOP stands for.

12/09/23 – GOP Senate candidates soften their abortion stances amid a post-Roe losing streak

Republican candidates in states that will determine control of the U.S. Senate next year have quietly shifted their stances on abortion rights in an attempt to combat Democrats’ success running on the issue.

In key 2024 battleground states, some GOP Senate hopefuls have subtly begun to place more emphasis on situations in which abortion should be legal, while others have made clear they oppose a federal ban on the procedure.

The shift in focus comes as Democrats have continued to win elections across the country by forcefully emphasizing their support for abortion rights in the 18 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Republican strategists have urged their candidates to oppose a national ban, while party leaders have simultaneously implored them to address the issue head-on.

Democrats say Republicans are trying to soften stances that may have been deeply unpopular with a majority of voters.

“On the record and on video, Republican Senate candidates have already staked out dangerous positions that would make abortion illegal without exceptions — and we’ll make sure voters see and hear them in their own words.” said Nora Keefe, a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party’s Senate campaign arm.

These are the declared Republican candidates in five battleground Senate states who have notably shifted how they publicly discuss the issue in recent months:

Arizona: Kari Lake;

Pennsylvania: Dave McCormick;

Nevada: Sam Brown;

Ohio: Bernie Moreno, Frank LaRose, and Matt Dolan;

Michigan: Mike Rogers, Peter Meijer, and James Craig

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

While in fact, abortion is not banned anywhere.

Abortion isn’t banned. You just can’t get one unless the local Nazis and Texas Taliban leaders approve.

Ah. I point out that Democrats must lie about abortion to draw their support and along you come to make my point.

Of course, like the rest of the abortion debate, you will have to lie relentlessly and ceaselessly to exploit it politically, won’t you? Just as you are doing here.

The GOP is going to be hammered with the truth in 2024. You can count on it.

And, of course, you’ll have to base your position on lies, as you have been.

Women will remember: 05/03/23 – Because of Florida abortion laws, she carried her baby to term knowing he would die

A Florida woman, unable to get an abortion in her state, carried to term a baby who had no kidneys.

Deborah Dorbert’s son Milo died in her arms on March 3, shortly after he was born, just as her doctors had predicted he would.

“He gasped for air a couple of times when I held him,” said Dorbert, 33. “I watched my child take his first breath, and I held him as he took his last one.”

She said her pregnancy was proceeding normally until November, when, at 24 weeks, an ultrasound showed that the fetus did not have kidneys and that she had hardly any amniotic fluid. Not only was the baby sure to die, her doctors told her, but the pregnancy put her at especially high risk of preeclampsia, a potentially deadly complication.

Her doctors told her it was too late to terminate the pregnancy in Florida, which bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The only options were to go out of state to get an abortion or to carry the baby to full term, and Dorbert and her husband didn’t have the money to travel.

What followed was an agonizing 13 weeks of carrying a baby she knew would die and worrying about her own health. It left Dorbert with severe anxiety and depression for the first time in her life.

Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing, but doctors in Florida and states with similar laws have been hesitant to terminate such pregnancies for fear someone will question whether the abnormality was truly fatal. The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees.

CNN reached out to Florida state Reps. Erin Grall and Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who co-sponsored the state’s 15-week ban, for comment on Dorbert’s situation.

Grall did not respond. Persons-Mulicka sent a statement.

“The intent of the law is quite clear. We are providing mothers with the resources they need to raise healthy children, empowering doctors to help their patients make informed decisions, and shifting the conversation to valuing life,” she wrote.

Obviously they don’t give a flying f*ck about the suffering of a newborn doomed to die, or about the suffering of the mother who had to watch as it did.

Last month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law an even more restrictive measure that would ban most abortions in the state after six weeks, with an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. The law won’t go into effect until the state Supreme Court overturns its precedent on abortion or tosses out a case challenging state abortion restrictions…

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

Blame your leftist insistence on abortion up to the moment of birth.

The government has no business forcing women to continue pregnancies that they wish to terminate.

The government has no business forcing women to continue pregnancies that they wish to terminate.

If that is how you really feel, that women have the right to terminate the life of a child they don’t want, then certainly you would agree that the government has no business forcing men to financial support a child that they don’t want. The illustrious First Son would certainly agree with that premise. So tell us, do you agree men should not have to pay child support on a child they don’t want?

Your problem is that you have no children so you have never known what it is like to have a child, or to suffer the loss of a child. And so you shout your hurrahs to any story where the life of an unborn child is terminated while being a coward who has refused, many times, to state what form of abortion (procedure) you find acceptable. Crushed skulls? Dismemberment? What is your cup of tea.

Now, let’s look at Ms. Cox’s case, shall we? You say she wants to destroy the life of her child because a) the child possibly has Trisomy 18, a genetic defect that she should have been aware that either her, or the baby daddy, possessed or b) because she is experiencing severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks. I guess she has the worst OBGYN on record who cannot determine the cause of cramping during pregnancy or do a lab test to find out what the “fluid leaks” are. Believe me, Texas is loaded with first class labs to determine that problem. And yes, the genetic issues with the child are problematic, but not necessary terminal, according to the Cleveland Clinic, one of the best medical facilities in the nation.

I see you forgot to mention that this case was started in March of this year by an organization who’s sole purpose the the termination of unborn life, not just in the U.S., but all across the world. Ms. Cox, you report is 20 weeks pregnant. That means she was impregnated in July, 4 months after this case began. You also failed to mention that Cox has had two previous C-section births and either she, or her doctor, is an idiot to not know that #3 increases her chances of problems. If she wants more children, considering #1 and #2 were both C-section births, it is almost 110% likely she would deliver #4 by the same process.

Bottom line, this woman is a evil person. She is seeking to terminate the life of her own child because it causes her a problem and it doesn’t meet the standards she sets. G-d forbid one of her two living children develop a problem. What will she do? Shoot it and claim it was a mercy killing?

And you, Comrade Greggie? You are fully indoctrinated into the Party of taxes, victimization and death. You, and the Democrats, offer nothing positive. Haven’t since the Civil War.

You’re a disgusting piece of human excrement.

12/11/23 – Texas woman fighting for legal abortion flees the state

After a week of legal whiplash, the woman at the center of a legal fight over whether she can receive an emergency abortion in Texas has fled the state. 

A Texas district court last Thursday granted Kate Cox permission to get an abortion despite Texas’s strict ban, the first time a pregnant woman sought a court order for the procedure since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. 

But within hours, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) asked the state Supreme Court to block the order immediately. The court did so late Friday night and has yet to issue a final ruling. 

Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been representing Cox, said she couldn’t wait. Cox has been to the emergency room four times during her pregnancy. 

“Kate’s case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don’t work,” Northup said. “She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence.”   

Cox is a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area. She sought an abortion after learning her fetus had been diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that leads to miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant within hours, days or weeks after birth. Carrying the pregnancy to term would likely jeopardize her future fertility, and she and her husband said they wanted more children.

Following Thursday’s ruling from District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, Paxton issued a direct threat to hospitals and physicians, saying the court’s order would not protect them from prosecution if they performed an abortion on Cox.

In Texas, a doctor who performs an abortion could be sentenced to life in prison…

04/06/23 – Idaho becomes one of the most extreme anti-abortion states with law restricting travel for abortions – A bill that prohibits people in Idaho from helping pregnant minors leave the state to obtain abortions became law on Wednesday.

In 2022, Republicans blocked a Senate billFreedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2022, which had been introduced by Democrats to guarantee freedom to interstate travel for abortion. 

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

You really don’t like to answer questions about your stances, do you?

The government has no business forcing women to continue pregnancies that they wish to terminate.

If that is how you really feel, that women have the right to terminate the life of a child they don’t want, then certainly you would agree that the government has no business forcing men to financial support a child that they don’t want. So tell us, do you agree men should not have to pay child support on a child they don’t want?

Of course, being the coward you are, you ignore the question because a) you don’t agree and that would go against your belief that government has no business telling women what to do or b) you do agree and that goes against your left wing beliefs.

In Texas, a doctor who murders anyone could be sentenced to life in prison…

fixed it

You are truly a disgusting, evil person. You support the violent death of unborn children. Not support for the mother, not furnishing the things required to raise a child, especially under bad circumstances, not the value of life, even the life of degenerates like Hunter Biden and his enabler father. You get your rocks off just thinking about torturing an unborn baby until it is dead.

Why you are even allowed to remain on this site is beyond my comprehension.

Of course men should have to pay support for the children that they father. A woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy has no bearing at all on a man’s responsibility to support an existing child that he has fathered.

You seem to have a problem grasping the difference between the unrealized possibility of a person and one that already exists. The difference really isn’t that subtle. These are two entirely different things.

You only come here vent and hate. It’s all you ever do.

If that is how you really feel, that women have the right to terminate the life of a child they don’t want, then certainly you would agree that the government has no business forcing men to financial support a child that they don’t want. So tell us, do you agree men should not have to pay child support on a child they don’t want?

Unless leftists can agree to common sense and reasonable restrictions on abortion, it should simply be banned altogether.

The fact that Democrats support such heinous acts such as the (very bloody) destruction of a human body in utero says why Democrats should never been in control.

I guess you are a fan of Kermit Gosnell.

Last edited 2 months ago by retire05

The restrictions that republican-majority state legislatures have forced on women since Roe v. Wade was struck down have not been “common sense and reasonable”. They’ve been increasingly oppressive and inflexible.

The GOP is going to pay in 2024, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own that they’re too stupid to figure that out.

Its seems to be all the Democrats have to offer, beheading babies in the womb. If sitting in judgement, I’ll take the saving the baby side, maybe it will stop kidnapping for foreign adoptions rackets. Where are the 85,000 missing children from Bidens human trafficking open border?

12/11/23 – Texas Supreme Court rules against woman at center of abortion battle

Kate Cox, a Dallas-area woman who petitioned a judge to get an abortion in Texas, has left the state for abortion care after a week of legal whiplash.

The Texas Supreme Court late Friday night temporarily blocked a lower-court ruling that would have allowed Cox to get an abortion under the state’s near-total abortion ban, and later on Monday night, reversed the lower court’s decision

07/20/23 – Texas abortion hearing culminates with tension and emotions high

Four women delivered hours of emotional testimony in a Texas courtroom this week about the trauma they say the state’s abortion law has racked on their pregnant bodies, culminating Thursday with a mother who said she felt “abandoned” by her home state when she was prevented from ending a doomed pregnancy within its borders.

Turned away at the hospital, one said she developed sepsis and nearly died. Another described having to leave the state to protect her healthy twin when the other developed a fatal condition.

Samantha Casiano, who was forced by the law to give birth to a fetus without a full skull, testified that her baby “was going to die inside or outside of my womb.”

Through tears on Wednesday, she struggled to describe what she was told her baby would look like — lacking pieces of its brain and a fully formed head.

Then she threw up on the witness stand…

In November 2024, remember.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

You seem to have a problem grasping the difference between the unrealized possibility of a person and one that already exists. The difference really isn’t that subtle. These are two entirely different things.

Tell me how it is just to say that a woman who participates in consensual sex has the right to determine the future of the child created from that action? Since she would not be pregnant without the assistance of her male counterpart, why does she have the sole choice? What if the baby daddy wants her to abort the child and she refuses? Does she then have the right to make him pay for an action that was as much her mistake as his?

No. lf she chooses to keep the child that he wants aborted, the entire responsibility for that should be hers.

You only come here vent and hate. It’s all you ever do.

Since you have the IQ of a turnip, let me point out that you are the one who comes to this forum getting your rocks off talking about how killing a baby is a “choice” as if an unborn child is something off a McDonald’s menu. I’m sure that you gain much pleasure from the death of unborn children as Hitler did in the death of the Jews (which your side seems to be in agreement with in 2023).

Four women delivered hours of emotional testimony in a Texas courtroom this week about the trauma they say the state’s abortion law has racked on their pregnant bodies,

How many women who are against abortion testified?

And how about telling me how the Democrats want to offer women mental health counseling after they have an abortion. Or do you not know that many women suffer trauma from having an abortion? Or what your side of the aisle offer to women who want to keep their babies and not abort them but feel they have no other choice? Where are the left wing run pregnancy centers giving those women help? Some states require pregnancy centers to provide future mothers with abortion information. Why do they not require Planned Parenthood (slaughter houses) with information where pregnant women can get help to keep their babies?

I suggest you find the pictures of dead babies from the Kermit Gosnell case and then come back and tell me you had no problem with them.

Don’t accuse someone of being a hater when that is all you, and your party of taxes, victimhood and death have to offer.

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman. Consensual sex is not some sort of binding contract to see to it that a child results. The State sure has hell has no constitutional power to mandate that one come into existence, whether a woman wants to become a mother or not. Nor does any church have a right to cram their views that a person begins at the moment of conception down other people’s throats. Religious views on that point vary greatly.

In my view, a state forcing a woman to give birth to a child doomed to suffer and die, and at the peril of her own health or life, is immorality of a high degree.

My contempt for that is aggravated by the fact that the same self-righteous a-holes often deplore social spending to support mothers and improve the lives of impoverished children. 13 million children in America aren’t getting adequate nutrition, but the republican base has been more concerned about shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics and eliminating the Community Eligibility Provision from the School Lunch Program.

Tell me how it is just to say that a woman who participates in consensual sex has the right to determine the future of the child created from that action? 

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman.

So, you admit that when the baby could survive outside the woman’s body, abortion is murder?

Greggie is so worried about food security, but then this guy represents the US
comment image

You are wrong it is a child when it is being formed.
Many billions have been spent on the war on poverty, It is science that says a person begins at conception. The super rare case you have found is sad indeed, not a reflection of all cases.
Do you know who wants to cut funding to schools Greggie, its Joes puppets if a school doesnt push queer theory.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-rule-takes-lunch-money-from-schools-that-reject-progressive-gender-sexuality-agenda.

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

Greg, our resident Nazi says:

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman.

And what about adults who develop some form of physical disability during their life time that requires dependency on another human being for their care? According to Comrade Greggie, those people have no right to a life and their care giver should be able to terminate their lives.

Consensual sex is not some sort of binding contract to see to it that a child results.

But according to Comrade Greggie, consensual sex does not require any*responsibility on the part of the participants. Birth control methods are not only cheap, they are often free but hell, go ahead and f*ck your brains out and then you can murder the result.

The State sure has hell has no constitutional power to mandate that one come into existence, whether a woman wants to become a mother or not.

The State has the constitutional power to mandate rules on medical procedures and the facilities where those procedures are done.

Nor does any church have a right to cram their views that a person begins at the moment of conception down other people’s throats.

If we Christians don’t have a right to voice our opinions on what we consider murder, you on the left should shut the hell up on your opinion that all Jews should be murdered (from the river to the sea crap)

Last edited 2 months ago by retire05

According to Comrade Greggie, those people have no right to a life and their care giver should be able to terminate their lives.

That’s actually not what he said; that’s your bad-faith interpretation of what he said.

If we Christians don’t have a right to voice our opinions on what we consider murder

Are you unable to distinguish between “voicing your opinion” and “forcing people to live by your interpretation of your religion”?

“According to Comrade Greggie, those people have no right to a life and their care giver should be able to terminate their lives.”

That’s actually not what he said; that’s your bad-faith interpretation of what he said.

He said

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman.

Are you saying that the unborn child is NOT dependent on the woman who’s womb is it living in?

“If we Christians don’t have a right to voice our opinions on what we consider murder.”

Are you unable to distinguish between “voicing your opinion” and “forcing people to live by your interpretation of your religion”?

Apparently you are not. So please tell us who forced you to live by their religion? And what they did. Did they put a gun to your head or threaten to slit your throat?

You have the brains of a garden slug, groomer.

Last edited 2 months ago by retire05

kitt, we all know Comrade Greggie uses the most left wing news report to plead his cases. So let’s look at a new report that gives more information on this case than Comrade Greggie wants you to have:

In its ruling late Monday, the Texas Supreme Court – comprised of nine Republicans – called on the state’s medical board to provide more guidance on the “medical emergency” exception that’s at the heart of Cox’s case.

The high court also released an opinion, saying it should be up to doctors – not judges – to decide whether to provide an abortion. It said Cox’s doctor did not establish or attest that Cox’s symptoms were life-threatening.

“No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Any parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn (fatal condition) diagnosis. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses,” the opinion states.

And because she’s already delivered two children via C-section, her physicians have warned she is at high risk for complications, including possible uterine rupture in future pregnancies.

According to her attorneys, this pregnancy would need to be delivered via another C-section, which Cox fears could jeopardize her health and future fertility.

The filing from his office stated Cox inquired about getting an abortion only after learning her fetus might not survive the pregnancy or long afterward and already knew she might need another C-section before her current pregnancy.
“Plaintiffs plead no facts linking Ms. Cox’s physical condition related to the birth of this child to the loss of fertility. Instead, it appears she will face the same risks regarding the birth of any future child,” the filing states.

Paxton’s office also said none of the physicians who have treated Cox, who live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, have recommended an abortion.

Dr. Damla Karsan, a Houston-based physician (an abortionist), a plaintiff in the other case, is cited in legal filings as having reviewed Cox’s medical records, recommended the abortion, and agreed to provide the medical care. (please note, Dr. Karsan has not even seen the Cox but did review Cox’s records)

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Pregnant Woman Seeking Abortion Who Had to Flee the State for One (yahoo.com)

Isn’t it odd how the story can change when you have all the facts?

UPDATE: She left the state and murdered the child, her name will not be remembered, unlike lying Roe. Used for useless propaganda. The left says follow the science but biology is not a science anymore just based on feelings.

The Center for Reproductive Rights released the statement on X saying, “UPDATE: After a week of legal whiplash and threats of prosecution from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, our client Kate Cox has been forced to flee her home state of Texas to get the time-sensitive abortion care needed to protect her health and future fertility.”

Nice wording, Flee, wtf was chasing her?
Reproductive without reproducing.
She could have done this thing without turning her situation into a circus.

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

And what about adults who develop some form of physical disability during their life time that requires…

That isn’t what we’re discussing. I didn’t say it or imply it, nor do I believe it.

But according to Comrade Greggie…

I didn’t say or imply that either.

The State has the constitutional power…

No it doesn’t. That is nowhere in the Constitution.

If we Christians don’t have a right to voice our opinions…

You have a right to voice your opinions, but NO right to inflict them on others. Other Christians have entirely different understandings of when an insouled person comes into being. Jews have an understanding about the moral obligation of doctors to prioritize the life and well-being of a living mother over that of the unborn. Their views are every bit as valid as your own.

Regarding your assertion that I believe “all Jews should be murdered”—you couldn’t possibly be any farther from the truth, for reasons that I will never explain to a hate-filled religious bigot such as yourself. I will not turn something that matters to me into a target for you to squat and shit on.

If you’re actually a Christian, maybe you should try behaving and speaking like one. Lots of people only claim to be—just like they claim to be conservatives who support the Constitution, the rule of law, individual freedoms, and non-intrusive government.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

I think retire05 is a woman (correct me if I’m wrong). You aren’t. Therefore, her opinion overrides yours. You don’t have a right to have an opinion on this matter.

Aren’t those your rules?

The only topic greg has any inclination to comment upon is abortion. The issues of the day exclude greg because his devotion to the democrat satanic cult have neutered him.

Liar.

No it doesn’t. That is nowhere in the Constitution.
Why dont you read the Constitution before you spout screaming retard ?
The 10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That was the premise that overturned Roe and returned it to the States
Roe was always bad law.
Here get a copy
https://lp.hillsdale.edu/free-pocket-constitution/

You’re citing the 10th Amendment to justify imposing your own religious views about when a person begins on those whose religious beliefs differ, disregarding the 1st Amendment in the process. The 1st Amendment prohibits states from taking such action.

Some states—Texas, for example—have taken this to the point of effectively banning abortion from the point of conception. There’s NO rationale for doing other than a religious presumption.

They deny there’s a total ban because of certain loopholes they’ve allowed to remain, but zealots slam shut the door even on that when occasions such as the most recent arise.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

The 1st forbids the federal government sanctioning a religion, to avoid the Church of England repeat, you can freely practice any religion you want. Again your brain farts dont change the plain language of the highest law in the land.
Example: Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it is a States issue.
You have no idea what my religious beliefs are, holding that an innocent human life life shouldnt be snuffed can be a thought of an atheist.
BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING!
Fellow Trump Cultists the newest Trading cards and you get a holy relic, a piece of the suit he wore when mugs shots were taken. This is like getting a 1 inch square of Turf from Lambeau field

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

Airplanes are not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore air traffic control is a state issue?

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

How do lib splain its always amusing.

You’re citing the 10th Amendment to justify imposing your own religious views about when a person begins on those whose religious beliefs differ, disregarding the 1st Amendment in the process. 

Life, death and murder is not a religious view. You yourself said that we have LIFE when the baby can survive outside the womb, so your late term abortion on demand is MURDER. I don’t think there has ever been a society that didn’t condemn murder, but Democrats have made abortion a cult of human sacrifice. Barbaric.

“And what about adults who develop some form of physical disability during their life time that requires…”

That isn’t what we’re discussing. I didn’t say it or imply it, nor do I believe it.

So explain why killing an unborn human being is different from killing a born human being.

“But according to Comrade Greggie…”

I didn’t say or imply that either.

You didn’t say, or imply what? I was paraphrasing you, you know, like you do Donald Trump all the time?

“The State has the constitutional power…”

No it doesn’t. That is nowhere in the Constitution.

If you don’t believe that the States have the right to regulate commerce within the boundaries of their state, you aren’t as intelligent as a turnip.

“If we Christians don’t have a right to voice our opinions…”

You have a right to voice your opinions, but NO right to inflict them on others.

And I’m “inflicting my opinions on others how? The problem you have is science caught up with your death cult.

Regarding your assertion that I believe “all Jews should be murdered”—you couldn’t possibly be any farther from the truth, for reasons that I will never explain to a hate-filled religious bigot such as yourself. 

Well, for starters, I never said you (personally) believed that but then, I should have never expected you to know what the (collective) you is..

How laughable that you, of all people, would call someone else a bigot. Wanting to slaughter the unborn is bigotry, turnip.

But according to Comrade Greggie, consensual sex does not require any*responsibility on the part of the participants. Birth control methods are not only cheap, they are often free but hell, go ahead and f*ck your brains out and then you can murder the result.

Leftists aren’t big on personal responsibility. They believe it is a Constitutional right to have someone that compensates for every mistake they make.

Deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a woman’s personal responsibility.

Leftists aren’t big on personal responsibility. 

Splain this bit of history mr constitutional expert, what exactly does the 1st amendment prohibit
comment image

Then along came the founders.
comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by kitt

What’s to explain? The First Amendment was appended to the Constitution to forbid government from dictating religion. Church has no lawful authority to dictate anything. It’s a matter of individual conscience.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

What does that have to do with murder of a fetus?
What is the official religion of Texas? How is it imposed on anyone and what else does this imaginary religion impose?

You can only murder a person. The idea that an unborn fetus is already a person isn’t part of everyone’s religious beliefs. Some religious people specifically deny it, which means they prioritize duty to the mother over duty to the unborn. (I believe most people put the life and well-being of a mother first.) A Jewish doctor might see doing so as a religious duty.

Texas is endorsing a particular set of religious beliefs, and imposing them on everyone in the form of a law. For a state to do this is contrary to the First Amendment.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

Thats not the answer what is the name of this mystery religion?
Do women have to hide their hair, no meat on fridays? What other rules are imposed in this brainfart you imagine?

I suppose it’s a variety of debased Christian fundamentalism that has fallen under the influence of far right politics—the sort of false doctrine that Billy Graham warned America about:

“I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”

Ok so if they “sin” and I guess the only sin is abortion do they go to hell or just California or Chicago?

Sacrifice of babies to your Abortion god might be your religion but no one else has to respect it. Murder is not a religious principle.

Yes just like the Aztecs it will make the weather gooder.

Deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a woman’s personal responsibility.

Murder doesn’t fall within that authority, scooter. Her choices and actions have resulted in a human life being created. THAT’S her responsibility, not a responsibility to kill a human life.

That’s circular reasoning. You have to presume a fetus is a person in order to call abortion murder. Half the country doesn’t share that presumption. Many religious people reject it based on their own religious beliefs.

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman.

There you go. YOUR very words. That’s at about 20 weeks, give or take. Therefore, an abortion after that time, but for medical emergency, is MURDER. It has nothing to do with religion, MURDER is against the law.

There’s really no point arguing with you. We’re just going to have to vote enough of your representatives out in 2024 to restore women’s sovereign authority over their own bodies. The GOP’s bigotry and oppression has offended enough young voters to make that the most likely outcome.

Didnt work out to good for old foul mouthed abusive Ms Jackson no mayorship for her.
Oh no not the Furry vote..we are doomed.

When you say this:

There is no child until it can exist independent of the body of the pregnant woman.

You are admitting that valid life begins some time before actual birth. So, you are admitting that there is a time during the pregnancy that abortion is murder. Right, it is pointless to argue.

They are provided time go get an abortion.

12/14/23 – Dozens of Texas businesses back challenge to abortion ban: ‘This is why our economy is taking a hit’

The businesses argue that the Texas abortion ban is costing state businesses an estimated $15 Billion per year.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg

Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are children: 02/21/24 – Alabama’s Assault on IVF Is Even Worse Than It Sounds

…Friday’s ruling involves an Alabama law called the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, though its implications stretch far beyond this one statute. The act allows the parent of a deceased child to collect punitive damages against a party who causes “the death of a minor child” through negligence. Here, the plaintiffs—who already conceived several children through IVF—accused a fertility center of violating the act by failing to secure their unused embryos. They alleged that a patient accessed the embryos without authorization, dropping and “killing” them. The plaintiffs claimed that the fertility center is liable under the act because their embryos qualified as “children.”

By a 7–2 vote, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed. The majority declared that the “natural, ordinary, commonly understood meaning” of the word child includes embryos (which the opinion dubbed “extrauterine children”). Incredibly, the majority said this was true when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was passed in 1872. That’s because, according to the majority, state lawmakers of the 1870s believed that the “unborn” qualified as full legal “persons” no matter their “physical location”—that is, inside a “biological uterus” or a “cryogenic nursery.” …

Originalism gone wild—or totally nuts. But it gets even crazier. They bring their own religious interpretations into the mix. Apparently the establishment clause has now been thrown out entirely:

…In a concurrence, however, Chief Justice Tom Parker spelled out the implications. The people of Alabama, he declared, have adopted the “theologically based view” that “life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.” (If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t demolished the establishment clause, this opinion would surely violate it.) As a result, Parker continued, the courts have an affirmative duty to protect “the unborn,” including embryos. Any law that “risks the deaths of these little people” is constitutionally suspect. Courts may not engage in the business of “carving out an exception for the people in this case, small as they were.” This reasoning, on its own terms, applies to criminal laws with the exact same force as civil laws. And it means, Parker added, that even if the Alabama Legislature wanted to legalize IVF as it’s currently practiced, the state constitution would prohibit it from doing so.

Not to worry, Parker assured Alabamians: IVF can still go on. But courts, not legislators or medical professionals, must dictate how it is performed so they can ensure that it avoids “incurring the wrath of a holy God.” Parker, who has no medical degree, then laid out an alternative method of IVF that would, he alleged, comply with the Alabama Constitution (and God’s will, as interpreted by the chief justice)

Last edited 6 days ago by Greg

Those eggs could be a salvation many saved before MRNA made people infertile.

If they’ve been frozen for more than 18 years, can they legally vote?

Isn’t freezing these children child abuse? If I’d locked my kids in a freezer, I’d have gone to jail.

Probably voted in 2020.