PortaJohn

[Mike Islander]

I'm looking for clarification. Why is it ok to kill non-viable babies, but not adults who can't sustain themselves?

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

 

[Mwalex]

Past experience is simply living and thinking about this for over 60 years. I've been fully on both sides of this fence. My current opinion is one based on individual rights of bodily autonomy. This is a position I was argued into by good arguments that I could not refute. Many examples on YouTube.

I believe religious belief has no place in decision-making if it violates constitutional rights. That's my belief. A great example is Christian sects that refuse to give or receive blood transfusions for themselves or their children. If legally prohibited that would violate the rights of those who don't share that belief to bodily autonomy.

What do I do? I express my beliefs when asked. I think there is a huge difference in aborting a 3-day old zygote versus a viable fetus. I believe killing the a viable fetus is wrong. Removing it upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, but killing it violates the autonomy of the then child. Removing it before it is viable upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, at the expense of the fetus. Just as not requiring a parent to donate a kidney to a living, breathing child with friends and life experiences upholds bodily autonomy at the expense of a living, breathing human being. I believe the moral question is not a legal question, nor should it be. I believe the moral DECISION rests within the PERSON making the decision.

This is not a simple topic, though some will impose a simplistic solution.

Do you understand that the current crop of Democrats pushed for late term abortions? I am assuming that you are tying "viable" to the twelve week number you cited in an earlier post. There are many democrats that have pushed for abortions up to time of birth and states that have followed suit. While your position might be logical it is completely irrelevant in the current abortion landscape. I believe that if democrats would have stopped at 12 weeks this discussion would not have happened, yet here we are.

Body autonomy cannot be used as a shield against murder or lack of responsibility/accountability. Abortion cannot be an acceptable form of abortion when it is nothing more than murder due to lack of responsibility.

If you were "argued" into agreeing with this concept I would have to question the quality of your convictions before that.

 

[theLBC]

Biden Bombshell: President's brother told FBI family tried to help Chinese firm buy US energy assets

President's brother told agents Hunter Biden believed CEFC company was tied to China's president

justthenews.com

 

[Mwalex]

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

Because organ size in a factor in compatibility

 

[Mike Islander]

Your example isn’t relevant.
Donating a kidney is a false equivalent.
They weren’t forced to partake in sex, IE the leading cause of pregnancy.
If we must rely on the legal profession to instruct morality/proper life choices it would
explain the state we are in.
One can’t remove this argument from morality.
Those that would have tried and only the blind have been swayed.

R

What if they were forced to participate in sex? Then it's okay?

Parents of children who will die without their kidneys aren't forced to partake in sex. And there is no political issue in the mainstream discussion when those same parents don't donate a kidney to save a living, breathing child or even young adult, with friends and a life.

It's a legal issue. It's the application of the same LEGAL right to bodily autonomy respected for those who are not forced to give a kidney, applied to a pregnant woman to decide whether to stay pregnant or not.

As soon as you bring in a moral argument, we're no longer talking about the same thing. My argument is for the legal right of bodily autonomy. Violating this for a fetus or zygote is awarding special rights, not afforded living, breathing people, to a zygote or fetus. How do you justify special rights.

 

[rtB]

Sheesh. Quit arguing about abortion In the portajohn.

Go to Huffpo and bitch about "bodily autonomy" there. Fuck.

That is all.

 

[quietmike]

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

What about my bodily autonomy in that I'm being forced to support welfare deadbeats?
No different than spending 9 months letting a child grow until birth. I can guarantee I've spent WAY more than 9 months working to support freeloaders.

What about the bodily autonomy of the baby.
If getting pregnant was just something that happened at random times by unexplained events, your argument "might" be valid. But since everyone except ugly 3rd graders know where babies come from it's absurd and childish to think anyone should be able to partake of adult responsibilities then push the consequences onto someone else when it goes bad

 

[Mike Islander]

What about my bodily autonomy in that I'm being forced to support welfare deadbeats?
No different than spending 9 months letting a child grow until birth. I can guarantee I've spent WAY more than 9 months working to support freeloaders.

What about the bodily autonomy of the baby.
If getting pregnant was just something that happened at random times by unexplained events, your argument "might" be valid. But since everyone except ugly 3rd graders know where babies come from it's absurd and childish to think anyone should be able to partake of adult responsibilities then push the consequences onto someone else when it goes bad

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people?

I'm on the side of the fence that says "I don't have the right to force anyone to use their body to save a life, whether of a living, breathing person that has friends, a beautiful smile, a lovely voice, and a joyful continence or a zygote, or a fetus, viable or not. It's a right in my opinion, which means it's absolute.

The moral question is separate. I'm 100% for more counselling, information on consequences, better funding for programs that would encourage pregnant women to carry to term and get help raising their children, or with the adoption process.

 

[quietmike]

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people.

I'm pointing out your logical inconsistency.
Living breathing welfare bums force others to support them, so your "special rights" argument is bunk.

 

[Mwalex]

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people.

The how does your argument apply to those without a voice? Autonomy cannot be had without a voice.

 

[Mike Islander]

The how does your argument apply to those without a voice? Autonomy cannot be had without a voice.

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

 

[Mike Islander]

I'm pointing out your logical inconsistency.
Living breathing welfare bums force others to support them, so your "special rights" argument is bunk.

Now I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. No law requires any citizen to literally use their body for life support for welfare bums.

Taxes for welfare are not equivalent with cutting out a kidney. You can argue that you shouldn't have to pay for that, but that's a different argument, and there is no way I'm going to agree to be pulled off topic. I'm arguing for one thing and hope you can stick to that subject as well. Try again.

 

[Mwalex]

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

You did not answer my question. How does you argument apply to those without a voice?

 

[Mwalex]

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

Do most people know how the process to get pregnant works?

 

[quietmike]

Now I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. No law requires any citizen to literally use their body for life support for welfare bums.

Taxes for welfare are not equivalent with cutting out a kidney. You can argue that you shouldn't have to pay for that, but that's a different argument, and there is no way I'm going to agree to be pulled off topic. I'm arguing for one thing and hope you can stick to that subject as well. Try again.

My body has to show up to work to pay the taxes to support welfare bums. I strongly oppose supporting welfare bums, hence they're using my body against my will.

 

[Mike Islander]

You did not answer my question. How does you argument apply to those without a voice?

Voice or not is not a variable in the argument. Retarded, zygote, fetus, outgoing beauty queen, deaf mute microcephalic; none rate the right to use anyone's body without their consent. The individual with the body is the only party whose voice matters.

Unless...you are asking about harvesting organs from a person who is in a coma or some other "no voice" situation. Then you have to default to the person with the body has to consent, and if they have no voice, they cannot consent. That's my belief. The law can be a bit more unclear.

 

[quietmike]

What it really boils down to....

 

[Mike Islander]

What it really boils down to....

View attachment 8236816

That's the MORAL argument. I'm only addressing the legal argument.

Off the topic I am addressing, I'm totally in favor of working very hard on the moral side, training people to take responsibility for their actions, doing the right thing, being the best people we can be. But I'm not about to violate a basic right that is inherent in another person.

 

[quietmike]

That's the MORAL argument. I'm only addressing the legal argument.

It used to be legal to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one. It used to be legal to sterilize and/or lobotomize the mentally ill.
Hell, there's only been a 9 year period in the history of the democrat party they weren't claiming some segment of the population didn't really count as people, so it was legal to kill them.

 

[Lawless]

 

[Rthur]

What if they were forced to participate in sex? Then it's okay?

Parents of children who will die without their kidneys aren't forced to partake in sex. And there is no political issue in the mainstream discussion when those same parents don't donate a kidney to save a living, breathing child or even young adult, with friends and a life.

It's a legal issue. It's the application of the same LEGAL right to bodily autonomy respected for those who are not forced to give a kidney, applied to a pregnant woman to decide whether to stay pregnant or not.

As soon as you bring in a moral argument, we're no longer talking about the same thing. My argument is for the legal right of bodily autonomy. Violating this for a fetus or zygote is awarding special rights, not afforded living, breathing people, to a zygote or fetus. How do you justify special rights.

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.
I'll repeat myself: This argument can't be had without the moral implications of killing.
Those folks are born with a kidney.
How about the zygote of a bald eagle?
If one is to believe the BOR this individual, whether they pass through the magic pussy or not(thereby making them a baby to some) are INHEIRENTLY endowed with INALIENABLE rights.
Seems I've heard those two capitalized words somewhere before...

R

 

[Mwalex]

Voice or not is not a variable in the argument. Retarded, zygote, fetus, outgoing beauty queen, deaf mute microcephalic; none rate the right to use anyone's body without their consent. The individual with the body is the only party whose voice matters.

Unless...you are asking about harvesting organs from a person who is in a coma or some other "no voice" situation. Then you have to default to the person with the body has to consent, and if they have no voice, they cannot consent. That's my belief. The law can be a bit more unclear.

Voice is relevant regardless of your opinion. How else would the examples you provided be able to express their autonomy? People in comas have no voice hence no autonomy. Voice also means the cognitive ability to think and act as well as speak. In your example there is no difference between the deaf, mute microcephalic and a person in a coma because they have very similar brain activities.

By your own argument the microcephalic has body autonomy but why not a fetus, especially after 12 weeks of gestation? You cannot have it both ways and you have been incongruent with your argument - "I believe killing a viable fetus is wrong" while droning on about female bodily autonomy at all costs. You cannot have both.

 

[Mike Islander]

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.
I'll repeat myself: This argument can't be had without the moral implications of killing.
Those folks are born with a kidney.
How about the zygote of a bald eagle?
If one is to believe the BOR this individual, whether they pass through the magic pussy or not(thereby making them a baby to some) are INHEIRENTLY endowed with INALIENABLE rights.
Seems I've heard those two capitalized words somewhere before...

R

Death is one of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. Birth is another consequence. Abortion with death, and abortion resulting in a living baby are also both examples of terminating pregnancy. While there is a huge ick factor, I'm convinced that there is no rational argument to award a zygote, fetus, unborn child special rights that we do not award living, breathing babies, children, or adults. Bodily autonomy is an inalienable right that may, at times, result in the death of another person. As I said before, a viable fetus should not be intentionally killed during an abortion.

I know this is a tough argument to address without tremendous emotional baggage, but for me, when I look at the simple fact that we as a society fully understand that it would be WRONG to make someone donate a body part to save a life, it follows equally that someone who does not wish to continue being pregnant has that right, regardless of the outcome for the zygote, fetus, baby in the whom, whatever language you want to use. It's their body. The moral argument is powerful, but it has no play in this equation, only in the emotional space outside of the actual legal argument.

 

[quietmike]

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.


R

Nevermind in Coker v Georgia and Kennedy v Louisiana SCOTUS ruled executing those who actually commit rape or incest is a violation of the 8th. So if we can't kill those who commit those crimes, what since does it make to kill an innocent third party to the crime?

 

[Mike Islander]

Voice is relevant regardless of your opinion. How else would the examples you provided be able to express their autonomy? People in comas have no voice hence no autonomy. Voice also means the cognitive ability to think and act as well as speak. In your example there is no difference between the deaf, mute microcephalic and a person in a coma because they have very similar brain activities.

By your own argument the microcephalic has body autonomy but why not a fetus, especially after 12 weeks of gestation? You cannot have it both ways and you have been incongruent with your argument - "I believe killing a viable fetus is wrong" while droning on about female bodily autonomy at all costs. You cannot have both.

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

 

[theLBC]

kind of pisses me off that so many people feed the monsters more money because they can't control themselves.
assuming this is covered my insurance, it means i am paying more because some lazy fat fucks think this is how to be "healthy".

 

[theLBC]

every time

 

[theLBC]

 

[Mike Islander]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

 

[quietmike]

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

No emotional argument. Different DNA and blood type means it's not her body. During pregnancy mom's decidua produces special cytokines to biochemically hide the baby from mom's immune system lest it be attacked and killed as an invader.

 

[quietmike]

And now I'm done with abortion. I've said what I believe and tried to lay out at least the basis for the argument. 69% of Americans agree that there is at least some right to end unwanted pregnancy, so I'm not in the minority here.

I'm NOT the enemy of Christians. I am a Christian. I believe it's MORALLY wrong to kill a child during an abortion. But I also believe in legal rights, and not a theocracy. To presume that we know what is best for someone, or to force one's religious views on others is abhorrent to me. To pretend we know the mind of God is preposterous. I wouldn't want it done to me and won't do it to others. We exist with a very broad variety of people, and my view is that we establish the legal system respecting very specific rights. And bodily autonomy is one that I'm not willing to violate.

Lol Jesus was executed by the state for not following their laws.

 

[theLBC]

ya know, i want to laugh at this and say "about time", but instead i know that they will still get their welfare while more taxes are given to "testing" companies and "treatment" facilities that will do nothing to help addicts, but send kickbacks to the people that supported this sort of program.

San Francisco Mayor Calls for Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

San Francisco Mayor London Breed proposed a plan which would require welfare recipients to undergo drug testing and engage in treatment programs.

www.breitbart.com

 

[theLBC]

 

[theLBC]

 

[Oryx]

Death is one of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. Birth is another consequence. Abortion with death, and abortion resulting in a living baby are also both examples of terminating pregnancy. While there is a huge ick factor, I'm convinced that there is no rational argument to award a zygote, fetus, unborn child special rights that we do not award living, breathing babies, children, or adults. Bodily autonomy is an inalienable right that may, at times, result in the death of another person. As I said before, a viable fetus should not be intentionally killed during an abortion.

I know this is a tough argument to address without tremendous emotional baggage, but for me, when I look at the simple fact that we as a society fully understand that it would be WRONG to make someone donate a body part to save a life, it follows equally that someone who does not wish to continue being pregnant has that right, regardless of the outcome for the zygote, fetus, baby in the whom, whatever language you want to use. It's their body. The moral argument is powerful, but it has no play in this equation, only in the emotional space outside of the actual legal argument.

How is Birth a consequence of terminating a pregnancy?

Who/what provides the inalienable right of Bodily autonomy? ... Wouldn't that be a moral issue?

Isn't a fetus living? It's developed, but how far must it be developed for legal standing? Lot's of living and breathing humans that aren't developed ... .should they also be terminated?

Why would the topic of abortion be reduced to bodily autonomy only?

 

[lariat]

 

[Longshot231]

i don't know if this is legit

When they said that "justice is blind," that's not what they meant.

 

[Beefmanne]

How is Birth a consequence of terminating a pregnancy?

Who/what provides the inalienable right of Bodily autonomy? ... Wouldn't that be a moral issue?

Isn't a fetus living? It's developed, but how far must it be developed for legal standing? Lot's of living and breathing humans that aren't developed ... .should they also be terminated?

Why would the topic of abortion be reduced to bodily autonomy only?

Evil has to be rationalized.

 

[GrantB]

So if a fetus has no rights to use the mothers body , then it should be the same for a child. So according to that reasoning a mother or father could just abandon a child and leave it to die because as you stated they have no rights to my body or what I do or don’t do with my body.

 

[Mwalex]

Your aren't comprehending my argument at all. We could put this in a mathematical equation (which is how formal argument is best represented), and you will see that you are incorrect, or at least not addressing what I am actually arguing.

The baby has no right to the mother's body, just as the mother has no right to the child's body. What you have proposed, if extended to both parties, is that the mother could harvest the child's kidney to save her own life whether it would kill the child or not. We don't allow that either. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Emotion. The moral argument. Not what I am talking about at all.

I'm addressing the legal argument. Ending the pregnancy is the goal, not killing the fetus. It may kill the fetus, but that does not outweigh the rights of the mother. So if you can accomplish the goal without killing the fetus, that fulfills the fetus' right to life, without violating the mother's inherent bodily autonomy. And that, is the core of the bodily argument for the right to abortion.

I think most women should not get abortions. I think society would likely be better if no women got abortions. I also think society would be better if nobody cheated on their spouse or got shitfaced on a regular basis. Those are moral arguments. People can choose to do to their own bodies what they will. Adultery laws are unconstitutional. We don't legislate based on morality. We legislate based on rights and how they affect others. And there will be conflict. When there is conflict, some rights are prioritized over others.

I do understand your argument and how arrogant of you to think otherwise. I understand your circular, myopic, incongruent argument completely. The sad thing is that you are completely clueless, as exhibited by the comment your bolded, to my argument. I think your position is laughable and lacks conviction of any sort and is truly an easy, cowardly answer to a more complex issue. That being said we will agree to disagree and move on the other topics.

 

[UKDslayer]

My wife passed away in 2014 from Glioblastoma aka Brain Cancer.
Hit fast , lasted 10 weeks , a very brutal way to die.

Her ONLY vice was swilling diet- Mountain Dew like water. No illegal drugs , ate clean, never smoked …..maybe a Beer at a BBQ.
Knocked down a 2 liter in a minute..though
Not sure if its sweetened with aspartame per se ?

I'm sorry for your loss.

As I recall, Mountain Dew is a Pepsi product that contain Senomyx, a controversial "taste enhancer" derived from Human embryonic kidney cell line (HEK93). It was on the "religious" conservative radar for a while. Gatorade, Quaker, and Nestle use it widely as well.

 

[theLBC]

the problem isn't that women have abortions, the problem is that so many need abortions.

 

[david walter]

Once born, a fetus becomes a citizen, and as such is protected by the Constitutional right to life, and others are subject to laws protecting that citizen.

The Constitution extends its protections to citizens of the US or visiting citizens of other countries. In all cases, birth establishes citizenship.

There is a reasonable argument that the protections of the Constitution do not extend to the unborn.

So if a fetus has no rights to use the mothers body , then it should be the same for a child. So according to that reasoning a mother or father could just abandon a child and leave it to die because as you stated they have no rights to my body or what I do or don’t do with my body.

 

[theLBC]

this is what cops are for...remove the squatter because we are not allowed to do it ourselves. this is bullshit.

Rainier Valley homeowner lives in van while delinquent tenant lists rental on Airbnb

“I do come here often just to look at my house, and miss it …and wish I could be in it,” he said.

www.kiro7.com

 

[theLBC]

Once born, a fetus becomes a citizen, and as such is protected by the Constitutional right to life, and others are subject to laws protecting that citizen.

The Constitution extends its protections to citizens of the US or visiting citizens of other countries. In all cases, birth establishes citizenship.

There is a reasonable argument that the protections of the Constitution do not extend to the unborn.

than why is killing a pregnant woman 2 counts of homicide?

if the sperm donor has to pay child support even if he doesn't want the child, they should require his consent to kill it. jmo.

 

[Mr.BR]

So when are these folks going to hang for treason, COVID 19 plandemic now seems to be a CIA regime change op except the regime they were changing was a domestic one. Trump Admin

"A CIA Front Organization": Revisiting EcoHealth COVID-19 Claims After Fauci 'Influence' Campaign Bombshell | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Unfortunately this

 

[theLBC]

 

[Longshot231]

the problem isn't that women have abortions, the problem is that so many need abortions.

The problem isn't that they need abortions. The problem is that they want abortions.

 

[theLBC]

but not in israel, amiright?

Bloomberg to Biden: Kill American 'Xenophobia' by Importing Migrants

Joe Biden should smash opposition to migration by sending more migrants into Americans' jobs, says billionaire media baron Mike Bloomberg.

www.breitbart.com

 

[theLBC]

The problem isn't that they need abortions. The problem is that they want abortions.

actually, the fact that some may get pregnant on purpose because they get some sick thrill is grotesque, but i don't think it is that common.
what women (and the sperm donors) want is to avoid responsibility for their actions, and i would bet this extends beyond killing babies.
i would be willing to bet that women who get multiple abortions are more likely to have a dui on their records than a girl than has none.