• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America is only one of 4 countries that allow post-viability abortion

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And we do so (despite the protestations of some) for virtually any reason, up to and including a statement by the mother that she would find having and raising a child to be bad for her family, or emotionally stressful (since when are children not stressful?).



....The United States is an outlier when it comes to the scope of the abortion “right.” The United States is one of approximately ten nations (of 195) that allow abortion after fourteen weeks of gestation. The others are: Canada, China, Great Britain, North Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, Western Australia, and Vietnam. When it comes to allowing abortion for any reason after viability, however, the United States is joined only by Canada, North Korea, and China. The United States got into this situation because after the second round of arguments in Roe and Doe, the Justices abruptly decided to expand the abortion right they were creating to fetal viability—and then beyond. For forty years, this abrupt decision has had profound implications for late-term abortions, live-birth abortions, and women’s health....


Fortunately (as noted elsewhere) abortions are reducing. :( Hopefull one day we'll be able to put this barbaric practice, too, behind us, and leave some of the company we are currently keeping.
 
Last edited:

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
24,416
Reaction score
33,341
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm going to preempt the hyperbolic ****storm that is sure to come:

How dare you challenge a woman's right to change her mind at the last minute! You just want to turn her into a breeding slave!
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,539
Reaction score
9,075
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hopefull one day we'll be able to put this barbaric practice, too, behind us, and leave some of the company we are currently keeping.
That will never happen.

With the worlds population ever increasing, and resources becoming more scarce, forced abortion will become the norm.
China has already been using it to control their population growth with mixed results because they haven't forced a balance of both sexes.

But with time, it will become the norm worldwide.
It is inevitable, unless nature deals us something harsher.
 

GEIxBattleRifle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
3,306
Reaction score
1,024
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
How dare you challenge a woman's right to change her mind at the last minute! You just want to turn her into a breeding slave!

How dare you say we can kill a mosquito sucking blood out of us but we can't kill something else doing the samething!
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
21,092
Reaction score
8,241
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
And we do so (despite the protestations of some) for virtually any reason, up to and including a statement by the mother that she would find having and raising a child to be bad for her family, or emotionally stressful (since when are children not stressful?). Fortunately (as noted elsewhere) abortions are reducing. :( Hopefull one day we'll be able to put this barbaric practice, too, behind us, and leave some of the company we are currently keeping.

Where did you get that cut/paste part of your post? Are you trying to say 14 weeks is viability?

Funny when America stands alone on an issue some support it is to hell with the rest of the sniveling planet- we are AMERICA Gawd dammitt!

Given how many backdoor laws are being passed in some states to try and curtail LEGAL abortions I have no problem with allowing abortion for 20 to 22 weeks.

Unless the anti-abortion crowd is willing to pay for the child, I'd suggest a big ol' glass of STFU and let the woman get an abortion.

Have a nice day... :2wave:
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The USA does not allow abortion on demand after viability.


Less than .1 percent of legal abortions that take place in USA occur after viability.
They are the extreme cases.
The cases where the womans life or irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function would occur if the pregnancy continued or where the fetus would be stillborn or is so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

from the following article:
HOw a late term abortion saved my life:
In October of 2004, I was pregnant with my sons Nicholas
and Zachary. With great joy and expectation, my husband, my best
friend, and I visited my doctor for a normal growth ultrasound. I was
nearly 23 weeks pregnant, hovering at the start of the third trimester.
Within moments it was clear something was wrong; one of the boys was
still and had no heartbeat. When I met with my doctor, routine
screening revealed the worst: the symptoms I’d been experiencing that I
thought were normal with a twin pregnancy were actually evidence that I
was sick — very, very sick. I was immediately admitted to the hospital
with severe preeclampsia, and though my doctors tried mightily to slow
the progression of the disease, by the morning of October 27, 2004 a
group of doctors stood at my bedside and delivered the worst news I’d
ever received.

I was in advanced kidney failure. My blood
pressure was skyrocketing, and it could not be controlled with
medications. My liver was beginning to decline. The horrific headache I
was experiencing could no longer be treated with pain medications
because they were afraid it would depress my ability to breathe when I
began to have the seizures they expected at any moment. I would soon
likely suffer a stroke or a heart attack.
In other words, I was going
to die unless the pregnancy was terminated. Immediately.


There
was no hope for my surviving son. He was too tiny and too frail to be
viable. With my dangerously high blood pressure, a c-section would have
likely caused me to bleed to death, and inducing labor would have
stressed my system too much. My safest option was the procedure known
as an intact dilation and extraction. It would save my life, and
preserve my future fertility.


As luck would have it, my obstetrician
happened to be one of three doctors in the Philadelphia area that was
both trained and willing to do the procedure. Within an hour of
receiving my bad news, I lay in the surgical suite, covered in tubes
and wires, weeping inconsolably as the doctors tried to offer comfort
as they prepped me for surgery.

It was the worst day of my life.

read more:

How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life
 
Last edited:

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
24,102
Reaction score
21,550
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I think the article was one in another attempt to make folks believe that post point of viability abortion is the norm rather than a rarity in usually very extreme circumstances.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where did you get that cut/paste part of your post?

The first few words are hyperlinked :).

Are you trying to say 14 weeks is viability?

Funny when America stands alone on an issue some support it is to hell with the rest of the sniveling planet- we are AMERICA Gawd dammitt!

Given how many backdoor laws are being passed in some states to try and curtail LEGAL abortions I have no problem with allowing abortion for 20 to 22 weeks.

Connecting those two items makes no sense. That's like a 2nd Amendment advocate stating that he'd be fine with decriminalizing manslaughter in the advent of an increase in gun sale regulation.

Unless the anti-abortion crowd is willing to pay for the child, I'd suggest a big ol' glass of STFU and let the woman get an abortion.

Interesting. Would you have applied a similar approach (for example) to the Abolitionists?

That being said, I have indeed proposed ensuring that we take care of kids - even Milton Friedman said we had a social duty to do that.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm going to preempt the hyperbolic ****storm that is sure to come:

How dare you challenge a woman's right to change her mind at the last minute! You just want to turn her into a breeding slave!

Fetal viability is hardly the last minute.
 

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
2,982
Reaction score
2,039
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
... :( Hopefull one day we'll be able to put this barbaric practice, too, behind us, and leave some of the company we are currently keeping.

And join Iran, Russia, El Salvador and other enlightened countries
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
That will never happen.

With the worlds population ever increasing, and resources becoming more scarce, forced abortion will become the norm.
China has already been using it to control their population growth with mixed results because they haven't forced a balance of both sexes.

But with time, it will become the norm worldwide.
It is inevitable, unless nature deals us something harsher.

The Chinese government today and for quite a long time has not forced abortion. It simply has a law that if you want more than one child, you have to pay a tax to do so. Lots of people in China have more than one child and they pay the tax for each extra they have.

In educated areas, they do have a balance of the sexes. The only reason there is a problem is that, in uneducated rural areas, people want to have lots of boys to help with farm work, bring in extra money from physical labor, and carry the family name. The government gives anyone who has only one child that is a girl a guarantee that the girl will get help for a higher education beyond the education given to all children. Lots of rural people don't care about that because they think only in terms of farm work, physical labor jobs, and the family name. But urban educated people have a different way of thinking, and some people don't mind having only one child.

If China did not have this policy to control the Chinese population growth, China would quickly become a threat to all the areas along its borders, because the government would lose control of the population, which would invade nearby space everywhere and create constant war until the killing in war lowered the populations instead.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The first few words are hyperlinked :).



Connecting those two items makes no sense. That's like a 2nd Amendment advocate stating that he'd be fine with decriminalizing manslaughter in the advent of an increase in gun sale regulation.



Interesting. Would you have applied a similar approach (for example) to the Abolitionists?

That being said, I have indeed proposed ensuring that we take care of kids - even Milton Friedman said we had a social duty to do that.

Even though I agree that the society has an obligation to see to it that all children born into or brought by naturalization into the society should be cared for, I am frankly sick of right-wing people expecting every pregnancy to be brought to term against the woman's will because blue states with lots of support for the right to choose and red states that are strongly anti-abortion do not come out equal on this. The red states just want the blue states to pay for the red states' own mistakes.

I prefer the liberal solution for the sake of the nation, but the conservative one could work, too. The federal government would be reduced, the iissue of abortion would go back to the states, and both federal taxes and welfare would be lowered. The states would be individually required to care for their own with their own money. The less educated and more impoverished red states take more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes, so the rich people in them would have to pay a lot of money to the state to care for all the extra people they would produce. The blue states, which pay more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in aid, would keep more of their own money, and they would not have high population growth because they would allow abortion, so they would have even more wealth to use to care for their populations.

It would work if the blue states then then set up barriers to prevent people from red states moving into the more educated, more affluent blue states. The red states would become banana republics. The blues states would help each other, so New Mexico, the only blue state that now gets more federal aid than it pays in taxes, would become like other blue states. The blue states would be even more affluent and educated and become more and more what they are, better states with quality populations.

All the gun-toting overpopulated red state populations could kill each other off in even greater violent crime, since they have higher violent crime rates, and suffer greater death and disability from their many natural disasters. Blue states wouldn't have to lift a finger to help them, and if the red states were a serious threat to blue state borders, blue state militias could protect blue state borders and keep the red riff-raff out.

That's what you want, right?
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Even though I agree that the society has an obligation to see to it that all children born into or brought by naturalization into the society should be cared for, I am frankly sick of right-wing people expecting every pregnancy to be brought to term against the woman's will because blue states with lots of support for the right to choose and red states that are strongly anti-abortion do not come out equal on this. The red states just want the blue states to pay for the red states' own mistakes.

I prefer the liberal solution for the sake of the nation, but the conservative one could work, too. The federal government would be reduced, the iissue of abortion would go back to the states, and both federal taxes and welfare would be lowered. The states would be individually required to care for their own with their own money. The less educated and more impoverished red states take more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes, so the rich people in them would have to pay a lot of money to the state to care for all the extra people they would produce. The blue states, which pay more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in aid, would keep more of their own money, and they would not have high population growth because they would allow abortion, so they would have even more wealth to use to care for their populations.

It would work if the blue states then then set up barriers to prevent people from red states moving into the more educated, more affluent blue states. The red states would become banana republics. The blues states would help each other, so New Mexico, the only blue state that now gets more federal aid than it pays in taxes, would become like other blue states. The blue states would be even more affluent and educated and become more and more what they are, better states with quality populations.

All the gun-toting overpopulated red state populations could kill each other off in even greater violent crime, since they have higher violent crime rates, and suffer greater death and disability from their many natural disasters. Blue states wouldn't have to lift a finger to help them, and if the red states were a serious threat to blue state borders, blue state militias could protect blue state borders and keep the red riff-raff out.

That's what you want, right?

Your comparison of the Red states/Blue states reminds me of the joke that has a lot of truth in it and made the rounds around the internet
not too long ago.

Here is a <SNIP>;
Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.

We in New York intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.


With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. <SNIP>

read more:

Red vs Blue Joke - Dear Red States
 
Last edited:

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OP link.

The OP link is rightwing as seen by their store in which the sell Democrat-bashing materials.

Weekly Standard Store | Welcome!

The source they cite is only an anti-abortion author selling a book to pro-lifers. Accordingly, I see no reason to believe the OP link's accuracy. Anyone can post a blog to sell a book claiming anything. In this instance, it is pro-life blog citing a pro-life lawyer - both marking products to pro-lifers and rightwing Republicans.

Which, of course, means the OP is a militant prolife man quoting a blog of two militant pro-life-for-personal-profit men quoting a pro-life-for-profit lawyer selling a for-profit pro-life book. TRIPLE hearsay with NO actual legitmate source for anyone of it.

Here is wiki's map of the world in terms of where abortion is legal.

Abortion law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OP link.

The OP link is rightwing as seen by their store in which the sell Democrat-bashing materials.

Weekly Standard Store | Welcome!

The source they cite is only an anti-abortion author selling a book to pro-lifers. Accordingly, I see no reason to believe the OP link's accuracy. Anyone can post a blog to sell a book claiming anything. In this instance, it is pro-life blog citing a pro-life lawyer - both marking products to pro-lifers and rightwing Republicans.

Which, of course, means the OP is a militant prolife man quoting a blog of two militant pro-life-for-personal-profit men quoting a pro-life-for-profit lawyer selling a for-profit pro-life book. TRIPLE hearsay with NO actual legitmate source for anyone of it.

Here is wiki's map of the world in terms of where abortion is legal.

Abortion law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed. Something is wrong with the OP link. For example, Japan allows abortion to 24 weeks, yet the OP does not list it among the countries that allow abortion beyond 14 weeks. Crazy.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
And then there are the countries that allow euthansia under certain conditions.
THE HAGUE (AFP) - The Dutch Senate Tuesday passed a law legalising euthanasia under certain conditions, making the Netherlands the first country in the world to allow mercy killing.

The vote was passed 46 in favour to 28 against.

The passage of the legislation, which in fact authorizes a practice that has been informally allowed in the country for years, was the target of a protest by 8,000 people gathered in front of the Dutch parliament building.


Legislation and practices of euthanasia around the world


THE HAGUE (AFP) - The Netherlands is now the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia, but in many states the practice is implicitly allowed.

Some turn a blind eye to "assisted suicide", but many others refuse to countenance any legal framework for "active euthanasia". Here is a list of practices in countries around the world.

Europe:

Several countries outside of The Netherlands allow some form of mercy killing.

In Sweden "suicide assistance" is a non-punishable offence. A doctor can, in extreme cases, unplug life support machines.

Denmark allows any patient with an incurable disease to make up his or her mind to decide when to stop vital treatment.

Since October 1, 1992, patients with terminal illnesses or victims of serious accidents can make out a "medical will" which doctors are bound to respect.

In France euthanasia is illegal, but the law does distinguish between active euthanasia -- the deliberate act of causing death, regarded as murder -- and passive euthanasia or "therapeutic abstention" -- regarded as refusing to medically prolong the life functions of a patient.

Under British law euthanasia is illegal. However, in 1993 and 1994 the courts did grant leave to doctors to end the lives of people artificially kept alive.

In June 1996 a patient in Scotland was "authorised to die."

The administration of a deadly drug in Germany is the equivalent of murder. The appeal court in Frankfurt has issued a judgement saying that euthanasia can only be agreed to by a supervising authority if it unambiguously corresponds to the wishes of the patient.

Americas:


In the United States federal law forbids euthanasia.


In November 1998 voters in the state of Michigan refused to legalize "assisted suicide" in a referendum.

Oregon is the only US state to have authorised euthanasia, in 1994, for terminally ill patients who formally request it. However, because a court opposed its enforcement, it has never been practised.

read more:


Netherlands Becomes First Country To Legalise Euthanasia
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ha ha ha we guys know no woman can make up her mind
isn't it a 'woman's prerogative' to change her mind sheesh this stuff is too crazy to contemplate :lamo
I consider myself a rather stout individual but
I must will admit watching a video of a late term abortion was more than I could take I had to click it off
it chilled me to the bone
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OP link.

The OP link is rightwing as seen by their store in which the sell Democrat-bashing materials.

that's wudnerful
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
9,059
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ha ha ha we guys know no woman can make up her mind
isn't it a 'woman's prerogative' to change her mind sheesh this stuff is too crazy to contemplate :lamo
I consider myself a rather stout individual but
I must will admit watching a video of a late term abortion was more than I could take I had to click it off
it chilled me to the bone

Sure, whereas, if you had watched the woman die a slow torturous death giving birth, it wouldn't have bothered you at all. That's one reason why pro-choicers are pro-choicers - because anti-abortion people take pleasure in the death and torture of women.
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
yeah 150 years ago childbirth could easily result in death
(and I suppose it still can in the third world today)
but watching my wife give birth via planned c-section August of 87
in a full on hospital surgery suite was one of the coolest things
I'll ever experience in my life !
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
500,000 women died in pregnancy or childbirth and 5,000,000 are permanently disabled per year in the world.

So your wife's C-section was a cool experience for you? :roll:
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It rocked! Course it wasn't too fun for her but she and the kid turned out beyond fine.
Childbirth is an awesome wonderful thing not a plague upon humanity ;)
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
29,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Agreed. Something is wrong with the OP link. For example, Japan allows abortion to 24 weeks, yet the OP does not list it among the countries that allow abortion beyond 14 weeks. Crazy.

Abortion is allowed in Great Britain for a number reasons within the first 24 weeks.
Great Britain
Abortion is freely available in Great Britain due to a broad interpretation of the Abortion Act of 1967, which permits abortion for a variety of reasons if certified by two physicians. Within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, these reasons may include: to save the life of the mother, to protect her physical or mental health, to terminate pregnancies involving fetal abnormality, or for social or economic reasons. In cases in which the mother’s life or health is “gravely threatened” or there is significant risk for fetal abnormality, there is no time limit on when an abortion may be performed. Currently, the British Parliament is considering legislation that would eliminate the requirement of two doctors’ approval before an abortion can be performed. It is estimated that about 200,000 abortions are performed in Great Britain each year.

Greece
Abortions also can be obtained through the 24th week of pregnancy in cases of fetal abnormality

Spain
Abortion law in Spain legalizes the procedure at any point during pregnancy in cases in which the mother’s life or physical or mental health is at risk.

Latvia

In 1955, when Latvia was part of the Soviet Union, abortion became freely available during the first trimester of pregnancy.
In 1982, it was legalized within the first 28 weeks of pregnancy when required for broad health reasons.
Five years later, abortions within the first 28 weeks were legalized for certain nonmedical reasons, including imprisonment of the mother, imprisonment of her husband, or divorce or rape.


Russia


Russia reportedly leads the world in the total number of abortions performed each year, which currently exceeds the country’s annual number of live births.
Abortion is freely available during the first 12 weeks of gestation as well as at any point during the pregnancy in cases involving a risk to the life or health of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities.
Since 2003, abortion has also been legal between the 12th and 22nd weeks of pregnancy on certain social grounds, including imprisonment, rape, or spousal disability or death.

South Africa

Since 1996, abortion has been available without restrictions in South Africa within the first trimester of pregnancy if the mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, if the pregnancy compromises the mother’s social or economic situation, or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
After the 20th week of pregnancy, abortion is available if the life of the mother or health of the fetus is at risk.

Abortion Laws Around the World | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
killin' babies is good business
I don't know why it is even an issue these days
it is never going to be made illegal much less discouraged
I'm really not concerned with what women do with their lady parts
and I guess I've no choice in whether or not my tax dollars fund this
horrific practice so rock on with your bad selves?

But seriously, abortion after the second trimester I mean c'mon are you nuts?
 
Top Bottom