Do liberals not see/hear how contradictional they sound in their views vs reality?

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: VierEyes

TextNo woman wants to have an abortion. She does it out of necessity because she can't afford another child, because she is not emotionally capable of having a child, because her birth control failed, because she has been raped, because the fetus was the result of incest, because the fetus endangers her life. You would punish her for any one of the above factors simply because she is able to conceive.

You are a sadist.

That is in no way what I'm saying , Like absolutely no way at all what I'm saying .

You are out of your mind you know that right ?

I'm out of my mind?

You're the one accusing women of abusing a serious medical procedure.

Time for you to look in the mirror.

White people’s tolerance for the current run of BS is coming to and end.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Back Alley Job ? what does that even mean ?

It means illegal clandestine abortions that required women in to sneak in, after hours, through the back doors of doctors' offices, dentists offices, hairdressers digs, motels, kitchens, ... usually in unsterile conditions and without anesthesia.
www.vox.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Back Alley Job ? what does that even mean ?

It means illegal clandestine abortions that required women in to sneak in, after hours, through the back doors of doctors' offices, dentists offices, hairdressers digs, motels, kitchens, ... usually in unsterile conditions and without anesthesia.
www.vox.com...

I see , No it was nothing like that .

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: VierEyes

TextNo woman wants to have an abortion. She does it out of necessity because she can't afford another child, because she is not emotionally capable of having a child, because her birth control failed, because she has been raped, because the fetus was the result of incest, because the fetus endangers her life. You would punish her for any one of the above factors simply because she is able to conceive.

You are a sadist.

That is in no way what I'm saying , Like absolutely no way at all what I'm saying .

You are out of your mind you know that right ?

I'm out of my mind?

You're the one accusing women of abusing a serious medical procedure.

Time for you to look in the mirror.

I'm not accusing anything , It's a simple state of Fact no matter how inconvenient it maybe to your delicate sensibilities.

and you are the one twisting my words and putting words in my mouth , I'm not saying woman have no right to abortions nor am I saying that rape victims or Incest victims have no right to abortions and of course in there is a medical presidence of life or death by all means abortion .

and if you paid attention to my post you would know this .

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: VierEyes

TextNo woman wants to have an abortion. She does it out of necessity because she can't afford another child, because she is not emotionally capable of having a child, because her birth control failed, because she has been raped, because the fetus was the result of incest, because the fetus endangers her life. You would punish her for any one of the above factors simply because she is able to conceive.

You are a sadist.

That is in no way what I'm saying , Like absolutely no way at all what I'm saying .

You are out of your mind you know that right ?

I'm out of my mind?

You're the one accusing women of abusing a serious medical procedure.

Time for you to look in the mirror.

I'm not accusing anything , It's a simple state of Fact no matter how inconvenient it maybe to your delicate sensibilities.

and you are the one twisting my words and putting words in my mouth , I'm not saying woman have no right to abortions nor am I saying that rape victims or Incest victims have no right to abortions and of course in there is a medical presidence of life or death by all means abortion .

and if you paid attention to my post you would know this .

Women don't abuse abortions. That is patently absurd.

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So, punish the woman for being fertile. Got it.

since when is Birth Control a punishment ? And an Abortion is not a positive representative of " Fertility " , the young woman getting an abortion is not putting her Fertility to use is she ?

Put her on Birth Control until she matures and develops self control, better that than Multiple abortions

You want to punish her by putting a foreign object in her body. You want to punish her for being fertile.

BTW, self-control isn't always the issue. Birth control does fail. That's why I have a sister.

ETA, birth control is hard on the body. It tells the woman that she is already pregnant. There are also a number of negative side effects.

Wow your view on this is unbelievably twisted , that is some mental Gymnastics.

Just an FYI , when a woman gets an abortion it is so detrimental to there body there is a 50% chance of her never having children after the abortion and it increases exponentially upon a second abortion .

But yes those negative side effects of Birth Control are far worse.

Are you a woman? If not you have no concept of the difficult choices that have to be made when you bear a uterus.

The thread isn’t about abortion exclusively, it’s about contradictory beliefs and arguments in liberalism.

Don’t you see anything ironic in your posts?

Hint: TranZ

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I see , No it was nothing like that .

I had an ectopic pregnancy. Technically, removing an embryo implanted in the fallopian tubes, which is a fatal condition, is called an abortion. I lost an ovary and my both my fallopian tubes, due to infection. So, that was it for me and my reproduction cycle. But, I wouldn't blame that on the "abortion".

According to ACOG, having an abortion doesn’t generally affect your ability to get pregnant in the future. It also does not increase the risks for pregnancy complications if you do choose to get pregnant again.

Many doctors recommend using some type of birth control immediately after abortion because it’s possible a woman can get pregnant again when she starts ovulating.

Doctors will also usually recommend a woman refrain from sexual intercourse for a certain time period after an abortion to allow the body time to heal.

Some of the potential complications associated with abortion include:

Bleeding: A woman can experience bleeding after an abortion. Usually, the blood loss isn’t so extreme that it’s a medical problem. However, rarely, a woman may bleed so much that she requires a blood transfusion.

Incomplete abortion: When this happens, tissue or other products of conception may remain in the uterus, and an individual may need a D&C to remove the remaining tissue. The risk for this is more likely when a person takes medications for an abortion.

Infection: Doctors will usually give antibiotics before an abortion to prevent this risk.

Injury to surrounding organs: Sometimes, a doctor may accidentally injure nearby organs in an abortion. Examples include the uterus or bladder. The risk that this will occur increases the further along a woman is in a pregnancy.

Technically, anything that causes inflammation in the uterus has the potential to affect future fertility. However, it’s very unlikely this will occur.

www.healthline.com...

Nvm. I apologize for derailing the thread.

a reply to: VierEyes

I have no idea if you are a liberal or not but your abortion arguments are something I’ve heard from many of them.

The topic of the thread is contradiction in liberal beliefs.

Bringing up a uterus and a woman in the same sentence as an argument for abortion at the same time chastising others for using those same words in a gender discussion is contradictory.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: VierEyes

I have no idea if you are a liberal or not but your abortion arguments are something I’ve heard from many of them.

The topic of the thread is contradiction in liberal beliefs.

Bringing up a uterus and a woman in the same sentence as an argument for abortion at the same time chastising others for using those same words in a gender discussion is contradictory.

I do not recognize men pretending to be women.

Apart from abortion I am otherwise conservative.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Wait I'm confused I thought men had absolutely no say when it comes to a woman's body or her choices ?

I thought anti-choice men rejected that notion.

is having it both ways really an option in your mind?

I'm all for men taking responsibility for their actions. It's like that now, for certain demographics. I'll let you do the math and investigate what that means. But if a man has no say in the choice to abort or have the baby, why would he be held responsible? Again, I'm for him being responsible, but I understand it can't be both. Why can't you understand that?

a reply to: network dude

But if a man has no say in the choice to abort or have the baby, why would he be held responsible? Again, I'm for him being responsible, but I understand it can't be both.

That's because women currently still have the right to choose.

We were talking about the hypothetical prospect, in the event of SCOTUS taking that right away from her, of requiring women to have an IUD or hormonal implant in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. If that's the case, then the guy who knocked her up should be required to have a vasectomy too, as part of the "not being a parent" bargain.

They both have to submit to forced birth control, or no deal. Why can't you understand that hypothetical?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

But if a man has no say in the choice to abort or have the baby, why would he be held responsible? Again, I'm for him being responsible, but I understand it can't be both.

That's because women currently still have the right to choose.

We were talking about the hypothetical prospect, in the event of SCOTUS taking that right away from her, of requiring women to have an IUD or hormonal implant in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. If that's the case, then the guy who knocked her up should be required to have a vasectomy too, as part of the "not being a parent" bargain.

They both have to submit to forced birth control, or no deal. Why can't you understand that hypothetical?

SCTOUS isn't taking any rights away. Perhaps an education might make you understand this better. SCOTUS is ruling on the constitutionality of the prospect of abortion. If you can show me in the Constitution where Abortion is a right, I will jump on your side in a second. But if you can't find that part, then perhaps the SCOTUS is making the right call and turning the entire issue back to the states to decide. Now if you live in a deep red state, and you plan to have lots of unprotected sex and kill any babies that may pop up, you may want to move. If you live in a liberal state, you will likely be able to kill kids up to, and possibly after birth. But the SCOTUS isn't taking anything away from anyone. That kind of stupidity is what is driving the dangerous rhetoric that may get a justice killed. Although I'm sure that's the plan by the BAMN crowd. Kill enough of them so Biden can appoint a transgender, a pedophile, and whatever other marginalized group needs someone to champion their cause, since nobody is picked or hired for their accomplishments anymore, just skin color or sexual deviance. Progressivism is wonderful.

a reply to: network dude

SCTOUS isn't taking any rights away.

If the ruling that comes down echos Alitos draft opinion, then yes, it does take away the "right to an abortion".

SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution does give women the right to decide to an have an abortion. SCOTUS reaffirmed that right time after time. Reversing that decision by declaring that the Constitution doesn't give a woman that right is taking away the right she enjoyed for past 50 years, per SCOTUS, per the Constitution of the United States.

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that determined that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion.

www.cnet.com...

SCOTUS has never ruled to take away a right, that it previously said is a constitutional right and reaffirmed that right again and again.

In that case, that SCOTUS takes that right away, it's no longer "her body" or "her choice".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

SCTOUS isn't taking any rights away.

If the ruling that comes down echos Alitos draft opinion, then yes, it does take away the "right to an abortion".

SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution does give women the right to decide to an have an abortion. SCOTUS reaffirmed that right time after time. Reversing that decision by declaring that the Constitution doesn't give a woman that right is taking away the right she enjoyed for past 50 years, per SCOTUS, per the Constitution of the United States.

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that determined that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion.

www.cnet.com...

SCOTUS has never ruled to take away a right, that it previously said is a constitutional right and reaffirmed that right again and again.

In that case, that SCOTUS takes that right away, it's no longer "her body" or "her choice".

Playing catch up. The states decide. Right?
The SCOTUS ruling will put it back to the states to decide. Asking for a friend.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If that's the case, then the guy who knocked her up should be required to have a vasectomy too, as part of the "not being a parent" bargain. They both have to submit to forced birth control, or no deal. Why can't you understand that hypothetical?

No Sookie no that is not the same and you know it so why make the argument . ?

Vasectomies are surgical procedure end of story , Female Birth control comes in many forms, Pills , Shots , implants etc etc .

Now like I said earlier when they make some Male Birth Control then likely yes I'll be for it .

a reply to: wdkirk

The states decide. Right?
The SCOTUS ruling will put it back to the states to decide.

States don't decide constitutional rights. If it goes back to the states, that means that women lost a constitutional right.

Was it a constitutional right?
Or
Was it ruled poorly and should have been a right set by the state?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Vasectomies are surgical procedure end of story

It's a simple snip, snip, outpatient procedure. And it's reversable.
Having an IUD inserted is also an outpatient surgical procedure.

Female Birth control comes in many forms, Pills , Shots , implants etc etc .

And those forms are all hormonal, not 100% sure, nor safe for all women, and many of those forms of birth control will be outlawed by several states that claim they are forms of abortion.

So yeah, if you want to force women to have an IUD of hormonal implant inserted inside her body in order to be allowed an abortion, then I say the man should also be required to get a vasectomy, or he has to be a baby daddy.

If it's not her body, then it isn't his body either.