How does that change anything? There are 3 third party options on the presidential ballot this year. Surely one of those 5 earns your vote?
How does that change anything? There are 3 third party options on the presidential ballot this year. Surely one of those 5 earns your vote?
Ah yes, the common pro choice role reversal argument. Knew that one would appear sometime too.
Another common complaint pro choice liberals like to make “ Repubs don’t care about babies after they are born, only care abortion , then don’t want to support the babies”.
I never understood this argument. Elective abortion is bad because it kills human life. That’s it. Same argument was used about slavery. People want to free the slaves, but who’s gonna take care of them? Well, slavery is bad, so it should be illegal. That’s it.
Anyway, there are lots of examples of this argument being false, like supporting adoption. Or this recent Repub legislation:
U.S. Senators Katie Britt, Marco Rubio, Kevin Cramer Introduce MOMS Act to Help Build Culture of Life, Support Women, Strengthen Families - Senator Katie Britt
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 9, 2024 — Ahead of Mother’s Day this Sunday, U.S. Senators Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.Dak.) today are introducing the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act. This legislation would provide critical support to women during...www.britt.senate.gov
But if it’s murder. Don’t we want to reduce abortions in every feasible way? If we can support mothers to reduce abortion, should we actively pursue that?Another common complaint pro choice liberals like to make “ Repubs don’t care about babies after they are born, only care abortion , then don’t want to support the babies”.
I never understood this argument. Elective abortion is bad because it kills human life. That’s it. Same argument was used about slavery. People want to free the slaves, but who’s gonna take care of them? Well, slavery is bad, so it should be illegal. That’s it.
Anyway, there are lots of examples of this argument being false, like supporting adoption. Or this recent Repub legislation:
U.S. Senators Katie Britt, Marco Rubio, Kevin Cramer Introduce MOMS Act to Help Build Culture of Life, Support Women, Strengthen Families - Senator Katie Britt
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 9, 2024 — Ahead of Mother’s Day this Sunday, U.S. Senators Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.Dak.) today are introducing the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act. This legislation would provide critical support to women during...
WTH?? Guess we shouldn't try to put the shoe on the other foot and understand another person's objective take on a subject because it doesn't agree with your view. Got it.
Of course, but I was responding to a different topic
I was being semi-sarcastic with that post. But there are lots of examples that discredit your argument like, can’t have an opinion on the Ukrainian war unless you are a veteran, or infertile women can’t have an opinion on abortion either, etc.
But also by your logic, why can’t we try to understand the slaveholder’s objective opinion on slavery because it doesn’t agree with our view?
Come on. It’s legal today to abort/kill a healthy viable baby for any reason you want. That’s infantacide. I’m not gonna understand someone defending that.
If people understood the medical process for doing that procedure
. If we did that procedure to dogs, there would be a national uproar. But babies? Fine
Last edited:
Which third party candidate would you think fits that bill. I know three choice sounds like a lot (I guess). Are you familiar with them?
I just read this passage twice. Where did I miss that it's about the unborn?
It's pure and simple murder for a abortion at 9 months. And no Christian should vote for that, and I am not saying for a democratic just for the hoe.
Similar threads
