Hard Right Republicans Are Very Brave -- Just like Jihadists ...

Wordslinger wrote:Thank you hard right conservatives!!!   You got to hand it to all the republicans in the House.  Working together to achieve political party suicide, they passed a 20 week abortion ban and are working hard to prevent passage of immigration reform.

Just like the Jihadists who flew into the Twin Tower buildings on 9-11, Markle's favorite bunch continue their war on women and Mexicans -- even though they know such actions will guarantee their own failure in coming national elections.  You've got to admit their bravery is only exceeded by their stupidity.

Keep up the good work boys and girls, I won't stand in your way if you're determined to die for what's wrong!!

newswatcher wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:More desperation from Sal and his ilk. With the scandals piling on the COWH, they are trying anything possible to stay in power.

    The cowh has lost any credibility he had and is not trusted by a majority of the American people...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've seen many babies survive at 22 weeks... do you support any limit prior to full term... or after?

With easy access to "morning after" pills, I assume the bulk of unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically reduced.  That means that many of the remaining situations are likely to be pregnancies involving fetal health problems.  In that regard, I see no reason for our government insisting on any gestational time limits for abortions.  one.  It's the mother's business, not yours or mine.

You're absolutely right and it shouldn't be the governments either... Which means they shouldn't be funding anything like Planned Parenthood or any other agency that deals with pregnancy and/or abortions.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOXPSSZkFD0



Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings, sex related diseases services, family planning and pregnancy prenatal services, ignoramus. They cannot provide abortions w/ govt. funds.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've seen many babies survive at 22 weeks... do you support any limit prior to full term... or after?

With easy access to "morning after" pills, I assume the bulk of unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically reduced.  That means that many of the remaining situations are likely to be pregnancies involving fetal health problems.  In that regard, I see no reason for our government insisting on any gestational time limits for abortions.  one.  It's the mother's business, not yours or mine.

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:More desperation from Sal and his ilk. With the scandals piling on the COWH, they are trying anything possible to stay in power.

In other words, you go along with the rights' war on women and Mexican immigrants.  Why don't you just say what you mean?

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've seen many babies survive at 22 weeks... do you support any limit prior to full term... or after?

With easy access to "morning after" pills, I assume the bulk of unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically reduced.   That means that many of the remaining situations are likely to be pregnancies involving fetal health problems.  In that regard, I see no reason for our government insisting on any gestational time limits for abortions.  one.  It's the mother's business, not yours or mine.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Wordslinger... by full-term do you mean prior to birth? upon birth? after birth? Is there any line?

What if a fetus is full-term and the mother delivers on the way to her abortion? How do you feel about sterilization?

Yes, I'm for allowing abortion prior to delivery.  I read a piece last night that presented a health scenario that pointed out that fatal fetal flaws often don't show up until after week 22.  Consider, what if medical tests show that a fetus will not have a functioning heart after being delivered -- would you condemn abortion in such a case?  The 20 week abortion ban would force women to carry to term fatally flawed fetuses. 

You keep pressing for my personal perspectives ... why?  From my viewpoint, we need to decrease the human birth rate if we are to preserve a sustainable ecological balance.  As I see it, whether the answer is contraception, before and after sex, or abortion, each approach has merits.  I would prefer optimal contraceptive practices to abortion -- simply from a cost factor.  I don't give a personal damn what happens to anyone's fetus.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've seen many babies survive at 22 weeks... do you support any limit prior to full term... or after?

With easy access to "morning after" pills, I assume the bulk of unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically reduced.  That means that many of the remaining situations are likely to be pregnancies involving fetal health problems.  In that regard, I see no reason for our government insisting on any gestational time limits for abortions.  one.  It's the mother's business, not yours or mine.

You're absolutely right and it shouldn't be the governments either... Which means they shouldn't be funding anything like Planned Parenthood or any other agency that deals with pregnancy and/or abortions.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOXPSSZkFD0

Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings, sex related diseases services, family planning and pregnancy prenatal services, ignoramus. They cannot provide abortions w/ govt. funds.