Study Confirms 100% of Abortions Still None of Your F**king Business

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 weeks ago  •  124 comments

By:   Alternative Science

Study Confirms 100% of Abortions Still None of Your F**king Business
Contrary to what some may think is true, it turns out 100% of abortions are none of your f*cking business.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Several red states are in various stages of implementing sweeping abortion bans aimed squarely at eventually toppling the 1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of all women in the country to terminate their pregnancy before the point of medical viability for the fetus, or fetuses.

Laws in Alabama, Missouri, Ohio, and Georgia all set the line of legal demarcation back as far as they can, with Alabama's criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy without an exception for rape or incest. All of the laws are likely unconstitutional by the standard of Roe. However, it's no secret that socially conservative activists have been waiting for a time when the ideological makeup of the high court is presumed to be strongly enough in their favor that they could challenge that precedent with laws such as the new ones being drafted and signed into law.

With so much attention and focus on abortion and abortion rights these days, it's no surprise that a scientific research institute would take up the subject, and a team at the Western University of North Montana did exactly that. The researchers did what they called a "deep dive" on abortion, and focused their study of it on one key element — how many of the abortions performed in this country are none of your fucking business.

As it turns out, WUNM researchers found the answer to that question to be, "Literally all of them." According to Dr. Willamina S. Maychee, the scientist who led the study, a full 100% of the abortions performed in America are none of anyone's business except the woman who chose to have the abortion and her doctor. The results, Dr. Maychee says, are "conclusive as fuck."

"In every abortion procedure we researched, we found they don't impact you, your mother, your priest, your brother, your husband, your congressional representative, your senator, and indeed, even your president, unless you happen to be the one having the abortion, and is therefore by the longstanding definition of the term,'None of your fucking business,'" Dr. Maychee told reporters a press conference announcing the results of the study.

Maychee says that her study is actually just reconfirming the results of studies conducted years ago.

"The thing is, we've known for at least 50 years that abortions are private choices made between a woman and her doctor, but some people in this country get really confused with what's a fact and what's a feeling," Dr. Maychee said. "And of course they're usually the ones screaming, 'Fuck your feelings' at everyone, so that only causes more confusion. I'm glad we could end some of that confusion."

Dr. Maychee says she's "astounded" by the results because so few things she researches ever get proven quite so conclusively.

"We're talking conclusive results with 0% margin of error. That literally never happens except in the instance of how many abortions are of any concern to you," Dr. Maychee said. "Unless, again to reiterate, you're the one electing to have an abortion. Then, that is the only abortion you're allowed to have a say in. You can't force someone to have or not have an abortion if they want. I know that sounds crazy, but we also confirmed that constitutional precedent and the right to privacy are still things in this country for now, so it all checks out."

Reporters asked Dr. Maychee if there are ever any scenarios where an abortion would be someone's business.

"Is the person in question also the pregnant woman having an abortion," Maychee asked rhetorically, "then, no. It's never any of your fucking business. Not now, not 15 years from now, not 50 years ago. Never. Ever. It's none of your fucking business."

WUNM's research also conducted a couple of other studies and Maychee spoke about those results as well.

"We also confirmed that where a transgender person takes a shit is none of your goddamned business," Maychee said, "and it's never, ever, ever your business when two adults marry each other, no matter what genitals each of them possess. Oh, also, water is wet, the sky is blue, and Laura Ingraham is a literal diarrhea gollum. But there I go confirming the obvious for you again."

By the time you finish reading this, it still won't be any of your fucking business who gets an abortion.

Writer/comedian James Schlarmann is the founder of The Political Garbage Chute and his work has been featured on The Huffington Post. You can follow James on Facebook and Instagram, but not Twitter because he has a potty mouth.




Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

Yep! I just checked and it's still none of your business!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

I don't see much difference between the abortion protestors above and these folk outside a Wendy's...

2001-2.jpg?20151027062538

If I want to eat a burger that's my choice regardless of what some PETA protestor thinks about the supposed rights of a cow.

If they don't want to eat meat, or get an abortion, that's their right and no one is forcing them to violate their conscience. The law says it's legal to raise and kill cows for meat. The law also says women are legally allowed to terminate a pregnancy up until viability. Just because it offends someone else's conscience doesn't give them the right to try and ban the rest of us from eating meat. Even if the PETA members believe deeply in their hearts that cows are sacred or have invisible immortal souls, that still doesn't give anyone else the right to slap the burger out of someone else's hands. Even if it's proven that eating burgers isn't good for your health and can be detrimental to your arteries and waistline, they still don't have the right to force their veganism on the rest of society. Anti-abortion activists are really no different than some vegan extremists.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    3 weeks ago

Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion!

But, three things do though. They are:

1. Require comprehensive sex education for all children prior to puberty.

2. Make all forms of birth control easily attainable.

3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    3 weeks ago

Love the analogy

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

You also need to add access to affordable housing, healthcare, education and a living wage. All of these things are known to reduce the need for abortion.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.4  MUVA  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

That’s the leftist wish list and besides education is free through 12 grade.Less fucking like some kind of animal in heat when not married would also be a good start.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
and besides education is free through 12 grade.

nothing is free.... 

local taxes pay for education through the 12th grade

I'm betting you knew that already :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
"You also need to add access to affordable housing, healthcare, education and a living wage."
"That’s the leftist wish list and besides education is free through 12 grade.Less fucking like some kind of animal in heat when not married would also be a good start."

What the hell is wrong with that list?

Regarding fucking like an animal in heat, did you never have sex before you were married?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    3 weeks ago

Suddenly, I'm in the mood for a burger. Or a steak.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
did you never have sex before you were married?

Not the first time. In fact, I was a virgin for a week after I got married...

Got married a month before I turned 21 but my wife started her cycle the day of the wedding so I had to wait a week before being intimate. The marriage was a huge mistake from day one and ended in divorce 7 miserable years later.

With my second marriage I was able to do it right. Was celibate for 2 years after the divorce then met a wonderful gal in California, lived together for 5 years before getting married. I would highly recommend living together for at least 5 years to anyone thinking of getting married, going in blind is a crap shoot and recipe for disaster.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1.9  Freefaller  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Regarding fucking like an animal in heat, did you never have sex before you were married?

I'm pretty sure his comment applies to women only, men like himself get to bang anything that doesn't move fast enough (I believe he's actually bragged about doing so in the past).

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.1.10  evilgenius  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Less fucking like some kind of animal in heat when not married would also be a good start.

Marriage has little bearing on abortion statistics, while those JBB mentioned and those I posted do. Also those that I posted also lower crime rates and in the long run increase the middle class wealth rates.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
I would highly recommend living together for at least 5 years to anyone thinking of getting married, going in blind is a crap shoot and recipe for disaster.

I totally agree. I only lived with one guy, my hubby, but we had almost 2 years before the wedding to know if would work out. We've now been married for 30 years. The test drive always helps. 

btw ladies, always have them move into your abode. That way if it doesn't work out, they are the homeless ones, LOL! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Less fucking like some kind of animal in heat when not married would also be a good start.

That's the best kind of f***ing! jrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

But just because a woman may be married doesn't mean she won't have an abortion if she becomes pregnant. Married women get abortions too. And waiting until marriage to have sex is quite antiquated and probably a bad idea. After all, one shouldn't buy the car on the lot without test driving it first. Maybe put it through its paces first. See how much the engine can rev up, right? jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Freefaller @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
"Regarding fucking like an animal in heat, did you never have sex before you were married?"
"I'm pretty sure his comment applies to women only, men like himself get to bang anything that doesn't move fast enough (I believe he's actually bragged about doing so in the past)."

But of course!

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

the more freedom less government fucktards are still at it ...

screaming at the sky for the last 50 years.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.1  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @1.2    3 weeks ago

Let me guess you want less freedom and more government.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

I want more freedom and less trumpsters, especially the really ignorant ones.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.3  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

You think you would like the company.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
"I want more freedom and less trumpsters, especially the really ignorant ones."

Touché!

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.3  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago
I just checked and it's still none of your business!

Seems like the study is also 100% correct.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
1.4  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

What I find interesting about the photo is that NONE of the people photographed there holding signs can have babies!!! Men can't have them and the women have gone through menopause!!! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
2  Adam_Selene    3 weeks ago

I would just like some consistency in the discussion.

If it is murder for a women to get an abortion because she does not have the financial means to support a child; isn't it also murder to force a child to go to school, where they will probably contract Covid and may get sick enough to die, just to help the economy?

Argument - abortion leads to 100% death, returning to school only leads to - what  .00001 chance of death - maybe 500 children die.

If you are sincerely against abortion, you must also be against returning children to school just so their parents have free  child care when they go to work.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Adam_Selene @2    3 weeks ago

So if you are are against murder, you must oppose people driving in cars because there is a chance of death by accident too?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    3 weeks ago

Deflection.  

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
2.1.2  Adam_Selene  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    3 weeks ago

If you give your child a loaded handgun as a toy and they shoot themselves - would that be an accident?

Would you blame the parent for being irresponsible?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Adam_Selene @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

Are you anti murder?

so, to be consistent,  you must oppose people driving in cars, because you know riding in cars will kill tens of thousands of people each year. 

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Deflection.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    3 weeks ago

An accident is different from a murder.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Glad you get the point.  Now apply that reasoning to the original post and you’ll see how bogus the logic is. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
 Now apply that reasoning to the original post and you’ll see how bogus the logic is. 

Trying to an accident with murder is illogical to begin with.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

Again, that’s the point.  The original post is illogical so I presented an equally illogical argument using the same logical premise but  with different actions. 

I’ll make this as simple as a I can .  Equating an action where the known outcome is certain (Death) with an action where the possibility of an outcome  is exceedingly  rare (get in a car you could die, or catch covid in a school) is entirely illogical.  

I can’t believe I need to spell this out, but I will.   Opposing  the intentional killing of others does not require anyone to oppose any behavior which brings with it the risk of death, because all do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

Deflection.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
The original post is illogical so I presented an equally illogical argument using the same logical premise but  with different actions. 

Try presenting a logical argument then. Otherwise, you do not help your argument.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.11    3 weeks ago

Try presenting a logical argument then

I just a made textbook one by demonstrating the absurdity of the original premise. I can't help if that sort of argument is too advanced for some. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2  MUVA  replied to  Adam_Selene @2    3 weeks ago

What a stupid fucking post

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
2.2.1  Adam_Selene  replied to  MUVA @2.2    3 weeks ago

Hit a nerve did it?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Adam_Selene @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Adam_Selene @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

No it's just a stupid fucking post. I can't have a abortion. I'm not against abortion I'm anti stupid post. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

I have always felt that this is a personal matter and it’s no ones business. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @3    3 weeks ago

Exactly! As it should be too.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4  Trout Giggles    3 weeks ago
with Alabama's criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy without an exception for rape or incest. 

Now that's what I call a bunch of cowardly bullies. Do they really expect a woman or a young girl to carry to term the product of a violent act? That's beyond the pale.

They probably don't allow abortions under any conditions including a woman who will die if she attempts to carry to term....but I'm speculating. Some people automatically think the fetus is more important than the woman

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
4.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    3 weeks ago

I wonder how Alabama feels about babies conceived under incest rape? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

I'm going to hell.

 
 
 
devangelical
5  devangelical    3 weeks ago

it's a crime that taxpayers are left to foot the states legal fees of fringe religious cult theatrics with the inevitable judicial reversals that will follow.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Abortions are legal.

Have as many as you want and can afford.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Texan1211 @6    3 weeks ago
Abortions are legal. Have as many as you want and can afford.

My niece has had 4 abortions she never paid for any of them, the married men she fucked paid for them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1    3 weeks ago

Well, as long as the parties involved are paying, I really don't care which one it is.

I just don't want any tax money going to pay for them.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.2  MonsterMash  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Well, as long as the parties involved are paying, I really don't care which one it is.

She also blackmailed the fathers threating to tell their wife's if they didn't give her $ 2500 in addition to paying for the abortion. It's a wonder one of them didn't kill her. 

 
 
 
devangelical
6.1.3  devangelical  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1    3 weeks ago
My niece has had 4 abortions she never paid for any of them, the married men she fucked paid for them.

does she work for a church or the RNC?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
6.1.4  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

They're married. Their fault for getting into that mess to begin with... they wouldn't have been blackmailed if they'd just kept it in their pants! Just sayin.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @6.1.4    3 weeks ago
Their fault for getting into that mess to begin with... they wouldn't have been blackmailed if they'd just kept it in their pants! Just sayin

That's true, they should have known it wasn't a good idea to fuck a meth whore.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.5    3 weeks ago
meth whore.

This is who you think should be having babies?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.7  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.6    3 weeks ago
This is who you think should be having babies?

Nope, she should have given them up for adoption.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.8  MonsterMash  replied to  devangelical @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
does she work for a church or the RNC?

No, she's a volunteer for the Biden campaighn.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

I'm talking having babies, not raising them.  You think it's a good idea for a drug addict to carry a pregnancy to term?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.10  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.9    3 weeks ago
You think it's a good idea for a drug addict to carry a pregnancy to term?

I think it's a good idea for a drug addict to use birth control instead of using abortion to get rid of the kids she never wanted in the first place.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

Of course she should have used birth control.  But she didn't.

So, is it advisable for her to carry a pregnancy to term?  

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.12  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.11    3 weeks ago
Of course she should have used birth control.  But she didn't. So, is it advisable for her to carry a pregnancy to term?  

It's a better choice than snuffing out a potential life. If you feel the need to carry on this conversation do so in a private message. I don't think anyone is interested in what we have to say to each other.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.12    3 weeks ago
It's a better choice than snuffing out a potential life.

Not necessarily.  Pregnancy and drug addiction can be deadly to a woman, you know.  Not to mention the potential damage to the fetus, and the fact that it can be hard to place a child with special needs.

If you feel you can't discuss the topic, you are free to stop doing so.  I am confident that any NTer reading this is able to scroll past, if they're not interested.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.12    3 weeks ago
It's a better choice than snuffing out a potential life.

That's a matter of opinion and circumstance. But at least you recognize it's a "potential" life and not an actual "life."

I think it's a good idea for a drug addict to use birth control instead of using abortion to get rid of the kids she never wanted in the first place.

I'd say it's a good idea for everyone to use birth control. But a drug addict may not be in the frame of mind to consider or care about using BC.

Nope, she should have given them up for adoption.

That's her choice. But a woman shouldn't be required to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to just to provide for an adoption.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.15  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.13    3 weeks ago
If you feel you can't discuss the topic, you are free to stop doing so.

I can discuss the topic, but I'm aware of the game your playing. You're more interested in getting your comments upvoted than in having a discussion. I'm not that vain, either continue in private or move on. your choice. I will no longer discuss this further in a public forum.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.15    3 weeks ago

Upvotes, yeah, sure.  Weak sauce.  If you find yourself unable to discuss, just admit it and move on.

 
 
 
devangelical
6.1.17  devangelical  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.15    3 weeks ago
I will no longer discuss this further in a public forum.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.18  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
Upvotes, yeah, sure.  Weak sauce.  If you find yourself unable to discuss, just admit it and move on.

You remind me of the schoolyard bully in grade school that was afraid to fight without an audience cause he knew none of his friends would be available to come to his defense while he was getting his ass whipped. 

No one to defend you and/or cast a vote for your comments you're afraid to discuss a subject. It's OK, I get it, I accept your surrender.

proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcS0MmIDvaJegSldp8Fz_z4cbuuP0IvbXA1KKteoli5HX03C35pD%26s&sp=1599192556T8d116b3da3e088c655e19c11f1fde2aaa38019e4e5c3333902b3914ef14ebe76

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @6.1.18    3 weeks ago

You're the one who started this subthread, then didn't want to talk about it.  I think we can all see who surrendered - the one too scared to carry on a discussion he started.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.1.20  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.19    3 weeks ago
You're the one who started this subthread, then didn't want to talk about it.  I think we can all see who surrendered - the one too scared to carry on a discussion he started.

I told you I was willing to continue the conversation in private notes, but you only want to talk in a public forum so you can get noticed in order to receive upvotes. again, I'm not that vain.

[deleted

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

Don't like abortions? Don't get one. 

Problem solved. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7    3 weeks ago

If you can’t see how shallow and silly that argument is, Extend that “logic” to other situations.

.  

are these arguments for legalizing murder and slavery?: if you Don’t like murder, don’t kill anyone. If you Don’t like slavery, don’t enslave someone.

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    3 weeks ago

Or, if you don't like the article don't comment!

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    3 weeks ago

Deflection.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    3 weeks ago
If you can’t see how shallow and silly that argument is, Extend that “logic” to other situations.

I thought the right wing was all about more personal freedoms? Oh, just not for women, got it.. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

Women get aborted. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

Wow when did a fully grown "women" get aborted?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    3 weeks ago

Your post made it worth taking him off of ignore just for the belly laugh.

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    3 weeks ago

If abortion is a sin then let it be dealt with if there is a judgement day

 
 
 
Veronica
9  Veronica    3 weeks ago

Thank you for this.  It is perfect.

 
 
 
Freefaller
10  Freefaller    3 weeks ago

Study Confirms 100% of Abortions Still None of Your F**king Business

LMAO direct and to the point, I love it

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11  MonsterMash    3 weeks ago

100% of abortions are none of your f*cking business.

This is a false statement. When a woman decides to abort the baby it certainly is the father business especially if he wants to keep and raise the child without the mother being involved in the care and financial support. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
11.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  MonsterMash @11    3 weeks ago

When he gets his own uterus, he will have that option.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1    3 weeks ago
When he gets his own uterus, he will have that option

That's like saying when a woman can get pregnant without a man's sperm she'll have the option of aborting the baby or keeping it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11.1.1    3 weeks ago
That's like saying when a woman can get pregnant without a man's sperm she'll have the option of aborting the baby or keeping it.

If she were to get pregnant in such a way, she would still have that option. How a woman gets pregnant is irrelevant. Once she is pregnant, she has the option to abort or not.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.1.3  MonsterMash  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11    3 weeks ago
When a woman decides to abort the baby it certainly is the father business especially if he wants to keep and raise the child without the mother being involved in the care and financial support. 

Is the father the one getting pregnant? No? Then he has no say! Even if the father wants to raise the child, the woman must still agree to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. She is not required to do so if she chooses not to. And the law protects that choice!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.2.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2    3 weeks ago
the woman must still agree to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. She is not required to do so if she chooses not to. And the law protects that choice!

That's pretty selfish; NO, You can't have the baby I want to kill it.

My niece has had four abortions, her reasoning for not opting for adoption was she couldn't bare to let someone she didn't know raise her own child, she rather kill the kid, that's fucked up.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.1    3 weeks ago
That's pretty selfish; NO, You can't have the baby I want to kill it.

It's still her choice.

My niece has had four abortions,

Congratulations.

her reasoning for not opting for adoption was she couldn't bare to let someone she didn't know raise her own child, she rather kill the kid, that's fucked up.

See first statement!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.2.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.2    3 weeks ago
My niece has had four abortions,
Congratulations.

WOW ! You're congratulating my niece for killing four babies, [deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.3    3 weeks ago

There are no babies killed in an abortion. But making things personal rather than rationally addressing the post speaks volumes about you as well. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.2.5  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Are these pictures of just cell clumps?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.2.6  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.4    3 weeks ago
There are no babies killed in an abortion.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
11.2.7  lady in black  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.1    3 weeks ago

Her body, her choice

 
 
 
Ender
11.2.8  Ender  replied to  lady in black @11.2.7    3 weeks ago

A concept not really hard to grasp.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
11.2.9  MonsterMash  replied to  lady in black @11.2.7    3 weeks ago
Her body, her choice

I thought you people followed the science, No?

Some people think that the unborn (the human embryo or fetus) is a mere part of the woman's body. But SCIENCE, of course, has established that the unborn—though physically dependent on and inside of the mother—is a distinct, self-developing individual with his or her own DNA, brain, arms and legs, etc. Abortion attacks and kills the body of someone else.

May a pregnant woman ingest drugs that she knows will cause her child to be deformed or disabled? Clearly not.  And if knowingly harming the child is wrong, killing her/him (through abortion) is even worse. Bodily autonomy is important, but there are obvious limits to that autonomy when someone else's body is also involved.

 
 
 
Ender
11.2.10  Ender  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.9    3 weeks ago

Point is, it doesn't matter whether one thinks it should be allowed or not.

It is not our choice, period.

 
 
 
lady in black
11.2.11  lady in black  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.9    3 weeks ago

What a woman does with an unplanned pregnancy is not your business.  

 
 
 
MUVA
11.2.12  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @11.2.11    3 weeks ago

Should they be allowed to sell the body parts?

 
 
 
devangelical
11.2.13  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @11.2.12    3 weeks ago
Should they be allowed to sell the body parts?

fake thumper news, debunked........           next?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.2.14  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.9    3 weeks ago
though physically dependent on and inside of the mother

Right... until viable outside the mother's body, a FETUS is a parasite.

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.15  seeder  JBB  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @11.2.14    3 weeks ago

Late term terminations are actually rare, generally illegal and highly regulated. Nearly all abortions are performed in the first trimester. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.2.16  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  JBB @11.2.15    3 weeks ago

Absolutely understand that and agree 100%. Most late-term abortions are because of severe issues.

 
 
 
MUVA
11.2.17  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @11.2.13    3 weeks ago

It was a question not news care to answer?

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.6    3 weeks ago

I'm sorry if that concept is too difficult for you to grasp.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @11.2.12    3 weeks ago
Should they be allowed to sell the body parts?

That doesn't happen, but yes, they should! Fetal tissue should go to medical research, especially towards stem cell therapies. 

 
 
 
MUVA
11.2.20  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.19    3 weeks ago

So you are for selling baby parts?

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @11.2.20    3 weeks ago
So you are for selling baby parts?

Why not? It just ends up in the trash anyway. But like I said, "baby parts" are not sold anyway.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.2.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.21    3 weeks ago

Of course they are.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.22    3 weeks ago
Of course they are.

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.21    3 weeks ago

How stupid.  There are no 'baby parts' to sell.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.25  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @11.2.24    3 weeks ago
How stupid.  There are no 'baby parts' to sell

Exactly! Neither was it demonstrated that any "parts" were sold. And even if they were sold, who cares? Or better yet, why would anyone care? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.2.26  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.25    3 weeks ago
And even if they were sold, who cares? Or better yet, why would anyone care? 

This reminded me of the story of Henrietta Lacks, an African-American woman whose cells were essentially stolen back in 1951 and then reproduced for scientific experiment and are still used today.

"Lacks was the unwitting source of these cells from a tumor biopsied during treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S., in 1951. These cells were then cultured by George Otto Gey who created the cell line known as HeLa, which is still used for medical research."

"The ability to rapidly reproduce HeLa cells in a laboratory setting has led to many important breakthroughs in biomedical research. For example, by 1954, Jonas Salk was using HeLa cells in his research to develop the polio vaccine. To test his new vaccine, the cells were mass-produced in the first-ever cell production factory. Additionally, Chester M. Southam, a leading virologist, injected HeLa cells into cancer patients, prison inmates, and healthy individuals in order to observe whether cancer could be transmitted as well as to examine if one could become immune to cancer by developing an acquired immune response"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

While I do believe this woman, and all donors, should be informed about what the cells/tissue donated will be used for, I don't know why anyone would object to fetal tissue being donated (with receiving labs paying for the shipping and handling obviously) for research which can help save millions of lives like the polio vaccine did.

The bullshit narrative of PP "selling baby parts" is just such a tired moronic claim which really only exposes the person making the claim as a whacko nut job anti-abortionist who doesn't care about facts or the millions of actual born living humans the tissues could potentially help save.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.2.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.25    3 weeks ago

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/22920%20-%20FTR.pdf

h y would anyone care?

Why does anyone care about anything? You have no right to impose your morals on anyone else. Some people with a conscious   might find the idea of harvesting human parts for profit repugnant. You really need to learn tolerance. . 

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.28  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.2.26    3 weeks ago
While I do believe this woman, and all donors, should be informed about what the cells/tissue donated will be used for,

Informed consent is important.

I don't know why anyone would object to fetal tissue being donated (with receiving labs paying for the shipping and handling obviously) for research which can help save millions of lives like the polio vaccine did.

Neither do I. It makes no sense. Fetal tissue would just be disposed of anyway. So why not use it for something beneficial?

The bullshit narrative of PP "selling baby parts" is just such a tired moronic claim which really only exposes the person making the claim as a whacko nut job anti-abortionist who doesn't care about facts or the millions of actual born living humans the tissues could potentially help save.

Exactly! But some sure cling to that debunked claim like they feel it validates their position somehow. Why would anyone care if tissue is sold, donated, or whatever? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.27    3 weeks ago
You have no right to impose your morals on anyone else.

Where am I imposing morals on anyone exactly? Morality is subjective anyway.

Some people with a conscious   might find the idea of harvesting human parts for profit repugnant.

So I take it you're against organ donation?

You really need to learn tolerance. . 

You really need to learn how to make a valid point without making things personal.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11.2.30  Thrawn 31  replied to  MonsterMash @11.2.5    3 weeks ago

The fact that you left out context just makes you an idiot. 

 
 
 
charger 383
11.2.31  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.21    3 weeks ago

recycling is a good thing

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2.32  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @11.2.31    3 weeks ago

Yes it is. A very good thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.33  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.29    3 weeks ago
"Some people with a conscious   might find the idea of harvesting human parts for profit repugnant."

That's conscience, and no one is harvesting 'human parts' for profit.  

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  MonsterMash @11    3 weeks ago

She doesn't even have to tell the "father" to begin with really. 

"The world may never know..."

 
 
 
charger 383
11.3.1  charger 383  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @11.3    3 weeks ago

and never needs to know

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
11.3.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  charger 383 @11.3.1    3 weeks ago

Exactly

 
 
 
Kathleen
12  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

It’s a lot to bringing up a child, it’s physically, mentally and financially exhausting.  Some can’t do it, so it makes it very miserable for the child and the mother or father or both.  You should never bring a human being into this world unless you can give them a decent life, you owe them that.  Adoption is not easy either. You have to carry the child to term then sign it away. 

Its easy to say... oh, do this... or oh do that....

Well this is the thing... It’s not your decision.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @12    3 weeks ago

Well said, Kathleen. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
13  Split Personality    3 weeks ago

This seed marked satire is locked due to the seeders absence for 2 days and the personal nature of many of the comments and threads.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Mark in Wyoming
dennis smith
Dulay


79 visitors