- The US confirms it’s inciting world war in the name of sodomy
- Artificial Indignation
- Recusant Christians in the Victorian Liberal Party need a Nick
- Addicting young people to a vice is a venerable business model
- Nazi salute panic is a canting one for luvvies to be propagating
- The face of European “values” still punchable but not as smug
- Historical milestone as IPCC publishes its 1000th final warning
- March 2023 (74)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- COVID hysteria
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- Hypocrisy of the left
- Innovation and technology
- Left-wing extremism
- Legal affairs
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Social media
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
The Cat Empire
The left lost Roe v. Wade. Mutilating children is their revenge
This entry was posted in Culture, Left-wing extremism. Bookmark the permalink.
I’m predicting an increase in parricide in years to come.
‘…in years to come….’ they will call it Voluntary Assisted Dying*
*at the volition of the child.
When vaccine dissenters say “my body, my choice” the Left goes nuts.
It’s only their body which gets the choice, no one else does.
The left did not lose mainstream lost. Abortion is popular. That is why the Democrats won the special election and why Republicans are now worried about the mid terms. The referendum in Kansas of all states also confirmed this.
Until you recognise that you will always be wrong about abortion and elections.
Republicans are now running a million miles away from abortion as an issue. As they do this their base will become disillusioned.
While the initial R v W decision was tolerable to many conservatives, since then “activists” have gradually extended the “right” to include full-term abortions, sex-selection abortions, “genetic fault” abortions, and “lifestyle” abortions. Now so-called “ethicists” like Peter Singer are proposing “post-birth” abortions, which used to be called infanticide.
If the abortionists had stuck to Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” formulation, R v W might still stand.
The creeping extension of abortion rights to an essentially unlimited position was a principal cause of the recent loss. How far do you think that abortion “rights” should extend? Or do you think that all of the above positions are “mainstream”?
The major reason are fanatics like CL saying all abortion is wrong.
I am not going to sign up to a law which tells me I cannot choose my wife’s life over the unborn child. nor if a woman must have the child after incest or rape.
If you are going to stop a 10 year old from pregnancy then you are a looney.
It is important to note all four circumstances are rare.
Emphasising that most abortions are simply a lifestyle choice would reduce its popularity.
I am not going to sign up to a law which tells me I cannot choose my wife’s life over the unborn child.
Good news, the current law does not demand that.
I made no reference to incest or rape.
If you are going to stop a 10 year old from pregnancy (sic)
Read before pushing the Post Comment button. Surely stopping 10 year olds from getting pregnant is an admirable course of action, but I did not raise it. As for access to abortion for a 10 year old, I suspect that the “risk to the mother” exemptions would apply.
It is important to note all four circumstances are rare.
Raising the extreme cases seems to be your way to avoid my point. You deliberately avoided my questions about:
abortion up to time of birth;
genetic fault abortion; and
Perhaps you could address them, rather than raise red herrings?
Why bother commenting on anything non compis mentis says.
Whoever it is is obviously insane.
I didn’t reference you at all. why would I.
All I have done is raise 4 examples abortion is needed. Most times it is not needed as I have always stated.
But apart from a vague comment, you are not willing to condemn directly the expansion of abortion “rights” to such extreme lengths?
BJ: the point here is that it’s a personal decision. The state has no role in it at all. Or shouldn’t. A very wide range of people choose to abort pregnancy for personal reasons. In my experience it is not a casual choice and leaves a considerable sense of loss and regret. The degree of colourful language and abuse rendered in the “debate” over abortion law in the US is to me symptomatic of the presence of social misfits in much that today is called debate.
The degree of colourful language and abuse rendered in the “debate” over abortion law in the US is to me symptomatic of the presence of social misfits in much that today is called debate.
Way to avoid the point. You, like Non Mentis, pass no direct judgement on people who are happy to kill a child because it is the “wrong” sex (a burden that largely falls on female children, but let’s not get into the sexism argument), or as it emerges fully formed from the birth canal, or because the woman enjoyed the root, but didn’t bother with her own contraception or insist that her partner use a condom.
I get that you see all the above “options” as a “woman’s right” to choose, but are you able to steel yourself even to condemn “post-birth” abortion, currently known as infanticide? Would you agree that those who advocate for infanticide, or make use of it could accurately be described as “social misfits”?