Kamala Harris Reproductive Rights ‘Everything is at stake’

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The topic is whether one class of human beings has the right to life.

 

Which  makes slavery a direct analogy, where "science" of the period said negros were inferior and the laws of the day did not afford them protections from abuse and being killed if they became inconvenient.

 

Sound familiar?  Because that's exactly how unborn infants are being treated. In some locations, even fully viable children who just haven't been born yet.

In what locations are "fully viable children" being aborted?

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

of course it’s all about men being victims. 
 

How did I not see that.

 

Actually, it's the unborn child that is the victim in these cases. 

 

Keep up with that feminist rhetoric though. 

[impulse]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

In what locations are "fully viable children" being aborted?

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/late-term-abortion-laws-by-state

 

[Chomper Higgot]

49 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Actually, it's the unborn child that is the victim in these cases. 

 

Keep up with that feminist rhetoric though. 

Refer to thread on increased child mortality and birth defects in Texas.

 

You bleating about how hard done by men are is not ‘feminist rhetoric’, it’s self stroked grievance wallowing.

 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Refer to thread on increased child mortality and birth defects in Texas.

 

You bleating about how hard done by men are is not ‘feminist rhetoric’, it’s self stroked grievance wallowing.

 

 

Typical feminist.

 

Equality when it suits. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Typical feminist.

 

Equality when it suits. 

Sorry for calling out your claims of men being victims in all of this.

 

So your opinion is that the woman gets to choose whether to kill their unborn child or not, but the man has no say in that or whether he wishes to pay to raise their child after the woman has made her decision about whether to allow the life of their unborn child to continue? Correct? Seems a bit lop sided to me.

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:19 AM by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sorry for calling out your claims of men being victims in all of this.

 

Just calling for equality of choice Chomps. As Mr Chapelle said, "If the woman can choose to kill the unborn child, the man can at least choose to abandon it. My money, my choice".

 

I thought you were all for equality? Or perhaps it's equity you really want... 

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/late-term-abortion-laws-by-state

 

Your claim was that "fully viable children" are being aborted. That is not the same thing as late term abortions being permitted. 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Just calling for equality of choice Chomps. As Mr Chapelle said, "If the woman can choose to kill the unborn child, the man can at least choose to abandon it. My money, my choice".

 

I thought you were all for equality? Or perhaps it's equity you really want... 

Because in this situation someone has to have the deciding vote. Both parties make an equal genetic contribution but only one does all the work afterwards. Think of it like a business deal. 2 partners each contribute 50 percent of the capital but one is a passive investor and the other actually runs the business. Sweat equity counts.

[JonnyF]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because in this situation someone has to have the deciding vote. Both parties make an equal genetic contribution but only one does all the work afterwards. Think of it like a business deal. 2 partners each contribute 50 percent of the capital but one is a passive investor and the other actually runs the business. Sweat equity counts.

 

Using your analogy, it seems like there is an initial meeting and then only one party decides whether to go ahead with the long term "business" plan.

 

If they decide to go ahead with the plan, the other party who may not agree with the decision and had no say, pays for it for 18 years.

 

If they decide to terminate the plan, the other party who may wish to continue but has not say, loses the business.

 

Doesn't seem very fair to me.