Lila Rose Shares Why Abortion Supporters Want a Culture of Consequence-Free Sex

Sex for pleasure was approved and accepted when the contraceptive pill became freely available.
And if sex is only for procreation, why do so many men buy their pleasure outside the marriage bed? And assume the little lady at home will put up with that?

Such ideas either cost a fortune in childcare or are another version of the Handmaid's Tale.

 

Sex for pleasure was approved about 30 seconds after Adam and Eve met.

 

I prefer to address the ridiculous when I see it And God knows there is an abundance to be had on his topic

 

My observation is that young people are having nowhere near the amount of sex that their parents and grandparents were having at the same age.

Catholic bishop slams "evil woman" Hillary Clinton for remarks comparing pro-lifers to the Taliban



He's not wrong.

'Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and U.S. senator, along with being a former first lady, compared abortion “rights” to using rape as a tactic of war.'

How did such a vile hateful person rise to national office?

We will always owe President Trump a debt of gratitude for keeping this malevolent hag from becoming president.

Hillary Clinton: Saving babies from abortion is like terrorists raping women.

 

Just stop whining and put on a damn condom
It is not that difficult!

 

Wow, that's a boatload of anger you have there. As I stated, clearly emotional.

That isn't just my opinion. The government grants no personhood to the unborn. There is no legal status because there is no human person, yet. Science has not established that an embryo or fetus is a human person. Millions of people agree. It's a dilemma as old as civilization: Where does one draw the line on personhood? How do we reconcile two people sharing one body? Whose life takes precedence?

As for that, I strongly disagree. The voters in my state have no right to make life or death decisions on the part of women of childbearing age.

The Constitution also guarantees us the right to privacy and autonomy via the 4th Amendment. Does any state government have a right to even know when a woman is pregnant? I think not, no more than they have a right to know if a man gets a vasectomy, or has his prostitute removed, or is taking viagra for erectile dysfunction. Etc etc etc.

Allow me to be abundantly clear on this issue, for those who think that my opinion is just as emotional as theirs: I am not pro abortion, I am pro choice. Even if I would never choose abortion for myself, I do not think that I, or you, or any government has the right to make that choice for anyone but themselves, and I also think that another woman's choice is none of my business.

Got it?

 

All claimants here should be ready and willing to back up any of their statements. You should try it.

 

Do you need a refresher in Contitutional law, or anatomy?

They "seize" the contents of that uterus. The fetus becomes government property in those states with abortion bans. Does that seem right to you?

 

They don't seize anything.

When the government starts forcibly impregnating someone let us know.

 

Can't respond to generic nonsense that didn't argue any point at all.

All you did was blame religion.

 

I'm not angry about anything. I just cherish human life. And along with millions of other Americans, I cherish the life of an unborn child. Government does not grant rights, we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Yes, it is an age old dilemma. That's why the decision to have the VOTERS decide is so appropriate and just. Does mom have a right to kill the child? Does the state have the right to protect the child? Like you say, its an age old dilemma. And now it will be decided by the VOTERS. Differing outcomes will just reinforce that there is no single correct answer.

Vasectomies, viagra and all the rest you list are male issues and have nothing to do with abortion.

Women's right of choice versus the unborn's right to live is the issue. Now it will be resolved in a democratic manner at the state level.
Smart folks those FOUNDING FATHERS!

 

The "seize" ownership of the fetus, ffs. In those states, the government controls what pregnant women are allowed to do with her fetus.

Again, I'm asking you: Why doesn't the 4th Amendment apply to women of childbearing age? You keep dodging me on that one. I'm guessing it's because you don't know enough to make a solid, constitutionally valid argument. Prove me wrong, please.

 

American Christian evangelicals are to blame for the death of Roe v Wade and the draconian state laws being enacted in red states. As I posted earlier, if the sacred sandal fits ...

 

Religion has nothing to do with the demise or Roe v Wade. The court noted that there was no mention of abortion in the Constitution. This means that the federal government has no jurisdiction in regards to abortion. Again, in accordance with the Constitution, the court referred the matter to the states for the voters to decide. There's nothing in that chain of events that had anything to do with religion... strictly Constitutional Law.

 

Voters who aren't scientists, or doctors, or women, get to decide the ancient and still unanswered question of when a fetus becomes an actual person? Seriously? Not even the best of us throughout history could define that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/#:~:text=A human life may be,9 of gestation during embryogenesis.

Using the "I cherish human life" phrase is arrogant and insulting, in that it implies that the reader does not. You know that's bullshit, right?

Please answer my question from before regarding the constitutionality of abortion bans: Doesn't the 4th Amendment right to security in our persons and effect apply to women of childbearing age? By what right does the government even get to know we're pregnant? Does that seem right to you, stripping a right from one group of citizens? Can you make a constitutional argument for that?

 

"Lila Rose Shares Why Abortion Supporters Want a Culture of Consequence-Free Sex"

sounds like she wants Consequences for those that have sex for pleasure, and that is what it really boils down to with some on the right

 

You need someone else to tell you that human life is precious? Really? Wow. A lot of us know that intuitively. I find ALL LIVES MATTER, even those of unborn children.

I cherish human life. I'm sorry if you find that offensive.

"Secure in our persons" applies to both mom and the unborn child. I agree that stripping that right from the unborn, certainly a distinct "group" is inherently wrong.

Question? Back in the 1960's and 1970's we had an amazingly robust sexual environment in America. In that "Peace, Love, Dope" era, we screwed like rabbits. But abortion wasn't really an issue. We had condoms, IUD's, birth control pills and diaphragms available everywhere. Are these items now banned so that abortion, a very intrusive medical procedure, is the only alternative? Condoms, IUD's, THE PILL, and diaphragms were so easy to use! Have they been banned?

 

If you believe that the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v Wade was not pushed and twisted and prodded by the agenda-driven ultra-conservatives on the Court, then there's this bridge I'd like to sell you ...

If you believe that Christian fundamentalists had nothing to do with stacking that Court with ultra-conservatives, then I refer you to the Federalist Society:

https://fedsoc.org/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

"Of the current nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, six are current or former members of the organization (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett)."

Barrett is a long-standing member of a religious cult, ffs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

The Federalist Society justices are all Catholics except Gorsuch, who is Episcopalian, but even he was raised Catholic.

Now, tell me again that Christian Fundamentalism had nothing to do with it.

 

So, in your opinion, Christian social clubs are radical organizations?
Catholicism is a radical Christian cult?

Wow... so you have to worship Satan and curse Christ to be a good jurist? Wow.

 

It's a Christian thing. Women should have sex only as a wifely duty, in order to produce heirs for her husband. Once upon a time, long ago, it was carved into most religions because forced fidelity was the only way for a man to be certain that her children were also his. Irrelevant in the modern age of simple DNA tests. And not once has any Christian I've ever met had an answer for the following:

If your God made our bodies, why did he give women the clitoris? It has no function other than to give us pleasure. Why doesn't your God want us to use what he supposedly gave us?

 

The only one bringing religion into this is you. The court simply said that since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has no jurisdiction over it. The Constitution authorizes federal powers and if they are not mentioned in the Constitution, they revert to the states. That's all. Pretty simple. Pure law.

 

Who the heck said sex is only a wifely duty? I went to Catholic grammar school (with nuns) and Catholic high school (with priests). I lost my virginity in the balcony of a movie theatre at a matinee showing of "Bullitt" when a gal and I snuck out of a CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) convention in Wilkes Barre, PA when I was 14.
But again, that was in an era when condoms, diaphragms, IUD's and THE PILL were available everywhere. Apparently they can't be found anywhere anymore.

 

Where did I say that? Perhaps a refresher in reading comprehension would help. What I did was accuee you of using the phrase as virtue signaling, making the assumption that the other person does not cherish life.

The 4th Amendment does not apply to a fetus. Period. You are egregiously misunderstanding the issue due to your personal, emotion-based views. Try to employ logic. You have two people sharing one body. How do you, or any bloc of state voters, get to decide which life takes precidence? You're not God. A woman's pregnancy is none of your business unless she chooses to include you.

As for contraceptives, they fail. Condoms break, hormonal methods are not 100% reliable, inserts like IUDs are also prone to occasional failure, and diaphragms were never reliable as they can slip out of place during intercourse. There are only a few 100% reliable forms of birth control: tubal ligation (irreversible), abstinence (a ridiculous thing to expect of normal human beings), and vasectomies (reversible).

As I said, I am not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. You do understand the difference, right? I can cherish human life and still state, logically and reasonably, that another woman's pregnancy is none of my business and definitely not my problem. The anti-choicers seem to thing abortion is a modern problem, and we need laws about it, but IMHO we don't need laws for something women have been doing for thousands of years.

 

The Federalist Society is known for it's ultra conservative views and agendas. However, the People of Praise, the organization that Barrett has been a member of for decades, is a cult.

How did you work Satan worship into it? Is that what you think I am?

Get a grip and try a response that isn't loaded with anger, resentment, and hatred. I'm not your effing enemy, ffs.

 

So what insanity did you pull that from?