Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

As I think more about it, it's probably logistically easier for companies to offer to cover travel-only independent of insurance, whose systems probably aren't set up to handle it.  It would be easy enough to add add "abortion" as an expense code and figure out how to handle it in taxes later.

These companies in no way want women to have babies, they very much want women to have abortions

[jerryskids 6,575]

18 minutes ago, nobody said:

whichever way means more acidic.

Lower.  It's one of the few things I remember from HS chemistry, probably only because I have had a pool for 30 years.

[nobody 2,567]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Lower.  It's one of the few things I remember from HS chemistry, probably only because I have had a pool for 30 years.

I always did screw that up.  I mean the word base... typically that is something that is low, right?  Whoever invented that system should've been aborted.

[jerryskids 6,575]

19 minutes ago, nobody said:

I always did screw that up.  I mean the word base... typically that is something that is low, right?  Whoever invented that system should've been aborted.

Great point.  Also, "acid test" would be low as well, just stupid.

Similar for me with "viscosity," where high = goopier, or less fluid.  

[TimHauck 2,626]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

These companies in no way want women to have babies, they very much want women to have abortions

Employers?  Because having a kid makes them less productive?  Or they don’t want to pay maternity leave?  Both?

[shorepatrol 1,870]

46 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

goopier

Say it again only slower Jerry. 

[wiffleball 4,788]

Just draft legislation making it legal.

Should've written that up a long time ago.

[DonS 3,292]

2 hours ago, nobody said:

That's another solid way to prevent pregnancy.  Just pour a coke in that vag and get that pH level up.

Have a Coke and a (vertical) smile! 

[RLLD 4,143]

54 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Employers?  Because having a kid makes them less productive?  Or they don’t want to pay maternity leave?  Both?

Both.  Employers can hide behind t he facade of virtuosity but the truth remains, it is less costly for them to support abortions. And frankly, I am glad they would. I think its better for society. 

[TimHauck 2,626]

On 7/3/2022 at 7:34 AM, Masshole said:

I think most people can accept abortion up to somewhere around 15-20 weeks but after that you are talking about a being with a heartbeat.   

Bump.  Show of hands.  Who here agrees with this?

(Me, although I’d probably put it more around 20-24 weeks)

[Hardcore troubadour 14,953]

So the leaker, we’re not going to find out who that was? 

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

It's really easy to tell who the whores are now.  One green haired goblin at work lost her sh!t when it got overturned.  Big time slute

[Hardcore troubadour 14,953]

5 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

It's really easy to tell who the whores are now.  One green haired goblin at work lost her sh!t when it got overturned.  Big time slute

Daddy issues. 

[Voltaire 5,202]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Bump.  Show of hands.  Who here agrees with this?

(Me, although I’d probably put it more around 20-24 weeks)

Fine whatever. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Libs admit that abortions to save the life of the mother aren't quite as common as they led us to believe. 1 in 400.  And still federally legal. Have we ever seen a narrative crumble so quickly and completely?   

 

New Biden Rule Would Help Less Than One Percent Of Women Seeking Abortion (msn.com)

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

I did read something that in all 50 states an abortion could be a legal emergency procedure. Mother's life in danger is kind of the only emergency reason, right? I mean, the fetus wouldn't be living after the procedure, so it wouldn't be to save it. 

[Sean Mooney 1,944]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Bump.  Show of hands.  Who here agrees with this?

(Me, although I’d probably put it more around 20-24 weeks)

20 weeks should be the standard. That is essentially the halfway point (give or take) and gives plenty of time to assess how to care for the baby. 

[weepaws 3,157]

4-5 weeks into a pregnancy the baby as a heart beat, 20 plus weeks is and should be called murder.  If a pregnant woman is killed, and her unborn is also killed, it’s double murder why if it doesn’t count? 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

10 minutes ago, weepaws said:

4-5 weeks into a pregnancy the baby as a heart beat, 20 plus weeks is and should be called murder.  If a pregnant woman is killed, and her unborn is also killed, it’s double murder why if it doesn’t count? 

 

If the woman were murdered, the killer would be charged for BOTH deaths. Unless they were in LA or NYC, in which case they could just go home.

It is simply different when the woman does not want to be inconvenienced by a child and chooses to kill it, that is just fine a a personal medical decision. 

I think abortion should be readily available everywhere to any woman, at at any time during the pregnancy.  Why in gods name would we want a selfish coont raising a kid???  How do you think we wound up with retards like AOC in the first place?

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

A baby born at 20 weeks has less than a 50% chance of survival. 

It doesn't increase much until around 24 weeks, and there is still a significant chance of the baby not surviving. If they do, they generally have under developed lungs, eyes, and other difficulties that require NICU and very skilled nurses and doctors. 

Now, I was in the ICU for ONE night back in 2020. It was over $90k for ONE night. I can't imagine the bill for these babies that are there for MONTHS until they can go home. It's a harsh angle to take, what's the baby's life worth according to the parents? And if we have universal health care who pays for this, and would doctor's have more of a decision as to terminating a pregnancy they KNEW wouldn't be viable at 20 to 24 weeks? 

Lots of questions. 

 

ETA: At the time of a delivery of a baby that's 20 to 24 weeks, they need to get the baby out and in the NICU within 90 minutes of birth to increase it's chances. 

 

Source: https://fn.bmj.com/content/88/3/F199

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Bump.  Show of hands.  Who here agrees with this?

(Me, although I’d probably put it more around 20-24 weeks)

Who's paying for it?

[weepaws 3,157]

11 minutes ago, RLLD said:

If the woman were murdered, the killer would be charged for BOTH deaths. Unless they were in LA or NYC, in which case they could just go home.

It is simply different when the woman does not want to be inconvenienced by a child and chooses to kill it, that is just fine a a personal medical decision. 

I think abortion should be readily available everywhere to any woman, at at any time during the pregnancy.  Why in gods name would we want a selfish coont raising a kid???  How do you think we wound up with retards like AOC in the first place?

She doesn’t need to raise the child, she can give it up for adoption.  

Killing a person isn’t bad should never be an option, why should a baby die because a woman gets pregnant having sex, only 1% of abortions take place because of rape, so I’m tired of hearing about that being an exception.  

Killing any one if wrong.  That’s why the person would be charged for both deaths.  Thanks. 

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

3 minutes ago, weepaws said:

She doesn’t need to raise the child, she can give it up for adoption.  

 

I really wish that people would stop using the "adoption" reason for a woman to remain pregnant. There are SO many in the foster care system right now that have a hard time finding good families. 

And it's not like giving a child up for adoption is EASIER than abortion - stop acting like adoption is the ANSWER for pro-life arguments. 

[weepaws 3,157]

5 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I really wish that people would stop using the "adoption" reason for a woman to remain pregnant. There are SO many in the foster care system right now that have a hard time finding good families. 

And it's not like giving a child up for adoption is EASIER than abortion - stop acting like adoption is the ANSWER for pro-life arguments. 

Wrong. Stop acting like killing is a better answer.  We foster and we adopt, try saving a life instead of killing one. 

Shame on you.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

14 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I really wish that people would stop using the "adoption" reason for a woman to remain pregnant. There are SO many in the foster care system right now that have a hard time finding good families. 

And it's not like giving a child up for adoption is EASIER than abortion - stop acting like adoption is the ANSWER for pro-life arguments. 

The biggest problem with foster care/adoptions, isn't that there's not enough parents who want to adopt, it's the bull crap/hoops you have to jump through to get the kid.  My cousin adopted 3 girls from Vietnam because it was easier and cheaper than here.  How screwed up is that?

On average, there's about 650k abortions per year.  Last I saw, there was 2.2M people waiting to adopt.  So, as I intimated, there isn't a shortage of parents who want to adopt.  Another issue with adoption is the rights that the mother has and the risks associated with the adopting parents.  For example, a married couple can pay for all of the mother's housing, food, and medical care with the expectation of having the baby after birth.  The problem is, the mother can agree to these terms and even SIGN A CONTRACT, but another contract MUST be signed after birth.  If the mother chooses not to sign, she keeps the baby and doesn't have to reimburse the prospective parent.  There aren't many people willing to accept those terms.  Here's the kicker... if the mother waits just 3 months and wants to give the baby up, the people who wanted to take the baby initially, don't get the baby.  It goes into foster care and enter the red tape phase that's expensive and takes forever.

Well, at least that was the process 26 years ago in NJ.

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

3 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Wrong. Stop acting like killing is a better answer.  We foster and we adopt, try saving a life instead of killing one. 

Shame on you.  

Neither one is "BETTER" than the other. 

Stop acting like you're all high and mighty because you're pro-life. 

Shame on you for thinking that giving up a child is EASY. 

JUST in CA in 2020 there were over 50k foster kids. if it's so much easier to adopt, and families are out there looking TO adopt, why are there 50k kids in CA that need homes? 

[weepaws 3,157]

8 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Neither one is "BETTER" than the other. 

Stop acting like you're all high and mighty because you're pro-life. 

Shame on you for thinking that giving up a child is EASY. 

JUST in CA in 2020 there were over 50k foster kids. if it's so much easier to adopt, and families are out there looking TO adopt, why are there 50k kids in CA that need homes? 

Only tough part about fostering or adoption is going through the loops , and they are in place for a reason, to protect the child, the live child that wasn’t killed.  You sound like you’re surfing from post abortion. 

Time for you to move on, learn more about fostering and adoption, and how it saved lives, lend less on its ok to kill. 

You’re a very scary person.  

Thanks. 

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

11 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Neither one is "BETTER" than the other. 

Stop acting like you're all high and mighty because you're pro-life. 

Shame on you for thinking that giving up a child is EASY. 

JUST in CA in 2020 there were over 50k foster kids. if it's so much easier to adopt, and families are out there looking TO adopt, why are there 50k kids in CA that need homes? 

Let's go ask those 50k kids if they'd rather be dead

[RLLD 4,143]

28 minutes ago, weepaws said:

She doesn’t need to raise the child, she can give it up for adoption.  

Killing a person isn’t bad should never be an option, why should a baby die because a woman gets pregnant having sex, only 1% of abortions take place because of rape, so I’m tired of hearing about that being an exception.  

Killing any one if wrong.  That’s why the person would be charged for both deaths.  Thanks. 

Killing is wrong, I concede to that point.

In this instance I am not being philosophically correct. I am behaving somewhat as a liberal, and allowing the situation to dictate the moral code.

I see the killing of the babies in this instance to be a societal benefit, I do not want whoahs raising kids, so give them the right do do it. I think it is a positive for everyone else. My kids benefit by not having the retards that these clowns would put out there.

[nobody 2,567]

3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

I did read something that in all 50 states an abortion could be a legal emergency procedure. Mother's life in danger is kind of the only emergency reason, right? 

Mother's life in danger and if a condom broke. 

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

6 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Let's go ask those 50k kids if they'd rather be dead

I am sure some of them would say yes, given how foster children are treated in some homes 

6 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Only tough part about fostering or adoption is going through the loops , and they are in place for a reason, to protect the child, the live child that wasn’t killed.  You sound like you’re surfing from post abortion. 

Time for you to move on, learn more about fostering and adoption, and how it saved lives, lend less on its ok to kill. 

You’re a very scary person.  

Thanks. 

I've never had an abortion, my children are 20 and 17. I do believe in the right to choose. 

It's not okay to kill. It's also not okay to force a woman to keep a child, give it up, and place it into a system where it could be abused and never have a solid home life. 

And yeah. An independent woman like myself would probably be scary to someone like you who believes in forcing women to do things. 

You're welcome. 

[weepaws 3,157]

8 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am sure some of them would say yes, given how foster children are treated in some homes 

I've never had an abortion, my children are 20 and 17. I do believe in the right to choose. 

It's not okay to kill. It's also not okay to force a woman to keep a child, give it up, and place it into a system where it could be abused and never have a solid home life. 

And yeah. An independent woman like myself would probably be scary to someone like you who believes in forcing women to do things. 

You're welcome. 

If one believes it’s not ok to kill a child, but woman should have a choice, does then believe it’s ok to kill a child.  You need to stop being afraid, and pick aside. When is it ok to kill a child? Let me give you that answer and make it simple for you, never. No one would be forcing anyone to give up their child, they had sex, they got pregnant, they can raise the child, but there is an option that doesn’t include killing a child that you can’t make up your mind what side you believe in. And that’s what makes you scary , not that you’re a woman, but a confused person. Make up your mind before you type again. 

Thanks. 

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

8 minutes ago, weepaws said:

If one believes it’s not ok to kill a child, but woman should have a choice, does then believe it’s ok to kill a child.  You need to stop being afraid, and pick aside. When is it ok to kill a child? Let me give you that answer and make it simple for you, never. No one would be forcing anyone to give up their child, they had sex, they got pregnant, they can raise the child, but there is an option that doesn’t include killing a child that you can’t make up your mind what side you believe in. And that’s what makes you scary , not that you’re a woman, but a confused person. Make up your mind before you type again. 

Thanks. 

I did pick a side. 

I am pro-choice, I thought I said that above when I said that it's NOT okay to force a woman to be pregnant. If you think that means I believe in murder, then okay.  I really don't give a fock what you think. 

 

I *ALSO* believe in the overturning of RvW and the SCOTUS decision.

 

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

37 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am sure some of them would say yes, given how foster children are treated in some homes 

I've never had an abortion, my children are 20 and 17. I do believe in the right to choose. 

It's not okay to kill. It's also not okay to force a woman to keep a child, give it up, and place it into a system where it could be abused and never have a solid home life. 

And yeah. An independent woman like myself would probably be scary to someone like you who believes in forcing women to do things. 

You're welcome. 

Okay deal, but going forward if the man that impregnated the woman wants an abortion and she doesn't, he's off the hook for child support. Equality!

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

Okay deal, but going forward if the man that impregnated the woman wants an abortion and she doesn't, he's off the hook for child support. Equality!

That's another thing the states will need to figure out.  

But, if it's HER choice, and he doesn't want a baby...maybe needs to make sure that doesn't happen when he focks her. Condoms. 

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

33 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

That's another thing the states will need to figure out.  

But, if it's HER choice, and he doesn't want a baby...maybe needs to make sure that doesn't happen when he focks her. Condoms. 

Cant I say the same thing about unwanted pregnancies?

[TheNewGirl 1,355]

28 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Cant I say the same thing about unwanted pregnancies?

Yes. 

If neither the female/male WANT a pregnancy, there are options to prevent. 

[jerryskids 6,575]

9 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Yes. 

If neither the female/male WANT a pregnancy, there are options to prevent. 

I'd be interested in your female take on the following:  I believe based on my anecdotal evidence (that is, me) that women (my wife) are more interested in the guy (me and all of the male Geeks) finishing inside of her.  Personally, I'm just as good having her jerk me onto her glorious chesticles, but again that is anecdotal.  But there is something physiological for women having that wonderful splooge inside of them. 

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,242]

2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Neither one is "BETTER" than the other. 

Stop acting like you're all high and mighty because you're pro-life. 

Shame on you for thinking that giving up a child is EASY. 

JUST in CA in 2020 there were over 50k foster kids. if it's so much easier to adopt, and families are out there looking TO adopt, why are there 50k kids in CA that need homes? 

now ask how much it costs and the troubles you have to go thru to adopt?

 

[weepaws 3,157]

2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

I did pick a side. 

I am pro-choice, I thought I said that above when I said that it's NOT okay to force a woman to be pregnant. If you think that means I believe in murder, then okay.  I really don't give a fock what you think. 

 

I *ALSO* believe in the overturning of RvW and the SCOTUS decision.

 

Lol you can’t have it both ways, abortion is murder, which you said you don’t believe in.  Hear me roar.