Democrats Abandon Women By Funding Anti-Abortion Candidates | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Democrats Abandon Women By Funding Anti-Abortion Candidates

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

Democrats are f *** ing women over by vowing to fund candidates that are anti-abortion and also anti-choice. Hannah Cranston destroys DCCC chairman in lesson on fundamental human rights.

See extra TYT Facebook Originals at

Comply with Hannah on Twitter:

Comply with Hannah on Instagram:

Share Your Comments

102 comments

  1. Posted by Hopelessly Hopeful, at Reply

    I can be pro women and not support their “right” to end another’s life.

    • Posted by Phil, at Reply

      Faolan Van Garrett, restricting murder also pushed murdering other people “underground.” I don’t really have a problem with that. It brings down the murder rates.

      I would go for an all out ban if it was up to me. Allowed in cases like a conjoined twin where if it wasn’t done, it would seriously endanger the life of the other. No, blocking sperm is not murder. If it has a heartbeat then it is murder in my opinion. Again, it is not legal for a conjoined twin to kill their twin simply because they do not want to share their body. It is their body but the other party also has a right to life too. It should be the same for a mother and child.

      I’m not a conservative so the economic issues you bring up are non-existent in my mind. Of course we should be helping to take care of these children and we need to vastly improve the maternity leave issue in this country. There was a time in this country when many horrible things were legal that people thought would never be outlawed, and sure enough they were, and here we are.

    • Posted by Faolan Van Garrett, at Reply

      Woah woah woah – you think it is *morally acceptable to force a woman to carry a fetus to full term, even if it means risking her life, or in the case of rape and incest?*

      Sorry, but we are never going to see eye-to-eye on this. I know what you’ll argue, and in part I do agree – the violent act of how the baby was conceived is not the fault of the fetus, but you could and should at least acknowledge the (most often severe) psychological damage it could do to a woman – notwithstanding the physical changes that happen to their bodies during pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry full-term in these cases is profoundly evil. This trumps the “rights” of any unborn zygote.

      You don’t seem to understand the cultural implications of this either – in Latin America, abortion tends to be heavily restricted – and women who fall pregnant outside of marriage can face severe social stigma. This causes many of them to resort to underground abortion clinics – where many women die & many are left infertile afterwards. If it came down to saving the life of a woman or a fetus – please, don’t tell me you would choose the fetus. If you were in the position of making such a decision, I refuse to believe you would say “Screw it, carry the baby and if you die giving birth, so be it”.

      Yes, the above is a cultural issue, but you cannot just *force* mass changes like this overnight and expect it to stick – that’s a very Utopian way of thinking and never works.

      And what about severe birth defects – although rare, there is a condition which results in a baby being born without the upper regions of the brain (responsible for thinking, memory etc) forming. Is abortion acceptable then?

      Your argument about rights is moot, because this should be treated in a purely legal sense – don’t conflate personal morality with the law.

      And don’t you feel uncomfortable at all in telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

      _There was a time in this country when many horrible things were legal that people thought would never be outlawed, and sure enough they were, and here we are._ – but abortion was *illegal* and then *made legal,* so this argument isn’t really applicable here, unless you make the argument that we have slid backwards as a society – one I must wholly disagree with (women’s rights are better than ever)

      (P.S I am _opposed_ and disgusted with women who treat abortion as an act of mere convenience – mainly high-flying women who sleep around then see fit to dispose of their unborn babies because they didn’t take the proper precautions…my mother knew women like this. I am also opposed to late-term abortions)

    • Posted by Ponderingtaco, at Reply

      Ace you murder more cells with chemotherapy than you do abortion

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      You’re going to have a hard time convincing any woman that you’re for women but against women having agency over their lives.

  2. Posted by Grant Putnam, at Reply

    Why do you want to kill your babies?

    • Posted by CAX117, at Reply

      Eye Heisenberg Fetuses aren’t babies until they’re born.

    • Posted by CAX117, at Reply

      Money TEam Yeah, see how pregnancy rates have risen in states that have defunded planned Parenthood. More than just “abortion centers’

    • Posted by The Fruitcake, at Reply

      Because they’re too stupid to prevent a pregnancy.

    • Posted by Trump Is King, at Reply

      @Gabbie Roca, this argument is silly. Going by this logic there would be no laws at all. You could say “if you’re don’t want to murder people, don’t murder people”

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      We don’t. But the alternative (inflicting colossal physical, psychological and socio-economic trauma, more than enough in any of those three categories to completely destroy a woman’s life, on top of the existential trauma of denying half of humanity bodily agency) is, to us, the greater of two evils.

  3. Posted by Ibrahim Hassan, at Reply

    Why do these hoes get pregnant in the first place ? Damn women these days can’t close thier legs

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Oh, they do close their legs. But then people like you force their legs open.

    • Posted by Lark Druid, at Reply

      Because men can’t keep their dicks in their pants to save their lives. Literally they ruin their own life, and the life of the victim(s) they raped

  4. Posted by L vamp, at Reply

    I wonder how Democrats would explain million of children in the foster care system or in the street? or how not having an abortion is gonna help the woman? This will backfire on them

    • Posted by TheOutlierPlays, at Reply

      I do not and I agree they don’t really care about the citizens. Capital Hill has long since abandoned representing the will of the people and are only responsible to the entities lining their pockets or fulfilling their desires. Instead of arguing over the two main sides of a “broken” ladder, I believe we should more focus on a paradigm shift of the social conscious. A game can only continue so long as everyone agrees to the rules.

    • Posted by L vamp, at Reply

      True and you’re right. But what can we do, we don’t have power or wealthy?

    • Posted by TheOutlierPlays, at Reply

      This is true for most of us. Change is not something that usually occurs over night. Typically it is a long, drawn out process spurred by learning and growth. But the first place to start is with the person in the mirror. Though things may seem bleak now, the sun will continue to rise over the horizon (for the foreseeable future at least). For now, as long as you and I can continue carrying ourselves with integrity and try and convince others to do likewise, then the world stands a stronger chance of changing for the better. But we’ve already taken the first step πŸ™‚

    • Posted by L vamp, at Reply

      Have we? That was beautiful, it’s hard for me to get my point across with spoken word, I express my word through writing. Will that work?

  5. Posted by spooder man the cuck slayer, at Reply

    Hannah? Ugh

    Smash that dislike everybody

    • Posted by meh757, at Reply

      ok but i dunno why you want us to dislike your comment

    • Posted by Eater 999, at Reply

      spooder man the cuck slayer You say that like you enjoy all the other members.

    • Posted by Cov Fefe, at Reply

      I’d smash that Hannah. She has bigger b00bs than I thought previously.

      Time for some covfefe.

  6. Posted by quaxk, at Reply

    Isn’t it amazing TYT is still harping on the election night almost a year later?

    • Posted by The Fruitcake, at Reply

      Yeah. It’s pathetic.

    • Posted by TrumpaTouille, at Reply

      Actually, it’s only Hannah, and she noted that “they’re over it”. You should pay more attention to the videos.

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Isn’t it amazing that anybody on the net can lie about videos they don’t like and remain free of all consequence?

  7. Posted by Ben Shapiro, at Reply

    TYT supports killing babies.

    • Posted by CAX117, at Reply

      The Fruitcake Right, because small government stopped the great depression and recession, and paid for allied victory in ww2. I believe it was the small government that let banks do whatever they want which led to both economic crashes.

    • Posted by The Fruitcake, at Reply

      +CAX117 Small government can change to suit the people. California wanted universal healthcare and made it for themselves.

    • Posted by luke pearson, at Reply

      CAX117 actually, government interference caused (or worsened, in 1930) the 2 great reccesions in the US. Usually, after a reccesion there is a similarly sized boom…except for the times that the government got involved

    • Posted by TrumpaTouille, at Reply

      luke: Right wing claptrap.

    • Posted by luke pearson, at Reply

      TrumpaTouille how so? Is it because conservatives use FACTS?

  8. Posted by Hal Jordan, at Reply

    I like how conservatives claim to love the constitution, yet fail to recognize that abortion and gay marriage are constitutionally-protected rights.

    • Posted by Phil, at Reply

      Hal, it is more like saying a tree seedling is just as alive as a tree. If something has a hearbeat, it is alive, no?

    • Posted by Princess Ameatia, at Reply

      Phil Except it doesn’t matter if its alive or not it still doesn’t have the right to use another persons body without their consent. So go eat a Snickers.

    • Posted by Phil, at Reply

      Princess Ameatia, I disagree. If had a conjoined twin, does my twin not have just as much of a right to live as I do?

    • Posted by Hal Jordan, at Reply

      Your conjoined twin would be a person. Fetuses aren’t people, which is why they are not under the protection of the constitution.

    • Posted by Phil, at Reply

      Hal, what constitutes a person in your opinion? Someone who is alive? Someone with a hearbeat? Brain function? Motor skills? One minute prior to birth a baby is not a person with no rights to life, but one minute later they are? I don’t know. These are very fine lines in my opinion.

  9. Posted by Saltvadoor, at Reply

    Abortion is wrong.

    • Posted by David Heinecke, at Reply

      You missed the point. I asked what is so important about the heartbeat? Why should that be the moment that separates a fetus that can be aborted without a consequence and an unborn baby that, if aborted thereafter, would be murder?

    • Posted by Pranay, at Reply

      You are an abortion.

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Murdering for convenience is wrong, huh.

      Tell that to people with incurable medical conditions that leave them bedridden in constant pain 24/7 as their bodies waste away before their eyes, incapable of participating in the human condition or of doing anything else besides wait to die.

      Killing those people for their own convenience, releasing them from their torment…is called euthanasia.

    • Posted by luke pearson, at Reply

      Feather Sigil the person that’s dying is the one who will “gain” the convenience, for lack of a better term

      In an abortion, the baby is murdered while the mother is convenienced

      NOT THE SAME SITUATION

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Indeed, they’re not the same situation. But let’s use more nuanced arguments like that one instead of “Killing for convenience is wrong”

      But on that subject:

      -Pregnancies where the baby is doomed and the mother will die if there is no abortion.

      ^ The one dying (the mother) benefits, as at least her death is preventable.

      -Pregnancies of rape, thus the mothers are incapable of fully loving their kids.
      -Pregnancies of rape, thus the mothers are too traumatized to properly support their kids.
      -Pregnancies of incest, thus the mothers are carrying inbred children who are at risk for birth defects.
      -Pregnancies in which the mothers are financially incapable of supporting their kids.
      -Pregnancies in which the mothers are, due to other medical matters, physically and/or mentally incapable of supporting their kids.

      ^ In all of those situations, the one dying (the baby) benefits, as it is spared a damaged existence it doesn’t deserve to suffer through.

  10. Posted by JERA, at Reply

    when a baby is involved it is NOT JUST THE WOMAN’S DECISION. so sick of hearing that it is all up to the woman, ummm last time i checked you didn’t get pregnant playing with yourself, you had a man with you. So it needs to be a mutual decision. If you can’t decide together you shouldn’t be having UNPROTECTED SEX. Don’t you SLUTS TAKE SEX ED IN HS? Birth Control doesn’t work 100% of the time. carry condoms or don’t be having sex and than saying its my body i wanna kill a kid now

    • Posted by JERA, at Reply

      can’t get in trouble for my view, and never said anything wrong so. enjoy going threw the short process of reporting me. take it 1 step further and block me. BC i am sure i don’t wanna hear any of your DISGUSTING FEMINIST BABBLE

    • Posted by David Asiano, at Reply

      JERA: Men only pay child support AFTER the baby is born. That part is settled. Once the fetus exits the womb, he’s a human baby. Men aren’t obligated to pay for the fetus nutrition, medical exams etc when the woman is pregnant , either
      Why must you poorly educated be so stupid… oh wait

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Your argument assumes that all abortions are done by loving couples who consented to have sex and don’t have to worry about any medical complications in the pregnancy. You might want to expand your understanding.

    • Posted by Trump Is King, at Reply

      No, in my comment, I specifically stated that I was talking about consensual sex. Rape, incest, money issues, etc is a completely different discussion and it’s not the one we’re having right now.

  11. Posted by Trump Is King, at Reply

    If the fetus is just a part of the mother then can someone please explain to me why the fetus and the mother have two different DNA

    • Posted by Trump Is King, at Reply

      @Listenbuddy1 “The definition of ‘parasite’ more closely fits libs” dude, we’re on the same side, but that was kinda disrespectful. No need for pointless insults

    • Posted by Listenbuddy1, at Reply

      Trump Is King I have no trouble disrespecting abortion supporters. You should too.

    • Posted by Narwhocalypse, at Reply

      Cangel Tibon I don’t see why that matters.

    • Posted by Narwhocalypse, at Reply

      David Asiano I wouldn’t call others trumpanzees when you’re the moron who can’t read.

    • Posted by Sam Stiglitz, at Reply

      David did you ever admit how stupid you were, and acknowledge cancer is a mutation of the base DNA? You were simply wrong.

  12. Posted by Tom McCann, at Reply

    Isn’t the founder of planned parenthood a serial racist who wanted to sterilize black chicks

    • Posted by isemajic97, at Reply

      Michael Thor she is and i hate what planed parenthood is doing to my people

    • Posted by WhatAboutThemApples, at Reply

      They basically will take one small part of of a sentence out of context and use that as proof that she is racist. Not really that hard to take any statement people will use against her and go online and find the full statement

    • Posted by Savage-American Imperialist, at Reply

      Yes, and she was a democrat.

    • Posted by Savage-American Imperialist, at Reply

      WhatAboutThemApples

      What is the “context” of wanting to control and eliminate the black population in the US (PP original initiative)? Please, tell us!

  13. Posted by UNLebanon, at Reply

    This is a perfect example of how Democrats have lost control of the conversation. No Democrat should feel bad about being pro-choice; but because Republicans have allowed to argument to be that pro-choice = pro-death, Democrats are scared to support women’s rights to choose.

    Here is the case Democrats need to make: ALL WOMEN ARE PRO-CHOICE! Even the ones who are pro-life are also pro-choice. No one held a gun to their head and told them to have a baby. They CHOSE life, which means they are pro-CHOICE. By advocating for pro-choice legislation, Democrats are giving religious women across America the ability to exercise their religious right to choose life, instead of having the decision forced down their throats be big government.

    Yes, some women may use this freedom to choose abortion; but unless you believe in Sharia Law, you shouldn’t condemn women for exercising the same rights that all women enjoy. “Life begins at conception” is a religious belief; just like “marriage is between a man and a woman” is also a religious belief. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you can’t force those beliefs onto others. To do so is a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-choice is the only choice for ANY woman living in America.

    • Posted by luke pearson, at Reply

      UNLebanon Ok then. Why should the government pay for your abortion? If you can choose life then funding planned parenthood with your tax dollars isn’t the best thing

    • Posted by Savage-American Imperialist, at Reply

      Great, now we can defund PP and we will no longer have an issue. Oh, wait, you still want my tax dollars, meaning, I have a say regarding women’s autonomy.

    • Posted by UNLebanon, at Reply

      +luke pearson, For the same reason the government should pay the costs of child birth. I’m in favor of free healthcare for everyone, from women seeking abortions to mothers giving birth to babies in hospitals.

      FYI: We currently fund planned parenthood with our tax dollars, but none of our money goes to abortions. Google search the Hyde amendment.

    • Posted by UNLebanon, at Reply

      +Feather Sigil +Nyletak Strobelight, If you like my comment so much, then write a letter to your congressman and tell them why pro-choice matters to you. Otherwise, they will keep assuming their constituents are against being pro-choice.

  14. Posted by Carlos Flores Hernandez, at Reply

    The majority of Americans β€”58%β€”are pro-life

    • Posted by isemajic97, at Reply

      takethegate i like them. I lean more libertarian. But i voted jill stein

    • Posted by Willie Nelson, at Reply

      NO. 69% of Americans are pro-choice.

    • Posted by Carlos Flores Hernandez, at Reply

      I forgot to cite my source. It was from Gallup Poll.

    • Posted by Carlos Flores Hernandez, at Reply

      heppolo We won’t hit 2 billion until 2050. We are over 7 billion and counting, but even now we could all live in Texas or France.

    • Posted by Carlos Flores Hernandez, at Reply

      Willie Nelson What’s your source?

  15. Posted by Klangchirurg, at Reply

    It’s not your body. If it would be your body, you would be the one who dies through the abortion.

    • Posted by Klangchirurg, at Reply

      Thats fine, if you belive that the vaginal kanal is somehow a magic portal, that transforms (what ever you think it is) to life? You deciding for someone else, if he is alive or not. And the only reason you are able to write that comment is, that nobody decided upon you that way…. Ironic…

    • Posted by takethegate, at Reply

      I didn’t the definition of being born and abortion did. Abort. Look up the definition.

    • Posted by Klangchirurg, at Reply

      Ah using a dictionary as the moral guideline in life, okay. Besides that, you still making the decision 100% by accepting this definition and acting accordingly. As well as I’am not accepting this definition and by never doing such a thing to my child.

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      You said that living things (diseases, viruses, parasites, etc. are living organisms; curing them involves killing them in the body) don’t own themselves unless they die, the point at which all personal agency becomes impossible. Ergo, you think living things don’t own themselves under any circumstances. Which also means that the proto-humans being aborted don’t own themselves, thus your anti-abortion argument defeats itself.

      “But that’s not what I think!” you’re going to say. You might want to think about the logic in the things you say before you say them. Somebody’s body doesn’t become their body and then not become their body
      based on which medical procedures you’re comfortable with.

      As for the rest? Emotional appeals: irrelevant. Number of abortions you’re comfortable with: irrelevant. Narrow concept of what it means for the mother’s life to end: you should work on that.

  16. Posted by Steven Drumm, at Reply

    Yes, being against killing innocent unborn babies is definitely anti-women. Hannah, I have never heard you speak out against prostitution being illegal. If you really didn’t want the government telling women what they can do with their bodies, you would have. And Hillary calls herself pro-choice, even though she opposes legalizing prostitution. What a hypocrite. Its funny how most liberals love choice when it comes to abortion, but hate it when it comes to just about everything else.

    • Posted by umadareeb, at Reply

      If a fetus isn’t a human, then why would you want to reduce abortions? If it is, then no amount of justification could make abortion a moral choice, save for certain exceptional situations.

    • Posted by BigRalphSmith, at Reply

      MasterNate
      I’m not a “fool” and I haven’t called you any names just because we apparently have a disagreement. Name calling comes from frustration. Maybe you should take a closer look at where your frustration is coming from and respond appropriately rather than resorting to name calling.
      There is no tax money that goes to abortions, Nate. I think you know this. I don’t otherwise know where the “wasting money” thing came from.
      And yes, sometimes a woman gets pregnant because of stupid behavior. Are you saying the way she should be “punished” for her stupidity is to force her in to baby slavery?
      Get over the term “unwanted pregnancy”. As I said, they happen and they happen whether you like it or not.
      So, you have stumbled across one of the things that is proven to lead to fewer abortions; Comprehensive, pre-puberty sex ed. Great. I bet you can come up with the other ways to reduce abortions that don’t involve punishing women if you think on it some more.
      There will _always_ be women who get pregnant that, for one reason or another, do not want to be pregnant.
      .
      Are you telling me that their will is unimportant in the control over their bodies if they got pregnant in a way that _you_ think was “stupid”?
      Is forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn’t want to carry, for what you think are stupid reasons, the appropriate “punishment”?
      I don’t know how to ask that question more directly.
      .
      I keep pointing out that taking women’s bodily autonomy rights away is NOT the way to reduce abortions but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that. You seem to be OK with trying to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, AKA baby slavery, if _you_ or someone else, has adjudged the reason for their unwanted pregnancy was “stupidity”.
      You right that, when a pregnancy is wanted, there’s no reason to abort… unless the mothers health or survival is at risk. Maybe that’s why, instead of trying to fight abortion, we should instead fight unwanted pregnancies.

    • Posted by BigRalphSmith, at Reply

      umadareeb
      So, a fetus has to be classified as a human in order to make aborting it undesirable? Why?
      Is one of those “certain exceptional situations” the one where the woman that’s pregnant doesn’t want to be pregnant?

    • Posted by umadareeb, at Reply

      Yes, of course. If it is simply a body part, then why not (disregarding money and time) have as many abortions as you want?

      No, that’s not a exceptional case. A woman who’s pregnant but doesn’t want to be pregnant seems like an impossible scenario to me. Just like a man who doesn’t want to pay child support really is a impossible scenario, because of either of them didn’t prefer to be in these situations, they wouldn’t have done the very specific things which leads to these scenarios. An exceptional case is pregnancy by rape, danger of life etc.

    • Posted by MasterNate, at Reply

      BigRalphSmith fighting unwanted pregnancies instead of using abortion as a means to an end, was what i was saying.

  17. Posted by Bradley Schieble Jr, at Reply

    Abortion is not a women’s issue, it’s an issue of life. At least it is for conservatives. We don’t believe in controlling women’s bodies, we believe in preserving life. That fetus in a women’s body is not “part of your body”, it survives because of your body. The fetus is not some body part that you get to remove because you don’t want it there. It is another life, that has a different DNA makeup than its mother and in a few weeks has a heartbeat. To say that you can end the fetus’ life because it’s your body is the saddest thing I ever heard and very unscientific.

    • Posted by Lisa Simpson, at Reply

      Now you’re just spewing BS. The courts were NOT more liberal in 1973, and Roe Vs Wade was decided 7-2. You are more than welcome to read through the decision if you need those answers but you do NOT have the right to force gestation on women. Even if you make it illegal, people will STILL abort, and then you WILL have actual loss of people’s lives because unsafe abortions are deadly.

    • Posted by Bradley Schieble Jr, at Reply

      Lisa Simpson You are determining a citizen is one at birth, so I assume you’re supportive of late term abortions where they can take a fetus at 7 and 8 months, cut the back of it’s neck and crush it’s skull. A human is a citizen once it can be considered a human which is when mitosis begins.

    • Posted by Lisa Simpson, at Reply

      A human is a citizen at BIRTH. Citizens are born or naturalized.

      And your assumption is correct that I have zero issues with late term abortion if that’s what a woman needs. I’d encourage a first trimester abortion though, as it is the safest time to abort. It’s seven times safer than giving birth, and safer than a tooth extraction.

      It’s not my place to value another person’s pregnancy. That is their place to do so, and if they want to abort it, I support that choice.

    • Posted by Bradley Schieble Jr, at Reply

      Lisa Simpson So we’ll use your view of rights as a citizen. The Constitution, also, protects the rights of those you are not citizens of this country, such as a right to a trial, right to speech and religion and so on. So if rights of citizens are also given to those who are not, then wouldn’t it be contradicting in your argument that one does not have right to life until birth, if your view on that right is being a citizen.

    • Posted by Phil, at Reply

      Lisa Simpson, let’s put citizens rights aside for a moment and get down to a basic human level. What constitutes a living being in your opinion? At what point do you conider an unborn baby to be alive?

  18. Posted by Zeph, at Reply

    Democrats seriously think that being GOP-lite will get them votes when there is already a GOP party!

    • Posted by Matt Santos, at Reply

      Nope.

  19. Posted by ChimneySweep07, at Reply

    i consider myself a democrat and i am pro-life. sorry, but i dont believe this is selling out women in the slightest. i dont see abortion as “choosing”, i feel thats a world pro choice ppl use to try and make themselves not think about it as murdering un born babies. sorry, look at a picture of a baby 2 months in the womb. it looks already like a child. its baby murder. and i cant condone that. sorry.

    • Posted by Feather Sigil, at Reply

      Emotional appeals based on images are not more important than human beings having agency over their own lives.

    • Posted by freespeech absolutist, at Reply

      i literally dont care about a fetus, there are more important issues to focus then abortion. abortion is not an important issue that affects people lives.

    • Posted by BigRalphSmith, at Reply

      ChimneySweep07
      Well Sweep, we can’t really say that you do either. You haven;t addressed a woman’s sovereignty over her own body at all. I find that very telling.
      Also, on your “look at pictures of fetuses” line of reasoning, try looking at some that age that belong to _completely different species._ Some look pretty damn similar to a human fetus.
      I know when to stop imposing my will on others. I sure wish everyone did.

    • Posted by pirbird14, at Reply

      Every study by reputable medical associations shows there is no significant connection between abortion and emotional distress for the woman.

  20. Posted by Jeremy O'Dwyer, at Reply

    Women and girl’s shouldn’t be forced to have babies they don’t want. It’s a woman’s body so it’s her choice.

    • Posted by Jeremy O'Dwyer, at Reply

      Jim Jeffcoat Honestly man, I don’t think there’s many people who think abortion is great or awesome but the alternate of making women and girls have babies the don’t want is just worse in my opinion.

    • Posted by VodkaMix Revolution, at Reply

      Whether it becomes legal or illegal there will be women who will seek out ways to get an abortion anyways. Accidents happen, maybe they’re in between jobs, maybe they can’t afford to feed themselves let alone a child, maybe they recognize that they won’t be suitable parents. I would rather have abortion be legal so women have a safe option rather than risking their lives in a shady, back-alley procedure.
      I also don’t agree with having the kid then giving them up to the system. There are way too many children in it already and the basket is over- filling, not to mention there are many kids who get adopted into bad homes if they get adopted at all. Did you know that adoptive parents can buy and sell children to other people and it’s completely legal? There are (or were, I’m not sure if this problem has been fixed) shows for it that people attend and the children have to do their best to impress the adults so they get a home. It’s sick. There have even been cases where the children are bought by pedophiles.
      Edit:
      I DO think, however, there should be a limit on how many abortions a single woman can have throughout her lifetime. Accidents happen but if it’s happening constantly it’s more than likely not an accident, plus this might reduce the chance of women using abortion as a form of birth control.

    • Posted by Jim Jeffcoat, at Reply

      Jeremy O’Dwyer ask the baby if she thinks it’s worse

    • Posted by VodkaMix Revolution, at Reply

      Jim Jeffcoat If I asked a child if they wanted to be born to parents who didn’t want them and were forced to have them, I’m sure that would cause some sort of psychological problem.

    • Posted by Hitchhiking Vagabond, at Reply

      Abortion is murder