If you're "pro choice"

[atlkvb]

why not favor Women who don't want their own unwanted offspring being allowed to kill the little tykes themselves? Why force taxpayers to pay abortion butchers to do that? That gets messy, (chopped up baby parts and all) ends up in courts for expensive litigation, and causes all sorts of divisions and nasty arguments between "enlightened" women seeking reproductive rights and nut bar Pro Lifers looking to save innocent baby's lives.:scream:

So I say, just allow Moms to do the honors themselves. Birth their baby, make sure it's "comfortable", then after a few minutes of holding it in your non-loving arms, slit its throat and toss it into the nearest dumpster. Clean, cheap, efficient, and you don't even have a guilty conscience because YOU exercised your power of "choice" over your own body!

So what's wrong with this if you're all about "pro choice"?

 

[Archetype XLIV]

 

[atlkvb]

Exactly @Archetype XLIV! I mean why "pay" someone else to kill your own unwanted child then get all mad at folks who are simply trying to keep you from murdering your own kids?

Why not just do it yourself, not only thereby telling nosy Pro Life wing nuts to "mind their own damn business" & protect the lives of their own damn kids, but also protecting your own body and YOUR reproductive choices?

It makes perfect sense to just allow Moms to kill their own unwanted kids themselves! This logic for the Pro Choice crowd is unassailable IMO.

What are their arguments against it?

 

[atlkvb]

If you are "Pro choice" what are your arguments against allowing Mothers who no longer want their unwanted children to kill the kids by themselves pre or post born no matter what length of time after conception? How's this any different from the exact demands Pro choice activists argue for right now? The only difference IMO is they (pro choice crowd) would prefer to hire someone else to do their killing, preferably at taxpayer expense.

Now, I doubt I'll hear much support from the "Pro choice" crowd for my proposal to just cut out the middle men, save taxpayers the expense and allow Moms the freedom of choice to kill their own kids, but I'll be the first one to admit I'm baffled by their lack of support?

@Archetype XLIV can you explain why I won't get much support for my proposal from the Pro choice "it's my body, my rights" crowd for this?

How's this proposal any different from what they're arguing for today? Why the lack of support? Help me my Man, I'm just confused over what they all want?

 

[Shirley Knott]

If a mother is allowed to "abort" her child after live delivery, how soon after delivery does she have to facilitate the abortion? Next change to abortion rulings will add years to facilitate the death of their fetus.....

 

[BoremanSouth]

Such difficult questions.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Such difficult questions.

That's pretty dumb. Scientifically, one is a fetus, the other is a non-fertilized egg.

 

[Keyser76]

lmfao, run on it!! it's a partisan issue winner for ya'll.

 

[BoremanSouth]

"Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."

-Mary Elizabeth Williams

 

[TarHeelEer]

"Her life and what is right for her circumstances automatically trump the life of the human baby inside of her. Always. Murder is ok as long as it's monetarily justified."

THE translation of a Salon writer

FIFY

 

[BoremanSouth]

Look at this cute little guy. He has his dad's eyes and smile. Can't you tell?

 

[atlkvb]

If a mother is allowed to "abort" her child after live delivery, how soon after delivery does she have to facilitate the abortion? Next change to abortion rulings will add years to facilitate the death of their fetus.....

Well matter of fact just the other day some Leftist was arguing for a three year window! I mean we've gone from a ban on third trimester killings to proposals for post birth murders! We also have "heartbeat" limits on the other end. So, why have any restrictions at all?

My only proposal is if you want your own child slaughtered, do it yourself! The ultimate "choice".

 

[atlkvb]

Look at this cute little guy. He has his dad's eyes and smile. Can't you tell?

Yup...and when Parents see their little developing "blob" under 3-D ultrasound what do they tell Family and friends they're expecting? A cantaloupe?

 

[atlkvb]

lmfao, run on it!! it's a partisan issue winner for ya'll.

I see no support from the "pro choice" crowd for my proposal Keyser. Why not? How is what I'm offering any different from their current demands?

 

[atlkvb]

"Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."

-Mary Elizabeth Williams

Wife: "Good News honey...I'm pregnant"!

Husband: "Really Sweetie...Oh that's great! Do you know what we're having?"

Wife: "Oh sure Honey, it's a 'non-autonomous entity' growing inside of me"

Husband: "So tell me Sweetie, what do you suggest for a name?"

How about YOU BoremanSouth? When did you become an "autonomous" entity as you were growing inside your Mother's tummy? Did you let her know when you were ready to survive "autonomously"? Bet that was a big surprise to her as she changed your stinky diapers?

 

[atlkvb]

Look at this cute little guy. He has his dad's eyes and smile. Can't you tell?

YOU can't tell...but it's already coded in the child's DNA which no one can make or copy. Matter of fact that unique DNA coding is so powerful, it's already determined exactly every detail of the baby even the Parents don't yet know about their growing bundle of joy.

Amazing. (3-D medical background DNA strand magnified)

YOU can't see this BoremanSouth, but it's more complicated and powerful than anything else in Life you can imagine. You couldn't produce this even if you were shown how to do it!

 

[atlkvb]

OK...I assume since there have been NO arguments in support of my proposal to allow Mothers of unwanted expectant babies to kill the kids off themselves, I'm assuming you Leftist pro choice agitators all are now Pro Life? :clap:

It's the same as your incoherent logic with Trump. Since Mueller didn't prove a crime, or can't name a crime, Trump's still guilty in your illogical minds especially of obstructing Justice since he "could" have or "may" have committed a crime!

So since you pro choice Leftists "could" allow Mothers to kill their own kids, or you "may" be in favor of restricting this since none of you have actually spoken up in favor of it, I suppose I can now assume you all are Pro Life just like you all think Trump is guilty of "obstruction" because he "could" have or "may" have committed a crime?

Do I have this about right according to your warped Leftist logic?

 

[atlkvb]

I have another idea that you "pro choice" folks may find useful to your cause. Since @BoremanSouth prefers to call an unborn baby a "non autonomous entity" it's obvious you need a name to call a growing unwanted fetus besides that dry nomenclature.

Obviously none of you prefers to think of it as a human being, so you struggle with all sorts of other names to call it before wiping it out... a zygote, non viable tissue mass, a jellyfish, an embryo, "it", "thing" "matter" even @BoremanSouth 's creative caricature. Anything except an unwanted "human being" correct?

So how's this:

Call it a "cancer"?

See calling it a "cancer" suggests it's not really part of the host's body (which is the way you all like to think of an unwanted pregnancy anyway correct?) Or, is it part of a Woman's body? I dunno I get confused trying to follow you all on this.

At any rate, calling it a "cancer" makes more sense once you decide to kill it off and cut it out of your reproductive system correct? You have cancer surgery to remove a growing mass of ugliness, a "clump of cells" that can kill you right? You get that cut out to restore your health or even save your Life correct?

So how's cancer surgery any different from cutting out an unwanted pregnancy? You just call that thing growing inside of you a "cancer" kill it off and remove it! Problem solved. You now have a name to call your unwanted child so when you kill it you won't have any "guilt" or arguments with right wing nuts like me over why it's immoral? It's not a "human", it's just a "cancer". See how that works?

Call it a "cancer". You're not having an "abortion" you're having "cancer surgery". You're not ending an unwanted pregnancy, you're removing a bad cancer. It's not a child, or even human. It's a "cancer" on society and a "cancer" on women's reproductive freedom of choice! Having unwanted children is carcinogenic.:scream:

Kids R Cancers

Any takers?

I was diagnosed with cancer, but my Mommy let me live

 

[atlkvb]

So here it is a day later and none of you "pro choice" folks agrees to exercise the rights you demand over your own reproductive freedom to approve my generous offer that OKs Mothers who don't want their unwanted babies to kill them off themselves. My suggestion was not making it a crime...perfectly OK, you don't want a baby? Fine...kill it... but do it yourself. We as a society no longer allow Doctors, sworn by oath to save lives, to perform your unwanted executions.

No takers? No one supports this? After all of your whining about assuring "a woman's reproductive Health" or her "right to control her own body" no one is willing to give Women the freedom to make that ultimate choice over whether to keep their unwanted child alive or kill it off themselves? Why not?

You all would rather keep things just as they are, and force taxpayers to fund the butchering of your unwanted children? Or allow a woman to hire someone else to kill her unwanted baby after she pays them? That's all better than allowing her to kill the unwanted baby herself?

Why?

Why no takers for my plan? I think it's certainly more direct & efficient. Less costly. Gives Moms more control over the process in terms of how long they carry the unwanted "tissue mass" or even if they carry it? It's more humane. Abortion operations are bloody, dangerous and messy. Women can go sterile from a botched abortion. I thought you all were for "protecting" a woman's health?

Not only that, but I solved the problem calling the unwanted child something else! I suggested we call it a "cancer'' because it certainly isn't "human" according to you folks, it certainly is "unwanted" and it most certainly can be detrimental to a Woman's health and may even kill her similar to cancer! So you just cut out the unwanted growth similar to how we deal with cancer and call the abortion operation "cancer surgery"! Great idea was it not?

Nope. None of you agrees with me. Why not?

@bamaEER , @countryroads89 , @moe , @WVUBRU , @Keyser76 , @BoremanSouth , none of you Leftists who so strongly support a woman's "choice" threw your support behind any of my well reasoned and well thought out proposals to give your side exactly what it's demanding! Full unrestricted freedom to kill any unwanted child at any time, (even post birth) for any reason. You don't even have to call it a "baby" or say you're "murdering" a child, because you can just call it something else like a "cancer"!

Still No takers. Why not? What is wrong with my logic? What part of your arguments for "women's choice" or "control over their own bodies" have I misunderstood or mischaracterized? I simply argued my suggestions using your "pro choice" arguments...all of them. I advocated for what you all either currently support or believe did I not? Yet I STILL don't have any Leftist supporters...why not?

You all will now just call me ignorant names, or complain I'm sort of right-wing nut, crazy, who should be placed back on "ignore" because of my incoherent rambling. Yet all I've done to show you Leftists how you cannot stand behind what you support when it comes to abortion is change a few words around. I merely changed the "language" around on some of your ideas forcing you to recognize what you refuse to call murder (abortion) using different "words" to describe it. Isn't that how your side has stolen this debate, and confused so many folks? Simply using different language...different "terminology"? OK, well I'm playing your little "word game" now.

There isn't one thing I've changed in your essential arguments for on demand abortions as murder except the words you all use to try and sanitize your insanity. You won't accept my proposals, because you don't like my words, and you don't like my words because it exposes your hideous lies about what you actually support through abortion on demand!

It's called Infanticide. Oh don't worry It's just a word. It doesn't really mean anything, I'm just using my own words calling out what you all support. Should mean nothing to you at all! However remember one thing you miserable, disgusting, Sinful, arrogant, inhumane, irreconcilably dark souls who have the nerve to call yourselves "human beings" but can't bring yourselves to admit you favor the random slaughter of innocent babies who you also refuse to describe as human just like yourselves...words mean things. If they didn't, you'd all be willing to admit to what you all actually support. You don't. You won't. You can't. You all cannot admit with the correct words what you all actually support. What you actually are.

Adult murderers murdering innocent children. Doesn't that sound so "enlightened"?

 

[Orlaco]

If you’re against abortion and consider it murder...then ALLOWING it to happen is the same as ALLOWING parents to go to the grade school closest to your home and killing their children (government endorsed).. Would you just sit home and bitch about it...or would you actually get involved?

 

[atlkvb]

If you’re against abortion and consider it murder...then ALLOWING it to happen is the same as ALLOWING parents to go to the grade school closest to your home and killing their children (government endorsed).. Would you just sit home and bitch about it...or would you actually get involved?

Children "sitting in school" up to the point in your scenario have obviously been allowed to live. Innocent unborn or newly born infants don't get the chance under your scenario to be "sitting ducks" for a deranged murderer. If we're smart and really all about protecting innocent lives, there'd be a few armed personnel inside that school to take the deranged creep out before he/she had a chance to slaughter anymore innocent kids.

However that's not what we're arguing with 'abortion on demand' is it? We're asking for permission to kill kids just because they're unwanted correct? So why "pay" someone else to kill your own unwanted child? Why not YOU just kill your kid all by yourself, then we don't even have to worry about "protecting" it from some nut job attacking a school.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

If you’re against abortion and consider it murder...then ALLOWING it to happen is the same as ALLOWING parents to go to the grade school closest to your home and killing their children (government endorsed).. Would you just sit home and bitch about it...or would you actually get involved?

Profound.

 

[BoremanSouth]

So here it is a day later and none of you "pro choice" folks agrees to exercise the rights you demand over your own reproductive freedom to approve my generous offer that OKs Mothers who don't want their unwanted babies to kill them off themselves. My suggestion was not making it a crime...perfectly OK, you don't want a baby? Fine...kill it... but do it yourself. We as a society no longer allow Doctors, sworn by oath to save lives, to perform your unwanted executions.

No takers? No one supports this? After all of your whining about assuring "a woman's reproductive Health" or her "right to control her own body" no one is willing to give Women the freedom to make that ultimate choice over whether to keep their unwanted child alive or kill it off themselves? Why not?

You all would rather keep things just as they are, and force taxpayers to fund the butchering of your unwanted children? Or allow a woman to hire someone else to kill her unwanted baby after she pays them? That's all better than allowing her to kill the unwanted baby herself?

Why?

Why no takers for my plan? I think it's certainly more direct & efficient. Less costly. Gives Moms more control over the process in terms of how long they carry the unwanted "tissue mass" or even if they carry it? It's more humane. Abortion operations are bloody, dangerous and messy. Women can go sterile from a botched abortion. I thought you all were for "protecting" a woman's health?

Not only that, but I solved the problem calling the unwanted child something else! I suggested we call it a "cancer'' because it certainly isn't "human" according to you folks, it certainly is "unwanted" and it most certainly can be detrimental to a Woman's health and may even kill her similar to cancer! So you just cut out the unwanted growth similar to how we deal with cancer and call the abortion operation "cancer surgery"! Great idea was it not?

Nope. None of you agrees with me. Why not?

@bamaEER , @countryroads89 , @moe , @WVUBRU , @Keyser76 , @BoremanSouth , none of you Leftists who so strongly support a woman's "choice" threw your support behind any of my well reasoned and well thought out proposals to give your side exactly what it's demanding! Full unrestricted freedom to kill any unwanted child at any time, (even post birth) for any reason. You don't even have to call it a "baby" or say you're "murdering" a child, because you can just call it something else like a "cancer"!

Still No takers. Why not? What is wrong with my logic? What part of your arguments for "women's choice" or "control over their own bodies" have I misunderstood or mischaracterized? I simply argued my suggestions using your "pro choice" arguments...all of them. I advocated for what you all either currently support or believe did I not? Yet I STILL don't have any Leftist supporters...why not?

You all will now just call me ignorant names, or complain I'm sort of right-wing nut, crazy, who should be placed back on "ignore" because of my incoherent rambling. Yet all I've done to show you Leftists how you cannot stand behind what you support when it comes to abortion is change a few words around. I merely changed the "language" around on some of your ideas forcing you to recognize what you refuse to call murder (abortion) using different "words" to describe it. Isn't that how your side has stolen this debate, and confused so many folks? Simply using different language...different "terminology"? OK, well I'm playing your little "word game" now.

There isn't one thing I've changed in your essential arguments for on demand abortions as murder except the words you all use to try and sanitize your insanity. You won't accept my proposals, because you don't like my words, and you don't like my words because it exposes your hideous lies about what you actually support through abortion on demand!

It's called Infanticide. Oh don't worry It's just a word. It doesn't really mean anything, I'm just using my own words calling out what you all support. Should mean nothing to you at all! However remember one thing you miserable, disgusting, Sinful, arrogant, inhumane, irreconcilably dark souls who have the nerve to call yourselves "human beings" but can't bring yourselves to admit you favor the random slaughter of innocent babies who you also refuse to describe as human just like yourselves...words mean things. If they didn't, you'd all be willing to admit to what you all actually support. You don't. You won't. You can't. You all cannot admit with the correct words what you all actually support. What you actually are.

Adult murderers murdering innocent children. Doesn't that sound so "enlightened"?

You cray.

 

[atlkvb]

You cray.

I know. I expected that. But you can't explain exactly what makes me crazy can you? Let me ask you do you favor mothers being able to kill their unwanted children at any time during their pregnancy?

Most Leftists do and I think that's crazy. So we're even.

 

[mule_eer]

I know. I expected that. But you can't explain exactly what makes me crazy can you? Let me ask you do you favor mothers being able to kill their unwanted children at any time during their pregnancy?

Most Leftists do and I think that's crazy. So we're even.

It all boils down to when people believe that life of that fetus starts. I think a pretty logical and decent compromise is to limit abortion starting around the time the fetus has a fighting chance outside the womb. I think the new record on that is 23 weeks - a baby born at 23 weeks just got out of the hospital recently. So let's call it at 20 weeks, but provide some exceptions for health of the mother - not a "she's sad" health exception, but life threatening stuff. I think 6 weeks is too restrictive. That's about the time a woman can pee on a stick to see if she's pregnant.

 

[dave]

It all boils down to when people believe that life of that fetus starts. I think a pretty logical and decent compromise is to limit abortion starting around the time the fetus has a fighting chance outside the womb. I think the new record on that is 23 weeks - a baby born at 23 weeks just got out of the hospital recently. So let's call it at 20 weeks, but provide some exceptions for health of the mother - not a "she's sad" health exception, but life threatening stuff. I think 6 weeks is too restrictive. That's about the time a woman can pee on a stick to see if she's pregnant.

I agree that is a decent compromise. I dont expect anything to change but my thoughts are that in 90+ percent of cases iy is avoidable (pregnancy) and I believe life begins at conception. So in my mind it seems more practical for everyone to be responsible adults and avoid 90% of unwanted pregnancies. That would save a lot of abortions.

 

[mule_eer]

I agree that is a decent compromise. I dont expect anything to change but my thoughts are that in 90+ percent of cases iy is avoidable (pregnancy) and I believe life begins at conception. So in my mind it seems more practical for everyone to be responsible adults and avoid 90% of unwanted pregnancies. That would save a lot of abortions.

I don't really disagree with your opinion about people acting responsibly avoiding most of this problem.

 

[BoremanSouth]

It all boils down to when people believe that life of that fetus starts. I think a pretty logical and decent compromise is to limit abortion starting around the time the fetus has a fighting chance outside the womb. I think the new record on that is 23 weeks - a baby born at 23 weeks just got out of the hospital recently. So let's call it at 20 weeks, but provide some exceptions for health of the mother - not a "she's sad" health exception, but life threatening stuff. I think 6 weeks is too restrictive. That's about the time a woman can pee on a stick to see if she's pregnant.

Pretty much how I feel exactly. Well said Mule.

 

[dave]

I don't really disagree with your opinion about people acting responsibly avoiding most of this problem.

The best part of acting responsible is that it avoids having the moral or physiological question of when life begins. It avoids life and choice.

 

[atlkvb]

It all boils down to when people believe that life of that fetus starts. I think a pretty logical and decent compromise is to limit abortion starting around the time the fetus has a fighting chance outside the womb. I think the new record on that is 23 weeks - a baby born at 23 weeks just got out of the hospital recently. So let's call it at 20 weeks, but provide some exceptions for health of the mother - not a "she's sad" health exception, but life threatening stuff. I think 6 weeks is too restrictive. That's about the time a woman can pee on a stick to see if she's pregnant.

The problem is Mule all rational discussion of this issue like yours is here gets washed away by fanatical devotion to the concept of abortion on demand. Those of us who are Pro Life are never given a chance to rationally argue for Life without being called names or accused of opposing "women's rights".

Ironically we have to resort to absurdity to make the case for the idea that abortion on demand is absurd. I don't know anyone who actually favors it without even the common sense restrictions you've outlined here yet that is exactly the hue and cry among the Democrat leadership and their radical base voters.

Abortion at any time, for anyone, for any reason. With zero restrictions.

Absurd.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree that is a decent compromise. I dont expect anything to change but my thoughts are that in 90+ percent of cases iy is avoidable (pregnancy) and I believe life begins at conception. So in my mind it seems more practical for everyone to be responsible adults and avoid 90% of unwanted pregnancies. That would save a lot of abortions.

I'm here too (Life begins at conception) but if one doesn't support that concept no one can explain what that (fetus) is if it isn't alive and human? If it's not dead, what else is it? In a frozen cryogenic state like Hans Solo?

 

[atlkvb]

I don't really disagree with your opinion about people acting responsibly avoiding most of this problem.

It's almost NEVER medically necessary to terminate the Life of an unborn Baby in order to save the mother's Life. It happens, but it's almost never medically necessary.


https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05...r-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

excerpt:
"After 20 weeks fertilization age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life. [5] In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process. Instead, immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labor induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician".

....more
“Abortion treats no disease,” the doctors responded. “Pregnancy is not a disease, and deliberately killing the unborn child by abortion is not healthcare.

They said abortions – “the guarantee of a dead baby” – are never necessary in the rare cases when a mother’s life is in jeopardy late in her pregnancy."

 

[mule_eer]

It's almost NEVER medically necessary to terminate the Life of an unborn Baby in order to save the mother's Life. It happens, but it's almost never medically necessary.


https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05...r-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

excerpt:
"After 20 weeks fertilization age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life. [5] In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process. Instead, immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labor induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician".

....more
“Abortion treats no disease,” the doctors responded. “Pregnancy is not a disease, and deliberately killing the unborn child by abortion is not healthcare.

They said abortions – “the guarantee of a dead baby” – are never necessary in the rare cases when a mother’s life is in jeopardy late in her pregnancy."

Not your fault, because the author of that article quoted something with citations but neglected to include what those sources were. It would have been interesting to see what they were.

I'm not saying it would be a common occurrence, but I think you have to account for it. That's my opinion. I can think of situations where a pregnant woman is found to have a health issue that requires treatment that would be detrimental to the development of the fetus. At that point I think it's a judgement call on the part of the mother-to-be. I'd also say that the medical costs for a baby born at 20-some weeks are astronomical. If the mother also has a major medical problem, that compounds it. What is medically possible, and what people can afford to do are not always in line with each other.

 

[atlkvb]

Not your fault, because the author of that article quoted something with citations but neglected to include what those sources were. It would have been interesting to see what they were.

I'm not saying it would be a common occurrence, but I think you have to account for it. That's my opinion. I can think of situations where a pregnant woman is found to have a health issue that requires treatment that would be detrimental to the development of the fetus. At that point I think it's a judgement call on the part of the mother-to-be. I'd also say that the medical costs for a baby born at 20-some weeks are astronomical. If the mother also has a major medical problem, that compounds it. What is medically possible, and what people can afford to do are not always in line with each other.

What you say here is true in certain rare exceptions. The point the doctors were making in the article I linked to was that those instances you mentioned are rare, and it is practically never the case where terminating an unwanted pregnancy is needed as a life-saving issue for the mother.

 

[Keyser76]

Men legislating womens wombs, its a winner, we are doomed like the midterms!

 

[atlkvb]

Men legislating womens wombs, its a winner, we are doomed like the midterms!

Women sentencing innocent unborn males to death simply because they're unwanted. Sexist.

 

[atlkvb]

You cray.

I think you're a reasonably intelligent fellow so you should be able to at least let me know what makes me "cray"?

Have I mischaracterized anything about the pro choice argument? Have I suggested something pro choice folks oppose? Is there something about protecting innocent human life you are against that I support?

Or was this just your way of expressing frustration over your inability to defend what you believe about abortion that I have pointed out or to refute what I support about protecting innocent Human Life which you obviously do not support?

Do tell.

 

[atlkvb]

@BoremanSouth BTW if you can't rationally answer me from post #37, may I suggest that in fact it is YOU who is the one that's "cray" posting messages to OT members you won't even back up?

 

[atlkvb]

Men legislating womens wombs, its a winner, we are doomed like the midterms!

Hey Keyser think "abortion on demand", for anyone, at any time, for any reason wins the "popular vote" next election cycle? You do know that was Hillary's position on abortion right Keyser? You know she did win the "popular vote" too right Keyser? You knew she was for abortion "on demand" with no restrictions AND she won the "popular vote" with that position right Keyser? You knew all that didn't you Keyser?

"I'll bet you sure enjoyed winning that 'popular vote' huh Hillhag?"

"Aw shut up atl!"

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

That's pretty dumb. Scientifically, one is a fetus, the other is a non-fertilized egg.

liberals are dumb