265
Comments (52)
sorted by:
35
TNBanjoMan 35 points ago +36 / -1

The problem with "pro-choice" is that the most affected person, the fetus, has NO choice in the matter. To be 100% vulnerable to being born or being murdered in the womb by someone else, who may love and want you, or who may hate you because you're an "inconvenience" to them.... where is the "choice" in that?

15
judypatriot 15 points ago +16 / -1

Perhaps it should be renamed "pro-death", or "anti-baby"?

6
Darwyn 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is the way.

Do NOT allow them to control the language used.

15
penisse 15 points ago +16 / -1

If you’re pro-choice, you accept to protect a mother-to-be’s choice to kill her kid. That’s kinda accessory to this murderous act.

God did not grant me the honor to being a father, so I want to protect all the kids whose mother deny them the right to live. I wouldn’t be aggressive towards lost pregnant women but I would simply tell them this is unacceptable and offer to council them in securing a real future for their unwanted.

BTW these recent turmoils made me realist: I am not a feminist, I respect both genders the same (and disrespect as mental illness the other imaginary genders)… I’d rather see myself as a « maternist »: a woman needs precautions and protection through her pregnancy, then early motherhood.

8
Yeetthedems 8 points ago +8 / -0

I’ve been waiting almost a decade to become a mother, if any orphans come out of this season we’re going through as a collective, I’m ready to bring them underwing. Children who have parents that succumb to the poison shot or children who have parents who didn’t murder them, but still can’t raise them. I’m ready to love them all 🤍

9
ThePowerOfPrayer 9 points ago +9 / -0

Want to trigger Democrats on social media? This ought to do it!

How many of you know the case that overturned Roe v. Wade was Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization?

How many of you realize the ONE RULE pro-choice groups always followed since 1973 was NEVER APPEAL a case concerning abortion to the Supreme Court, because there was no way the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade otherwise?

Why did the Biden Administration back Jackson Women's Health Organization instead of urging them to drop the appeal and work through the Mississippi state legislature instead?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-calls-us-supreme-court-protect-abortion-rights-2021-09-21/

The real question Americans should be asking is if the Biden Administration deliberately encouraged Jackson Women's Health Organization to bring this case before the Supreme Court knowing Roe v. Wade would be overturned, hoping the outrage would be enough to drum up support for a Democrat Party that has continuously failed the American people in every way, shape, and form since the 2020 election.

As Obama once famously said, "Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up."

3
JackieDaytona74 3 points ago +3 / -0

I am HIGHLY intrigued by your post here, T-POP. I was not aware of this specifically:

"How many of you realize the ONE RULE pro-choice groups always followed since 1973 was NEVER APPEAL a case concerning abortion to the Supreme Court, because there was no way the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade otherwise?"

Do you have any sauce on this? Because of what you're saying is accurate, in my mind it's another bit of evidence that "patriots are in control".

3
ThePowerOfPrayer 3 points ago +3 / -0

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) and June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (2020) are the only exceptions I found, but you'll notice the pro-choice parties in those cases had a court stacked with liberal judges and those cases gave abortionists additional rights.

None of those cases challenged Roe directly and Alito and Thomas were the only two dissenting judges in the first 2 cases listed.

1
JackieDaytona74 1 point ago +1 / -0

Very, very interesting. Even with those three cases, it's shockingly few given the length of time since the original RVW ruling.

So then the question is: Why did they take it to SCOTUS now? Is it just another example of the incompetence of the Biden Admin, or was their hand forced?

Thanks again, T-POP. This is a very interesting potential data point.

0
InarosPrime 0 points ago +1 / -1

because there was no way the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade otherwise?

SCOTUS can't simply take up any issue it wants. There must be a case presented to them. If abortionists wanted to avoid having a conservative court overturn Roe V Wade, the common-sense strategy would be to not bring a case to SCOTUS.

1
JackieDaytona74 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm asking for information/corroboration on the assertion that T-POP is making regarding the Dem strategy of never appealing a case to SCOTUS.

0
InarosPrime 0 points ago +1 / -1

It is common sense and observation of their behavior.

1
JackieDaytona74 1 point ago +1 / -0

OFFS, go away bot.

0
InarosPrime 0 points ago +1 / -1

No. You go away. You asked a stupid question and you got your answer.

1
JackieDaytona74 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ahh so you're a dummy who thinks he's smart. Gotcha. Perhaps salon.com might be a better place for you to lurk.

2
AmericanVictory 2 points ago +2 / -0

Makes perfect sense. They are nearly out of ammo, down to throwing rocks, dirt and worms at the Sane Right.

5
tcriv 5 points ago +5 / -0

yes "pro-choice" is just propaganda via language manipulation to make something heinous sound wonderful.

they do that shit all the time. they also do this to make wonderful things sound awful.

its a way to take control of the human mind. newspeak is real.

don't adhere to their language.

i would also recommend not even using the word "fetus" in these conversations or at all frankly. it dehumanizes a real life human being and makes it easier to mentally justify executing him/her.

5
DCGRITS 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pro choice. You can’t keep anyone from making a choice that is wrong or sinful especially when you are not aware, much like someone choosing to murder an adult. That is their responsibility and ultimately they will pay the consequences for that choice. You, however, can choose to discourage that choice through backing and standing by enforcement of laws and closing abortion clinics.

5
VonErich 5 points ago +6 / -1

Liberty does not mean "do as you wish" - it means you respect yourself and others, including the unborn, and let life be. Fight for LIFE. Death comes soon enough for us all.

3
BetterNameUnfound 3 points ago +3 / -0

ARCHIVE THAT FUCKING DICTIONARY PAGE

3
JackieDaytona74 3 points ago +3 / -0

As someone who is adamantly pro life, I have to disagree with the thrust here. We can play the semantics game with words, but it doesn't reflect the attitudes of the actual real world.

I know people who are cautiously, perhaps even grudgingly pro-choice.

But as we've all seen in the media, there are psychopathic people that are PRO ABORTION.

I understand the argument that the result is the same in either situation and I don't totally disagree with that argument.

But at the same time, it does us no good to ignore the nuance of the two stances. There are people that we disagree with and then there are people that are foaming at the mouth insane. No sense in pretending otherwise.

3
BerlinWallCrosser 3 points ago +3 / -0

For years the DS Cabal was the twisting the public vocabulary stating things don’t mean what they do or they mean something different. This has been a strategy for as long as I can remember. But when in doubt, consult a dictionary. This standard stands up in a court of law.

3
marcellapalaferri 3 points ago +3 / -0

Publishers have changed the meanings in the dictionary, so that has become a propaganda tool too

3
libtards_r_stoopid 3 points ago +3 / -0

A choice is what to have for dinner. What color car to buy. What to wear for the day. Whether or not to have sex with so and so. Whether or not to use birth control/condoms. That's a choice. At which point a living fetus aka little baby human is inside of you, its no longer a fucking choice. Its another life. If you take measures to end that life, it makes you a selfish, immoral, souless baby killer. It doesn't make you brave, special or a hero. It makes you a piece of shit. We can legislate exceptions for child rape, incest and threats to mothers life. But I'm not interested in debating those that think it's a choice. They can get fucked.

2
Mister_Winston 2 points ago +4 / -2

Yes, pro-choice does mean pro-abortion. The left always plays games with words. They frame this debate as a matter of "choice" instead of a matter of murder.

2
Secretyrussianspy 2 points ago +3 / -1

I've come to the conclusion that pro choice people do deep down actually think that an unborn baby is indeed a life and they are ok with murdering it. They will rarely say this outloud because even they know it's sick, but they care so much about not taking responsibility that they'll frame their entire argument in a way to not say this out loud, even though it's what they actually think.

0
Mister_Winston 0 points ago +1 / -1

Agreed. The way they double down on late term and partial birth abortion is proof.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
An_Extinct_DQDQ_Bird 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pro-choice for medicine? I believe everyone should be able to practice medicine LEGALLY on their own bodies alone with equal authority as any doctor.

2
FondueFerret 2 points ago +3 / -1

Funny how they claim they're not pro abortion but pro choice? Why make the distinction, are you ashamed of saying you're pro-abortion? Is there perhaps a moral issue with being for abortion?

2
Turbotron 2 points ago +2 / -0

Its a word game. You'd have to be a psycho to be pro abortion. In that sense you can be pro choice and pro life at the same time.

2
CQVFEFE 2 points ago +3 / -1

THE ENTIRE ISSUE HINGES ON

whether the offspring growing inside the woman's uterus is PART OF HER BODY because it's attached by the umbilical cord, or NOT PART OF HER BODY.

With modern advancements in science, the question just gets murkier and fuzzier. Because babies can survive outside the mother at just a few months of gestation, with some luck and millions of dollars' worth of equipment.

With logic and reason thus in gridlock, people turn to emotion and belief:

Fervently held religious belief that it's a separate individual person from the instant of conception; and fervently held secular belief backed by hysterical emotion that it's still part of her body (even 30 days or more after it's born) (!).

And, except for coerced masking and forced social distancing and injections and the booster and the second booster and the third booster and the fourth booster, it's my body my choice, dammit.

We still have not definitively determined as a species whether the offspring is a physical part of the woman's body when it's attached to it and the size of a golf ball or softball. In biological terms it fits the definition of neoplasm, which is a fancy medical term for tumor. But literally no other tumor has the potential to ever live on its own and become a sentient, independent being. This is the special case of all special cases, because a human life is hanging in the balance.

In an ideal world, no unwanted pregnancy would take place, and no abortion would ever occur, because horrific killing. Also, no child would ever be unwanted or be abused, trafficked, tortured, and murdered after entering an orphanage or adoption center. Sadly, that's become the norm. We don't have that ideal world. So the battle rages on.

It's insanity, given that contraception and even the morning-after pill have existed for years and years. There's just no legit reason for a pregnancy to progress to abortion any more. Especially this late-term crap, it's beyond nauseating.

I'd like to see something done about the vile and despicable unwanted-baby industry, though.

2
Phishhed44 2 points ago +2 / -0

Give them an inch…always FAILS.

2
TinkAnon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Where was our choice during the vaxxx mandates? There was huge amounts of coercion being run on the people & minors.

1
huhWHAThuh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Could it be that in the core of their being they are ashamed of what they support?

Why do Politicians and TV pundits speak in incomplete sentences when they state their positions?

E.g: "I support a woman's right to choose."

Choose what? Choose her hairstyle? Choose what to have for lunch?

That all sounds very fair and democratic, as long as they DON'T say what it is they DO support:

They support a woman's (?) right (?) to kill the fetus (also known as baby) that is growing inside her womb.

It doesn't sound at all fair or democratic when you make them FINISH THEIR SENTENCE.

MAKE THEM FINISH THEIR SENTENCE!

Make them say publicly what they DO support.

That will make them blush and stammer and try to wander off stage.

1
DeathRayDesigner 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Pro-choice" implies consent with whatever choice---which means approval of abortion (if that is the choice). Just like we could be "pro-choice" about Jeffrey Dahmer's menu preferences. It is a way to deflect the issue from the question of murder. (No one has a right to "choose" murder.)

1
RS34ME 1 point ago +1 / -0

As a woman, I'm sick of other women saying men have no say in in a woman's body or abortions. Drives me insane! How do these women think pregnancy happens? It takes two to tango.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
kish-kumen 1 point ago +2 / -1

I mean, someone can think abortion should be legal without thinking of abortion as "morally right".

I think injecting heroin in the privacy of your own should be legal, even though I think it's morally reprehensible.

But killing babies? No, I don't think that should be legal. So I'm definitely pro life, not pro choice.

China on the other hand isn't even pro choice. They're pro abortion.

1
FreeSpeechAnon 1 point ago +3 / -2

If it was truly "my body my choice", than the mother would die in the abortion, not the baby.

1
DrNutterButter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Savage but True. Somehow the arguement has boiled down to "because some people rape and abuse; other people can murder"

1
queue-anon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice meme graphics, unique!

1
GoGoOptomistic 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the term came about from the 70’s when there was an over population movement, nothing compared to the bat @%[email protected] crazies today. I had several friends who decided they didn’t want children men as well. I had several coworkers men go get vasectomies. Hence the Pro “choice” term, I know women who got their tubes tied, happily with no issues from any of them. Only one friend who when he meet his wife that I know regretted his decision and went for a reversal, it worked he had twins 😂.

1
GoGoOptomistic 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don’t defend the high jacking of this, I’m pro life completely I am just giving some background on how I believe the term started.

1
MAGAhhh_igetit 1 point ago +1 / -0

According to the Pro-Choice Caucus, it is the word 'choice' that is harmful and should be replaced with 'decision.' Still waiting on their name change...

Ironically, they do not find abortion itself to be harmful.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/pro-choice-caucus-language-abortion/

1
OkieBowhunter 1 point ago +3 / -2

Pro-choice always promotes one choice and that is child murder... I've never seen a pro-choice person promote having the baby.

That's weird.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
AmericanVictory 0 points ago +2 / -2

"Pro-choice" = pro-murder. I saw an idiot libtard (apparently) male DEMONstrator standing solo in NW Washington State yesterday with a sign reading "Fascists Christians Screwing Women."

So, I wondered what would possess he/she/it/they to take that "position."

1 - Do non-fascists and non-Christians NOT screw women? Well, GAY ones don't. Hetero female ones don't. This alone seemed to explain much. The chances that the apparently male DEMONstrator is homosexual is therefore fair, at least.

2 - Assuming that the "protest" (AKA public display of idiocy, sociopathy and/or insanity) was about SCOTUS' Roe v Wade reversal, are SCOTUS Judges automatically either Fascists, Christians or both? Well, we know that isn't the case. Did they Become fascists, Christians or both by ending legalized murder? Christians, perhaps, but then only in the process of deliberations and not categorically through their individual votes. Fascists, then? NOPE. Preventing the mass Murder of babies in the womb clearly has nothing at all to do with fascism. Doing it at the federal level clearly doesn't either -- especially when the Decision involved deep deliberation and was supported by Constitutional law. I therefore that contend that the chances of the DEMONstrator being a Satanist are also fair, at least.

3 - Is his/hers/its/their contention that by reversing RvW, SCOTUS as a body is screwing women? Well, not through its collective decision, in the Biblical sense. In the figurative sense, then? NOPE. Aside from rape or incest - both of which are vile and abhorrent - I would venture to guess that the vast majority of abortionists volunteered to be screwed, or were instrumental in initiating the screwing. (NOTE: This is commentary only, from my perspective so I'll recommend self-study for sauce on this. I'd be surprised if the leftard media allowed the actual percentages to be published, or that IF allowed they were accurate.) So, my guess here is that the chances of the DEMONstrator being either asexual, idiotic or possesses by the leftard media are ALSO fair, at least.

I suppose I could go on, but in my mind this person proved single-handedly that personal bias and/or idiocy are at the core of any demand for baby killing. I rest on SCOTUS' case.

0
FreedomLover2020 0 points ago +1 / -1

Well, when it comes to killing a baby, its not woman's choice. God put it there. Its up to God. Woman should consider it a privilege to have that honor to bear the child.