Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”

[goodwithagun]

That’s because it’s not wrong; you just don’t have the courage, or the honesty, to admit it. 

What you want to do is to force motherhood on women who otherwise do not wish to be mothers.  That is debasing them and treating them as objects, as mere means to an end, and not as an end in themselves.

You know that public schools are required to teach pregnancy prevention, right? For decades. True story.

[roamer_1]

That’s because it’s not wrong; you just don’t have the courage, or the honesty, to admit it. 

Yes it is wrong. Stone-dead wrong, and utterly vile.

[Oceander]

Obviously you must of dated a few women looser than what I dated. They fully understood how to control it.

Ooh.  An irrelevant ad hominem that manages to smear not only me, but my wife and the mother of my children.

But answer the question, won’t you:  if a woman does not have a legal right to own or control her body, who does have that legal right?

[Oceander]

Yes it is wrong. Stone-dead wrong, and utterly vile.

No it isn’t.  Shall we continue playing the yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t game some more?

[Oceander]

You know that public schools are required to teach pregnancy prevention, right? For decades. True story.

So now you are turning a child, which you just finished calling a miracle, into a punishment for women who didn’t learn their lessons and forgot to keep their knees tight together.

How typical. 

[goodwithagun]

So now you are turning a child, which you just finished calling a miracle, into a punishment for women who didn’t learn their lessons and forgot to keep their knees tight together.

How typical.

Never said the punsishment part. He did.

[txradioguy]

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother...either don't have sex or take steps to prevent pregnancy before hand.

It's just idiocy to think that motherhood or abortion are the only two choices.

Not to mention it's degrading to women in general because it is a position that basically tells the woman she has no self control and can't help spreading her legs.

It's insulting.

[Oceander]

It's very disturbing and really kinda sad that on a Conservative political forum there are those defending abortion...something the Republican Party has had stance solidly against as a plank in it's official party platform for the last 46 years.

It’s even more disturbing and sad that even in the 21st century, so many otherwise intelligent people think that women should have motherhood forced on them, and that it’s acceptable to turn an unwilling woman into an incubator for a nonviable fetus. 

@Right_in_Virginia  said it best earlier.

[Oceander]

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother...either don't have sex or take steps to prevent pregnancy before hand.

It's just idiocy to think that motherhood or abortion are the only two choices.

Not to mention it's degrading to women in general because it is a position that basically tells the woman she has no self control and can't help spreading her legs.

It's insulting.

Nobody said that motherhood or abortion were the only two options.  That’s a straw man of your own invention. 

[mystery-ak]

Killing a separate human being INSIDE her body is not "controlling her own body."  It is destroying someone ELSE's body.

And there you have it!!!!!.....that's exactly what it is.....I think I am done with this thread...Those proclaiming to be conservatives and support abortion are fooling themselves..you are NOT a conservative.

[roamer_1]

No it isn’t.  Shall we continue playing the yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t game some more?

Yes we will, because abortion has been, since time immemorial, a vile act. Modernity and it's clinics do not change the act.

For a mother to kill her child (in the womb no less) has always been savage and vile, by the very definition of what a mother IS, or is supposed to be.

[goodwithagun]

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother...either don't have sex or take steps to prevent pregnancy before hand.

It's just idiocy to think that motherhood or abortion are the only two choices.

Not to mention it's degrading to women in general because it is a position that basically tells the woman she has no self control and can't help spreading her legs.

It's insulting.

Women are so stupid we either can’t figure out birth control, or can’t control ourselves, or both. I’m so glad rich white males voted for Roe v. Wade so I never have to educate myself or learn to control my impulses. (Read this next part as Oprah) You get to let men treat you like dirt, and you get to let men treat you like dirt , and everybody in the audience gets to let men treat you like dirt! Hay ohhhhh!

[Oceander]

Never said the punsishment part. He did.

True, you don’t have the honesty to own the necessary implications of your own words.  In your view, if a woman didn’t learn how to avoid pregnancy, or simply didn’t keep her knees closed, then she has to be forced to bear the consequences.  What are the consequences?  The child.  Forcing someone to bear the consequences of their actions is punishment for those actions.  So you are willing to use a child as an instrument to punish a woman who, in your estimation, was too stupid to keep her knees shut.

Shame on you. 

[goodwithagun]

And there you have it!!!!!.....that's exactly what it is.....I think I am done with this thread...Those proclaiming to be conservatives and support abortion are fooling themselves..you are NOT a conservative.

Word.

[goodwithagun]

True, you don’t have the honesty to own the necessary implications of your own words.  In your view, if a woman didn’t learn how to avoid pregnancy, or simply didn’t keep her knees closed, then she has to be forced to bear the consequences.  What are the consequences?  The child.  Forcing someone to bear the consequences of their actions is punishment for those actions.  So you are willing to use a child as an instrument to punish a woman who, in your estimation, was too stupid to keep her knees shut.

Shame on you.

If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Calling a baby a punishment because a man and a woman made a poor choice doesn’t make the baby a punishment. Perhaps the baby is the result of a poor choice, but some very bad choices have had beautiful results.

[Oceander]

Yes we will, because abortion has been, since time immemorial, a vile act. Modernity and it's clinics do not change the act.

For a mother to kill her child (in the womb no less) has always been savage and vile, by the very definition of what a mother IS, or is supposed to be.

Actually, no, it hasn’t been, historically, if done before quickening.

But that’s neither here nor there, because one can always choose a tidbit from history that supports one’s position rhetorically.

The simple fact is, before a fetus is in fact viable, the government does not have the right to prevent the woman from aborting that nonviable fetus.  To say otherwise is to turn a woman into an object and remove from her her dignity as a human being.  It is to enslave her. 

[Oceander]

Didn’t I already post that sex ed is a public school requirement? Pretty sure I did.

Yes, when you confirmed that you are vile enough to turn a child into an instrument of punishment to use against women who failed to heed those lessons. 

[musiclady]

I’m not denying anything that is true.  I am simply asserting that, as a general matter, each individual has the fundamental right to decide what happens with his or her body.  In the context of a pregnancy, that fundamental right includes the right to decide whether to continue playing host to another human being.  And that this right cannot be countermanded by the government through the prohibition of abortion so long as that other human being remains nonviable; i.e., is not sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb by, for example, not having lungs capable of absorbing oxygen from the air breathed in yet.  After that point, once the fetus has become viable in a meaningful sense, and only then, does the government have a sufficient interest in the fetus that it can limit the woman’s ability to abort the fetus. 

For the fetuses existence to have sufficient weight to outweigh the woman’s right to control her own body, it’s separate existence must have become meaningful in some concrete way that would allow it some real possibility of surviving apart from the woman.  Until then, it’s existence is not sufficient to outweigh her rights because it has no existence apart from its connection to her.

More propaganda from the left, not based on truth.

Once again, the compromise even you devoted leftists could agree on, but refuse to, is that the life doesn't have to be ended if the woman carries the life SHE MADE THE DECISION TO HELP CREATE to term, gives birth, and then gives the child up for adoption.

We are talking about your saying the convenience of the mother who MADE THE CHOICE to have sex is more important than the life created by her CHOICE.

And you have said it repeatedly, so you clearly mean it.

Convenience for you trumps life.

Bad choice.

[musiclady]

And there you have it!!!!!.....that's exactly what it is.....I think I am done with this thread...Those proclaiming to be conservatives and support abortion are fooling themselves..you are NOT a conservative.

Not even close to conservative.

Nor rational.

[Oceander]

More propaganda from the left, not based on truth.

Once again, the compromise even you devoted leftists could agree on, but refuse to, is that the life doesn't have to be ended if the woman carries the life SHE MADE THE DECISION TO HELP CREATE to term, gives birth, and then gives the child up for adoption.

We are talking about your saying the convenience of the mother who MADE THE CHOICE to have sex is more important than the life created by her CHOICE.

And you have said it repeatedly, so you clearly mean it.

Convenience for you trumps life.

Bad choice.

And until that birth takes place, you have stripped an unwilling woman of her humanity and turned her into an incubator gestating someone else’s kid. 

You don’t have any respect for those women; you see them only as things, to be used and controlled for someone else’s desires and goals. 

[Sighlass]

Ooh.  An irrelevant ad hominem that manages to smear not only me, but my wife and the mother of my children.

But answer the question, won’t you:  if a woman does not have a legal right to own or control her body, who does have that legal right?

Nice attempted stretch to try and make it personal. Emotional appeal now comes in play.

A woman does have the right to control her body, up to the point she permits (yes permits) the other dna to reach her egg. Then she is either working "with" her body or "against" it, because her body has a job it was designed preciously to do and knows well. After fertilization it is no longer "her" body, it is separate life. The only factors that should come in play then is if the baby seriously risks her life beyond reasonable doubt and perhaps rape/incest (estimates range from around a low 3,600 to 50,000 yearly depending on how liberal a source you choose to view).

[roamer_1]

Actually, no, it hasn’t been, historically, if done before quickening.

A specious argument... Until very recently, whether pregnancy itself was not sure until quickening.

The simple fact is, before a fetus is in fact viable, the government does not have the right to prevent the woman from aborting that nonviable fetus.  To say otherwise is to turn a woman into an object and remove from her her dignity as a human being.  It is to enslave her.

Utter horsecrap. There is no, No, NO 'dignity' in killing your baby. and it is no more slavery for her to bear her consequences than it is for you to bear the consequences of jumping off a roof... Even if you do change your mind half way down. The difference being that she can be done with her consequence 9 short months later.

[Oceander]

And there you have it!!!!!.....that's exactly what it is.....I think I am done with this thread...Those proclaiming to be conservatives and support abortion are fooling themselves..you are NOT a conservative.

Then you will have to give up claiming the right to use lethal force to protect yourself or someone else, because that is just as much killing another human being. 

If you wish to be consistent, then you must concede that one cannot be a conservative unless one is a pacifist who will resort to nonviolent means only. 

[goodwithagun]

Yes, when you confirmed that you are vile enough to turn a child into an instrument of punishment to use against women who failed to heed those lessons.

Again, don’t mansplain conception, pregnancy, labor, and delivery to me. I sometimes hear women say, “Every man should have a baby. That’ll teach him!” And I think, wow. How awesome would it be for all of us to feel that first flutter in our bellies! Then I think, damn I’m so glad I’m a woman. I can grow humans. What’s your super power?

[Oceander]

A specious argument... Until very recently, whether pregnancy itself was not sure until quickening.

Utter horsecrap. There is no, No, NO 'dignity' in killing your baby. and it is no more slavery for her to bear her consequences than it is for you to bear the consequences of jumping off a roof... Even if you do change your mind half way down. The difference being that she can be done with her consequence 9 short months later.

Utter horse crap right back atcha sport.  There are few things more vile than turning women into baby-machines against their will. I thought that was limited to the likes of ISIS, but apparently not.