that abortion is a practice for human garbage, even if more women died as result of getting an abortion in a shitty illegal clinic there wouldnt be nothing wrong with that, women who abort dont deserve to live
18-year-old Nebraska woman sentenced to 90 days in jail for burning fetus after abortion (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cold Ethyl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aborted baby nebraska teen
Users who are viewing this thread
Morbid_Kitty
Lurker
If a woman is gonna abort it should be done 1st trimester before the senses are developed at all .. by the 3rd trimester the poor kid can already hear and recognize its moms voice and see light. 13 weeks is a long enough time to realize one is pregnant and doesn't want the child.
I don't understand how some women can just murder a baby so far into development and give no shits about it.
I don't understand how some women can just murder a baby so far into development and give no shits about it.
The state should burn her fat ass like she burned that poor defenceless baby đź
Private Joker
Well Known Member
It's like 50% of society is devolving and the other 50% is evolving.
90 days in jail ?! what a joke , execute her !!
....aaand it begins! An Abrahamic religion of the white variety with more blood on its hands.
On the one hand you're supporting abortion and SS etc. On the other hand, you're blaming LIBERALS for the anti-abortion laws in RED states, and somehow strawmaningly tying that to the right wing trickle-down Reaganomics 40 year failure of an experiment and ALSO blaming liberals for conservatives pushing and voting for the bullshit that's caused 40 years of stagnant wages against rising prices, stock buybacks, and corporate CEOs hoarding all the cash?
Jesus, you're one confused motherfucker.
On the one hand you're supporting abortion and SS etc. On the other hand, you're blaming LIBERALS for the anti-abortion laws in RED states, and somehow strawmaningly tying that to the right wing trickle-down Reaganomics 40 year failure of an experiment and ALSO blaming liberals for conservatives pushing and voting for the bullshit that's caused 40 years of stagnant wages against rising prices, stock buybacks, and corporate CEOs hoarding all the cash?
Jesus, you're one confused motherfucker.
There are like, 30 US cities that each one by themselves have more voters than the entire state of Montana.
Wait. What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
On the one hand you're supporting abortion and SS etc. On the other hand, you're blaming LIBERALS for the anti-abortion laws in RED states, and somehow strawmaningly tying that to the right wing trickle-down Reaganomics 40 year failure of an experiment and ALSO blaming liberals for conservatives pushing and voting for the bullshit that's caused 40 years of stagnant wages against rising prices, stock buybacks, and corporate CEOs hoarding all the cash?
Jesus, you're one confused motherfucker.
Wait. What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
On the one hand you're supporting abortion and SS etc. On the other hand, you're blaming LIBERALS for the anti-abortion laws in RED states, and somehow strawmaningly tying that to the right wing trickle-down Reaganomics 40 year failure of an experiment and ALSO blaming liberals for conservatives pushing and voting for the bullshit that's caused 40 years of stagnant wages against rising prices, stock buybacks, and corporate CEOs hoarding all the cash?
Jesus, you're one confused motherfucker.
To be fair, republkkunts only make up like 38% of the US population. But they're spread so thin in all the shithole states that nobody else wants to live in, so they get way more representation in Congress due to how the outdated US Constitution gives those lightly populated shithole states voting power.
There are like, 30 US cities that each one by themselves have more voters than the entire state of Montana.
Last edited:
Even with the face diaper that looks like a very hard 18
"you dont know the situation", goes a long way. if my daughter or wife were raped (god forbid) and got knocked up,id support their decision for an abortion. why should they live with that reminder every day? or every time they look at that kid. and then resent the kid? forever? "meh,do whatever you want kid. o dont care. want to play out in oncoming traffic? go ahead, do ma that favour". really?
or if the kid is severely disabled. and the family isnt financially stable enough to care for the kid. what,start a go fund me page? beg for money from other people? yeaok...
of if its the mothers life or that kid,because of something is going wrong. bet your ass i want my wife around for as long as possible. "no i think we'll pick the kids life". then what? resent the kid just the same because it took your wifes life?
im pro choice. so if the woman wants one,so be it. and if she uses it as a form pr "protection" then its on her. because there comes a point when shes mature where she wants to have kids,and cant. because the damage she caused to her body.
i have my own problems with my own life. im not going to go around and dictate to others how they should live. these people are adults and dont need for me to hold their hand. this debate has been around long before you and i,and will be after were gone. so no matter what we say or do,its still going to be there.
Scarfacebaby
Lurker
You mean 18 fucking dog years?
"ut but but raPe" eat shit, rape is the least common reason to get an abortion, whores only gets abortion because they are too lazy or stupid to use contraceptives or get a sick pleasure from killing defenseless child, you should kill yourself
yeayeayeayeayea...
fucking liberal bitch
happy-golucky
White is right. Keep the white race puređŤĄ
Oh well. You want to take another innocent life then you can risk yours in the process
Why donât we âcancelâ useless homeless, drug addicts, or the hundreds of people in prison. Sorry women are too retarted to figure out how sex works. But your lack of basic knowledge doesnât t mean you get to kill innocent babies. Keep your legs shut or start forcing sterilization!
wildbear99
Rookie
Hope they kill her in jail!!!!
Fill a island with 40 men and 1 women see how long it takes to breed back the human race fill a island with 40 women and one man and see how long it takes to breed. women need men to carry on our exsistance as much as we need them deciders my ass !!
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]
The Founding Fathers didn't want just a couple of (northern) cities deciding and controlling politics in the new US...very smart of them.
The "Great Compromise" was one of the most significant acts enabling the young US to form and survive.
Equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House Of Representatives...sheer genius on their part.
Why would entire small states (Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire) have agreed to be ruled by Philadelphia, NYC and Boston?
No one would have agreed to a Union then and the Nation would not have been formed.
Taking it to a more modern era, why should the State of Montana be over ruled by all the large liberal cities the US has now.
The FF were very wary of mob rule...pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
The US Constitution is not outdated, but your thinking is misguided.
In the Declaration of Independence, it says "these united States"...notice u is small but S is capitalized...something to think about.
*SIGH*....
Well, to begin with, you're generally more reasonable than most on here. So I'm going to approach this oft-repeated a-historical right-wing-washed BS with a bit of reasoning backed up by facts.
First thing I want to address and get out of the way:
"FF" I assume you mean "Founding Fathers."
The "FFs" were HARDLY some monolithic group of all like-minded men. Just look at the slaying of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr in a duel. You really need to look into the contention between the Federalists and anti-federalists.
Secondly, "The FF were wary of mob rule....pure democracy..."
"Pure democracy" vs a "republic" has nothing to do with extremely disproportional representation. In fact, nobody, not me, has ever advocated a "pure democracy." Being opposed to extreme disproportional representation is NOT taking on the side of "pure democracy." That's an entirely different thing altogether that has nothing at all to do with any arguments anyone is making here.
Now, those two basic things out of the way, let's get into the meat of your argument:
It is true that they set up a Senate to have equal representation between the states. There ya go! That's exactly what the Senate is for, and nobody, not I at any rate, is advocating getting rid of the Senate. You HAVE equal representation in half of Congress. So that right there, goes your entire argument about "being ruled by NYC."
The House of Representatives was supposed to have PROPORTIONAL representation. You're leaving the realm of supporting the unpopulated states in arguing for the Senate, and now entering the realm of ATTACKING the larger states where THEY are supposed to have the advantage. So now instead, we have the REVERSE problem:
It's a small minority of the rural dwellers that are rulling the cities full of actual people, because they have not only the Senate, but they ALSO have extremely disproportionate representation in the House, and even for the presidential election!
And THIS is where the Constitution is extremely outdated, and the current democragphics of the country have gone so far outside the scope of the experiences of the "FFs."
You have got to remember the United States of 2024 is NOT the United States of 1787. When the Constitution was written, there were....
1) Less than 4,000,000 people in 1790.
2) The least populous state was Delaware with 59,000. (Smaller than the small city of Harrisburg, PA today.)
3) The most populous state was Virginia with 746,000 (about the size of modern-day Las Vegas.)
It was EASY to have a House of Representatives balanced where Delaware would have 1 representative and Virginia could have 12.
It is NOT easy (nor legal now since 1910!) to have a House of Representative where Wyoming (581,000 today) has 1 representative, while California (39 million) SHOULD THEORETICALLY have 66 Representatives!
And that's where the "bullshit" in your argument REALLY comes from, because, you see, it was NOT the "Founding Fathers" who made this mess at all! Rather, it was in the year 1911 (went into effect in 1913!) more than 120 years AFTER the Constitution was written, after the first official US census was even taken and after virtually all the FFs have died and turned to dusty old bones, when the Congress decided to fix the House of Representatives at 435 members! (Which, BTW, is entirely unconstitutional, and has been for the past 110 years now!)
So. Yeah. Arguing in favor of the extremely disproportionate House of Representatives, while ALSO citing the FFs is pure fantasy that right wing media just LOVES to go on and on and on about.
Last but not least:
"mob rule."
That's the term that was famously used as an argument for the electoral college. It was made by the federalists, who feared the uneducated rural voters who were barely literate.
I stop here, because. Again. Outdated!
The literacy rates in 1790 was about 60%.
The literacy rates today is 99%.
19th century USA is NOT 21st century USA. Times, they have changed!
Also something of note that was ALSO argued by the very FFs that you love to otherwise treasure:
They purposely made the Constitution amendable, because....well... Here's a litany of quotes:
Jefferson on Politics & Government: Amending the Constitution
Jefferson's political philosophy in his own words. Contains the founding principles of American self-government.
jti.lib.virginia.edu
Ironically, it was the FOUNDING FATHERS who were arguing AGAINST THEMSELVES to future generations....to NOT care what the "Founding Fathers" wanted! And yet, here we are, quoting and caring about what the FFs said and wanted about every single thing, except for the one and only thing that matters what they cared about and wanted;
A future democratic society where people decide FOR THEMSELVES what they want or should have.
But yeah. Anyway. Back to here:
"mob rule."
That's the term that was famously used as an argument for the electoral college. It was made by the federalists, who feared the uneducated rural voters who were barely literate."
This is where the Constitution is SEVERELY outdated, far more than anywhere else.
The entire purpose of the EC was MOST. DEFINITELY. NOT! What right wing media loves to lie so hardcore about.
It was NOT to "prevent rule by the large cities." (Which, btw, as I've already alluded to, would NEVER have been a thing in 1790, because the cities themselves at that time, were NOT so overwhelmingly huge in comparison to the more rural towns and other states! So that argument by the right wing media doesn't even logically fit!)
No. The entire purpose of the "College" of "Electors" was to put in place, a body of EDUCATED (preferably.....COLLEGE-EDUCATED)...."electors" who would vote independantly from "the voters."
In other words, the EC was meant to completely ignore the popular vote altogether. And I don't mean in the mathematical way that it's calculated today. It was meant to ignore the votes of their own constituents! Today, the media loves to brand them as "faithless electors." That's a completely made up, fabricated term!
AND they were NOT supposed to vote in monolithic groupings by states like this either! Each one of the COLLEGE-educated electors were to vote however they damn well pleased as individuals.
All of these state laws (48 out of 50) that automatically appoints all 100% of their votes to the state's popular vote winner, are all literally in violation of the spirit of the Constitution.
The entire purpose of the EC was to prevent a populist who would be a corrupt tyrant elected by the uneducated masses (like Trump!) from ever becoming the Chief Executive.
The only problem the FFs had with their intentions, is that it is illogical. There is nothing preventing a college-educated person from being any more or less malicious or misguided than an uneducated illiterate.
----------------
So. The solution?
Easy:
1) Ranked-choice voting for president....
2)...To be decided by POPULAR vote.
That's on the national level.
As for the House and Senate, that's up to each state how they want to conduct their elections for their Congressional Representatives.
Also:
Expand the House! It would necessarily mean either constructing an entirely new building to house all the new members....
....Or.....
it would mean instituting new rules in how the current House Chamber is to be used (who can be there, why, and when), and to open up other spaces or rooms in the Capitol and use 21st century telecommunications technology for each Representative to see the speeches and speakers and what not on the House Floor from a different room or chamber.
And here's an idea I personally have in exactly how this could be done fairly:
Preferably, each state would institute Ranked-Choice voting for both their respective Senators and Representatives. This would result in more parties having actual real chances at winning elections.
The Senate Chamber only needs to seat 100 members, and that's fine.
The House of Representatives SHOULD expand as national population expands. Obviously, this puts a premium on space inside the House Chamber, as noted above.
Not all Representatives would be allowed inside the main chamber at any given time. They'd be put in other rooms, spaces, or another chamber as an addition to the Capitol. And use telecommunications so they can observe the proceedings and communicate with established "comrades."
So. Who gets to be in there?
The main parties decide which members of their own party they want directly inside the main House Chamber for any given time period. And it should be proportional for how many of each parties' members get to be there, based on the previous elections. With every single party with at least 1 representative in the various elections. So if the Green Party only manages to win 1 race in the entire nation, that 1 member gets to be there if he or she so decides.
Even though not all Representatives could fit inside the chamber at any given time, they all still get to vote on every resolution as normal. Just a simple electronic voting pad is all that is needed. And anyone who is chosen to say anything, can do so in front of a camera that is displayed on a screen inside the chamber itself.
actually, some good points there!
I admit i consumed a lot of right wing media as a youth and even today...it just seems more correct to me, but i could be wrong, of course...in general, politics, and details in general, intensely bore me
i also admit i'm not really a deep thinker, but generally support the status quo...i'm sure in 1776 i would have supported the crown
you obviously know your facts, and i've always respected that you're passionate in your writings and beliefs
also, i shouldn't even admit this, but i always thought it was Hamilton who killed Burr...now i know!
Similar threads
