Well Michelle Wolf came out with a marching band celebrating abortion. That sure sounds like she’s pro-abortion. But don’t just trust me. Here’s more proof. This is from a liberal website:
Why do you care if someone is pro-choice? Your party, the Libertarians, are as pro-choice as they come.
Many Libertarians are pro-life. Ron Paul is pro-life.
Pro-abortion would be to prefer abortion over having babies. I’m sure there are some people who think that the earth is over-populated and are pro-abortion. I would say that the Chinese government was effectively pro-abortion when they had their one-child policy. If some lefty magazine wants to have a provocative title for an article, that’s up to them.
You have yet to provide a cite that Michelle Wolf is pro-abortion. Retract your claim, you liar.
Or don’t. I don’t give a flying fuck because I’m done interacting with you on any forum. Liar.
Ok I will retract my claim that Wolf is pro-abortion. Performing a musical with a marching band as a “Salute to Abortion” is definitely not pro-abortion.
This sounds like Kellyanne Conway’s job description.
Are you sure you want to downplay your talents? There’s a job opening at the White House.
Liberty for me, but not for thee. Sounds about right, going off the “libertarians” I know.
What the fuck is your definition of pro-abortion?
Here is Michelle Wolf’s take:
If you need an abortion, get one.
If you want an abortion, get one.
If you’re not pregnant, but think you eventually might be and want to order a future abortion, get one.
If you’re pregnant and you want to be pregnant, don’t get one.
Sounds pro-choice to me.
She also attacks the definition of pro-life and says:
If these people were actually pro-life, they would be actually be fighting hard for healthcare, childcare, education, gun control, and protecting the environment.
I would probably throw in that they’d be against the death penalty as well. We all know where the vast majority of “pro-lifers” stand.
Paul calls himself “strongly pro-life”[157] and “an unshakable foe of abortion”.[158] In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception at the Federal level.[159] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level”.[160][161] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.
How can someone be pro-life while sponsoring a Sanctity Of Life Act?
He sponsors a Federal level bill defining when life starts while claiming it should be a state decision.
Two-faced asshole.
Because like it or not abortion is now a federal issue. Roe v Wade made it a federal issue and it has to be dealt with at the federal level.
Then he’s no longer pro-life since he’s being anti-abortion at the federal level.
That’s like saying if you don’t like slavery then don’t own slaves.
Also, once something is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS, states rights no longer apply.
Just wanted to point out this is why I don’t use the @ notation here or use direct links. No point in getting a troll’s attention and letting them troll in this thread.
No, it’s not, although I am indeed against owning slaves. How many do you have?
No it’s not.
It’s like saying if you hate slavery then don’t be one. Implying you have the right to choose
You realize all analogies are flawed, right? Some clearly more than others, and some to the point of nonsense.
Abortion advocates use the same arguments as the pro-slavery crowd. They said slaves weren’t “persons”.
Women are persons. And they should get to control their bodies. If you have something growing inside you that you want out, you should be able to get it out. No one is entitled to the usage of your body without your consent, and consent can be withdrawn at any time.
You’re really grasping here. You really can’t see the difference?