Comments by "Deborah Freedman" (@deborahfreedman333) on "11 states effectively ban abortion" video.

My late father was a urologist. And, even though I was young when California's Therapeutic Abortion Act passed (1967) I noticed there was suddenly a downtick in the number of women coming into his office, through the back door, and my father started working shorter hours (from 16 hours a day down to around 12). We didn't have less money then, so I can only assume he had been providing his services for free. Later in life I met women who told me my father was a saint, and that he had saved their lives, although they would never tell me how he had done so. There were few physicians willing to risk their medical licenses, as my father had done, so I can understand why many women were forced to go to quacks.
5
@tixximmi1 Your assertion is false. My mother was prochoice. Both my parents gave heavily to Planned Parenthood.
3
@lorihamlin3604 I've met people who were only against abortion, because the couldn't have their own children, and whined about the lack of healthy, white babies to adopt.
3
The company I was working for in 1984, offered to move me to Windsor, provide my family with a company row house and a company car, complete with petrol card, when I became pregnant with my first daughter. Then I could have used the company creche, and continued writing computer code for them. I wish I had ignored my husband's wishes, and taken the offer. Not only would my intelligent daughter grown up to have an English accent, but my contribution as computer programmer would have been easier to make. Plus, my children would not live in a country that stripped away their basic human rights, just because they are female.
2
@aarqa Ignore the Bilbo Show. It is just a troll, posting lies, to get a response. Just report everything as misinformation, and move on.
2
No, prochoice people want women to be able to decide for themselves. Nobody is discussing mandatory abortions. Although such forced abortions did occur, and were put an end to by a decision that relied upon the same inherent right to privacy, that Roe v Wade is based on. If the right to privacy did not exist, not only would Thomas's own marriage be illegal, but those deemed mentally deficient would once again be forced to undergo forced abortion and sterilization. (Buck v Bell, 1927)
2
@Shskfjekdnf38587 It was obviously a decision based upon religion. Notice that every single justice, who voted to strip away a woman's right to control her own uterus, was a victim of Jesuit indoctrination from grade school through college. This is an imposition of Catholic dogma, on every woman in the country, regardless of her religion, which is supposed to be prevented by the First Amendment. Since parents can evade vaccination requirements, by citing religious objection, women should be able to have a religious objection against any restriction on abortion.
1
First, abortion does not take a life, as a fetus is not yet alive. Second, if a person wishes to die, let them. Third, with this disgusting, oppressive decision, there will be a lot more women's lives lost.
1
What about the bernie brats, who either refused to vote, or voted for Trump, because the were angry the majority of the Democratic party chose a real Democrat as their candidate? Those idiots helped cause this.
1
If the UN were really about human rights, they would have long ago put an end to the practice of female genital mutilation, and selling little girls to old men as brides. Until such disgusting practices are ended, the UN has no leg to stand on in the matter of human rights.
1
It was obviously a decision based upon religion. Notice that every single justice, who voted to strip away a woman's right to control her own uterus, was a victim of Jesuit indoctrination from grade school through college. This is an imposition of Catholic dogma, on every woman in the country, regardless of her religion, which is supposed to be prevented by the First Amendment. Since parents can evade vaccination requirements, by citing religious objection, women should be able to have a religious objection against any restriction on abortion.
1
No, these Catholic justices are not conservative, but activist. Conservatives are for less government interference, not more. None of the Republicans, against reproductive choice, are real conservatives. The Republican party was invaded by racists, posing as christians, and has ceased to be a conservative party, instead morphing into a nationalist party of repression.
1
@justmeandi8256 You post this nonsense everywhere, but it is inapplicable. Nobody is discussing killing and cooking their living, breathing children, just the removal of an unwanted, unhuman parasite.
1
@DennepeerRelaxation That makes as much sense as accepting every person is an undead corpse, and making laws to prevent the widespread scourge of zombies.
1
@Charles.Wright I know the leading cause of death of pregnant women, in this country, is domestic violence. And that two thirds of women killed, by their partner, are shot to death. If these crazies were really against the death of fetuses, they'd do something to get guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.
1
@DennepeerRelaxation Cool. It seemed like you wanted sane people to accept the delusions of others. I missed your point.
1
This would not even be an issue, if a bunch of spoiled brats hadn't voted for Trump, because they were pissed off Democratic voters preferred a Democratic female candidate, to an old Marxist. If Hillary Clinton had been president, since 2016, not only would this country have handled Covid-19 more sanely, but there would not be a Catholic majority in the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences, and so does apathy and protest votes.
1
And let's not forget, that right to bear arms is only for those in a "well regulated militia" protecting the security of the state, that is the military.
1
Virginia needs to pass new laws against miscegenation, just to see whether Thomas thinks the right to privacy exists to protect his marriage.
1
Rich philanderers will always be able to get an abortion for their side piece.
1
@youawesome2068 Finish grade school before you comment. You need to learn how the language works, including punctuation and grammar.
1
Imagine the insurance payouts, when a spontaneous abortion occurs, if a fetus was really a human being, and could be insured.
1
@petermarks4595 No, there are plenty of totally innocent animals killed every day, for meat, leather, fur, etc. So we clearly don't agree on that. One thing that those in the biological science can agree upon is, a fetus is not a human being.
1
@joboygbpedwards What you are falsely calling a heartbeat is merely a bunch of undifferentiated muscle cells contracting in unison. If you remove heart tissue, from an animal, and put it in medium, they will continue to contract. The fetus has no real heart, until late in the pregnancy, and pumps no blood. That is not a heartbeat.
1
@J P The same was true of slavery. Some rights have to be assured by federal law.
1