-Oh I see. So then who are you working for while commenting in the thread? China? Joe the Sniffer?

+"“What science am I denying and could you provide peer-reviewed citations? I'll wait.“

Statistical science. Specifically the statistics pertaining to abortion demographics and the political affiliations o**f people who are far more likely to get abortions. Review the numbers yourself."

-You have only again demonstrated your failure to produce the very citations you're claiming to be referencing and relying on heavily. Do you understand this only demonstrates the reason is you are a liar for the reader?

Statistical sciences 101: Correlation ≠ causation. You were not asked to repeat yourself using different words. You were asked for the peer-reviewed citations you generically keep referring to. Where are they? It is not on me to provide your citations for you, particularly when your argument is about appeasing mass murder of innocent individuals. A maudlin Vegas strip lounge psychic couldn't get away with that routine, lol.

+"“How are totally innocent individuals your enemy or my enemy? That's just a crazy religious belief. It is self-evident offspring do not mirror every opinion of both parents? True or false?”

People who support communism and totalitarianism are my enemies; these people are far more likely to get abortions and it would terrible to deny them the freedom to make this choice. People who will inevitably grow up to support communism and totalitarianism are also my enemies.""

-You are supporting mass murder of the innocent for thought crimes you are convinced they will commit decades later in this very comment.

Yet earlier in the same comment of replies you directly tried to insist you were not supporting it. As someone else in these threads pointed out earlier: the reason is you are a liar.

As it happens I come from a large family of Democrats who have worked for the party at the state and local levels since 1919. I am far right. You would also be implicitly supporting hypothetical abortions of Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln applying your argument to them. Conservatism and America are about individualism. Not collectivist mass murder.

-You explicitly are. That literally IS your argument.

Supporting individuals choosing to take it upon themselves to murder innocent people IS supporting mass murder. Unfortunately there is no having it both ways. No semantical games will work on this. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Sorry bud.

-Fallacy fallacy. If it were mostly about environment and demographics the country would then be close to or as conservative as it was in 1776. Thus you have again debunked yourself. Lol, too funny.

You would seem to be misattributing the reasons large %s of blacks have voted Democrat since FDR's New Deal welfare policies that caused the majority of blacks to switch parties in about 4 years.

And / or it would seem the third world demographic issue.

Critically it is the right of a society to determine their immigration policies. But we do not murder the innocent for thought crimes we imagine in a free society before they ever speak. That is the stuff of Nazism / fascism / totalitarianism.

-A child is a fetus by definition. Look it up. Offspring. Not that changing the name would change the reality anyway. And the reality is pro abortionists like yourself celebrate hacking up babies like ancient Spartans.

-If you support murdering the most innocent people for thought crimes you would be for what we fear the AOC's of the world turning into ultimately. And thus an even bigger evil. This isn't complicated. It's about as basic as it gets. You either support individuals in a society choosing freely to murder their child for convenience or you believe in freedom, human rights, and the individual.

-Anyone "pro choice" on mass murder of the innocent does not deserve a gulag. The same principles ought to be applied to them through the government as most societies throughout human history understand they have to protect the society from mass murderers and those who aid and abet them.

-Oh I see. So then who are you working for while commenting in the thread? China? Joe the Sniffer?

+"“What science am I denying and could you provide peer-reviewed citations? I'll wait.“

Statistical science. Specifically the statistics pertaining to abortion demographics and the political affiliations o**f people who are far more likely to get abortions. Review the numbers yourself."

-You have only again demonstrated your failure to produce the very citations you're claiming to be referencing and relying on heavily. Do you understand this only demonstrates the reason is you are a liar for the reader?

Statistical sciences 101: Correlation ≠ causation. You were not asked to repeat yourself using different words. You were asked for the peer-reviewed citations you generically keep referring to. Where are they? It is not on me to provide your citations for you, particularly when your argument is about appeasing mass murder of innocent individuals. A maudlin Vegas strip lounge psychic couldn't get away with that routine, lol.

+"“How are totally innocent individuals your enemy or my enemy? That's just a crazy religious belief. It is self-evident offspring do not mirror every opinion of both parents? True or false?”

People who support communism and totalitarianism are my enemies; these people are far more likely to get abortions and it would terrible to deny them the freedom to make this choice. People who will inevitably grow up to support communism and totalitarianism are also my enemies.""

-You are supporting mass murder of the innocent for thought crimes you are convinced they will commit decades later in this very comment.

Yet earlier in the same comment of replies you directly tried to insist you were not supporting it. As someone else in these threads pointed out earlier: the reason is you are a liar.

As it happens I come from a large family of Democrats who have worked for the party at the state and local levels since 1919. I am far right. You would also be implicitly supporting hypothetical abortions of Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln applying your argument to them. Conservatism and America are about individualism. Not collectivist mass murder.

-You explicitly are. That literally IS your argument.

Supporting individuals choosing to take it upon themselves to murder innocent people IS supporting mass murder. Unfortunately there is no having it both ways. No semantical games will work on this. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Sorry bud.

-Fallacy fallacy. If it were mostly about environment and demographics the country would then be close to or as conservative as it was in 1776. Thus you have again debunked yourself. Lol, too funny.

You would seem to be misattributing the reasons large %s of blacks have voted Democrat since FDR's New Deal welfare policies that caused the majority of blacks to switch parties in about 4 years.

And / or it would seem the third world demographic issue.

Critically it is the right of a society to determine their immigration policies. But we do not murder the innocent for thought crimes we imagine in a free society before they ever speak. That is the stuff of Nazism / fascism / totalitarianism.

-A child is a fetus by definition. Look it up. Offspring. Not that changing the name would change the reality anyway. And the reality it is pro abortionists like yourself celebrate hacking up babies like ancient Spartans.

-If you support murdering the most innocent people for thought crimes you would be for what we fear the AOC's of the world turning into ultimately. And thus an even bigger evil. This isn't complicated. It's about as basic as it gets. You either support individuals in a society choosing freely to murder their child for convenience or you believe in freedom, human rights, and the individual.

-Anyone "pro choice" on mass murder of the innocent does not deserve a gulag. The same principles ought to be applied to them through the government as most societies throughout human history understand they have to protect the society from mass murderers and those who aid and abet them.

-Oh I see. So then who are you working for while commenting in the thread? China? Joe the Sniffer?

+"“What science am I denying and could you provide peer-reviewed citations? I'll wait.“

Statistical science. Specifically the statistics pertaining to abortion demographics and the political affiliations o**f people who are far more likely to get abortions. Review the numbers yourself."

-You have only again demonstrated your failure to produce the very citations you're claiming to be referencing and relying on heavily. Do you understand this only demonstrates the reason is you are a liar for the reader?

Statistical sciences 101: Correlation ≠ causation. You were not asked to repeat yourself using different words. You were asked for the peer-reviewed citations you generically keep referring to. Where are they? It is not on me to provide your citations for you, particularly when your argument is appeasing mass murder of innocent. A maudlin Vegas strip lounge psychic couldn't get away with that routine, lol.

+"“How are totally innocent individuals your enemy or my enemy? That's just a crazy religious belief. It is self-evident offspring do not mirror every opinion of both parents? True or false?”

People who support communism and totalitarianism are my enemies; these people are far more likely to get abortions and it would terrible to deny them the freedom to make this choice. People who will inevitably grow up to support communism and totalitarianism are also my enemies.""

-You are supporting mass murder of the innocent for thought crimes you are convinced they will commit decades later in this very comment.

Yet earlier in the same comment of replies you directly tried to insist you were not supporting it. As someone else in these threads pointed out earlier: the reason is you are a liar.

As it happens I come from a large family of Democrats who have worked for the party at the state and local levels since 1919. I am far right. You would also be implicitly supporting hypothetical abortions of Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln applying your argument to them. Conservatism and America are about individualism. Not collectivist mass murder.

-You explicitly are. That literally IS your argument.

Support individuals choosing to take it upon themselves to murder innocent people IS supporting mass murder. Unfortunately there is no having it both ways. No semantical games will work on this. Sorry bud.

-Fallacy fallacy. If it were mostly about environment and demographics the country would be as conservative as it was in 1776. Thus you have again debunked yourself. Lol, too funny.

You would seem to be misattributing the reasons large %s of blacks have voted Democrat since FDR New Deal welfare policies that caused the majority of blacks to switch parties in about 4 years.

And / or it would seem the third world demographic issue.

We do not murder the innocent for thought crimes we imagine in a free society before they ever speak. That is the stuff of Nazism, fascism, and totalitarianism.

-A child is a fetus by definition. Look it up. Offspring. Not that changing the name would change the reality anyway. And the reality it is pro abortionists like yourself celebrate hacking up babies like ancient Spartans.

-If you support murdering the most innocent people for thought crimes you would be for what we fear the AOC's of the world turning into ultimately. And thus an even bigger evil. This isn't complicated. It's about as basic as it gets. You either support individuals in a society choosing freely to murder their child for convenience or you believe in freedom, human rights, and the individual.

-Anyone "pro choice" on mass murder of the innocent does not deserve a gulag. The same principles ought to be applied to them through the government as most societies throughout human history understand they have to protect the society from mass murderers and those who aid and abet them.