Sign into an existing account

I approve, provided this is exclusively for "minorities" ... Which is likely, considering Portland.

Obviously not enough abortions happened in Portland because the ones that lived joined ANTIFA and BLM. One has to wonder who was killed that could have found the cure for cancer, or discovered FTL travel, or any myriad of other things. Pretty arrogant of Portland and Oregon in general to be dictating what happens in another state, while putting undue hardship on their own citizens.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion. In fact, I don't see how a medical procedure could be a right. Abortion is sprung from degeneracy, except for rape. So, maybe the real question is, do you have the right to be a peice of shit. At one time, that would have been "no." They would have run your ass out of town

Being that Portland's only export is faggotry, us Texans will be just fine with this arrangement.

No more gasoline from those Texas refineries, then, I guess.
Good luck with that!

Also, there's nothing in the Texas bill preventing them from moving to an abortion-friendly state.
I'm sure California would be happy to take them in.

That has always been the point for the pro-abortion side: Their position is that until a baby leaves the woman's body it's akin to an organ of her body and she can do whatever she pleases.

In practice this ignores that there is a second person who is connected to that growing baby - the father. Because the law holds a father legally responsible for the baby it essentially confers a degree of /ownership/ to the non-biologically-custodial parent. With that established, he would then have claim over the "organ" that happens to be located physically inside of the woman. If women wish to get rid of this right, they are going to have to relinquish legal responsibility after birth. This is the best angle of attack on the "my body my choice" argument and one that is winnable.

A proper idea is to pass a law requiring a signature from both parents authorizing termination of a pregnancy. In the event that the father is not identified, an officer of the community can be appointed to determine the necessity of carrying the pregnancy. This provides a serious disincentive for women to get pregnant to people they don't know, because then they'll be subject to state law (which will be like Texas, rigidly against termination). In the case that the father opposes termination the mother has the right to relinquish her similar legal "ownership" of the baby, making it his complete responsibility upon birth. Finally, these decisions should be rendered publicly. If a woman and a man decide to terminate a pregnancy, that would be announced similar to marriage, births, and deaths.

This is how these questions would be handled in a mature, honest, responsible society. If you wish to push back on women arguing about abortion rights, present these issues because they are not equipped to respond to them. All of these approaches ultimately return to the most important piece of this all - they incentivize women to be sexually responsible. This is what roasties most fear, and this is what society most needs.

tl;dr: focus on the the fact that if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, the father must also have that right, otherwise both need to be able to relinquish legal claim to the baby at birth, ie child support. this is a legally sound approach and their opposition to it will expose thier position every time.

No one forced you to fuck, you goddamn subhuman sluts.