Abortion

Young People Are Shifting Left on Abortion

The percentage of young adults saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases has risen 10 percentage points since 2015.

|

Paul Christian Gordon/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A new poll suggests that young Americans are becoming more liberal about abortion as they age. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds say they have become more supportive of abortion rights in recent years; only nine percent have become less supportive.

This stands in contrast to baby boomers and older Americans. Among respondents age 65 and up, only six percent tell PRRI they've recently become more supportive of abortion access; 12 percent are more opposed. "The relative stability of attitudes in the general public towards the legality and availability of abortion over the past few years has masked a growing polarization of opinion between younger and older Americans," says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones in a press release.

The 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed (a mix of younger millennials and elder Gen Z) were also significantly more likely than their oldest counterparts to agree that at least some health care providers in their community should provide abortions: 69 percent versus 46 percent.

Millennials and Gen Z have gained a reputation in recent years for being "more pro-life" than previous generations at their age, but this has always been a bit of a mischaracterization. What many surveys showed was young adults with more nuanced—and confused—views on abortion than could be easily captured by the old pro-choice/pro-life binary. In one 2014 study, PRRI found that 65 percent of millennials said the term pro-life describes them "at least somewhat well" while 74 percent of this same survey respondents said the term pro-choice describes them well. And while 52 percent said abortion is "morally wrong" (compared to only 36 percent that said was "morally acceptable"), slightly more—55 percent—agreed that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances.

The latest PRRI survey suggests that some of this ambiguity around abortion is shifting. In the most recent poll, just 44 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds say that abortion goes against their personal morals. (For respondents 65 and up, the number is 60 percent.) And 65 percent agreed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 55 percent in a 2015 PRRI poll of millennials.

NEXT: Can Extremer Vetting Reduce the Already Tiny Risk of Terrorism?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Luckily they’re not having kids anyway, so the issue is resolving itself.

    1. With these kids, the boys are definitely “resolving” themselves.

  2. It’s nice to hear that people are moving in the libertarian direction on at least one issue.

    1. You’re just looking to start a fight.

      I bet you’re uncircumcised and eat deep-dish

      1. I’m circumcised (twice) and eat deep-dish. LIBERTARIAN IS A SPOILER VOTE THAT DRIVES THE ABROTION PLANK IN 1972.

        1. I thought I was the only guy here who was circumcised twice.

            1. The second time, they just needed a drop of blood which they got with a pin prick on my prick. Not everyone trusts the validity of a Reform Jewish conversion.

            2. And the crips think they have a tough initiation rite.

          1. It’s actually true for me. It was truly a weird thing.

            1. Dude, you gotta stop bragging about your ginormous penis.

            2. Word is, some Norwegian adventurer used BUCS’s foreskin to cross the Atlantic.

            3. What? How do you get circumcised twice? Did they screw up the first time?

              1. Certain African (and maybe Oceanic/Australian) tribes have extended circumcision rites as a child ages, for boys and/or girls, depending on tribe. Female circumcision in every level is horrifying, and the 2nd and greater circumcisions for boys are nauseating. Don’t look it up if you’re even somewhat squeamish.

                So maybe BUCS is an African child on his way to adulthood.

              2. This is not a joke. It grew back.

    2. 1) So the NAP doesn’t apply until someone draws their first breath? That’s news to a pro-life libertarians. I wasn’t aware that you had to be pro-abortion to be a libertarian. One of the attractive things about libertarianism is that there is room for both crowds in the tent.

      2) The young people aren’t moving in a more libertarian direction. They are moving in a more self centered direction. This is the same group that wants more guns, has no opinion on our numerous wars, and thinks Bernie is dreamy. They support abortion because they don’t want to accept responsibility for their actions and they want government to subsidize their behavior, not because they support freedom.

      1. One of the attractive things about libertarianism is that there is room for both crowds in the tent.

        As much as people shit on him, I think one of the most salient complaints of Gillespie is this idea that political stances that have no meaningful connection, are still bundled together in this country into one of two parties.

        So, if you believe in a higher minimum wage, you are also supposed to be pro-abortion, etc.

        This decoupling is an important way of improving conversation. To debate over specific points, and talk about the merits of them. Because right now to argue about certain issues often becomes a defense of one’s entire belief system rather than a specific idea.

        1. There shouldn’t be room in libertarianism for people to use the state to further their pet issue. As in taxpayer funded abortions or funding planned parenthood. Just like no one would accept taxpayer funding for crises pregnancy centers. But, mainstream libertarians are usually just full of shit

          1. I agree. There’s room in the libertarian big tent for people who believe there should be, say, a federal income tax. It’s time to bring these dissidents in from the cold, I say.

            1. Tents aren’t exactly libertarian.

        2. There is a connection between waanting a high minimum wage and abortion. The logic comes from why they want abortion rights as Last American Hero’s #2 indicates.

        3. this idea that political stances that have no meaningful connection, are still bundled together in this country into one of two parties.

          Back when I was teaching logic and critical thinking, I would introduce this to my students as “The Fallacy of Political Identity” – the idea that you must accept certain ideas and arguments because of the political party that you identify with.

      2. Language matters here.
        I am “pro life” and also “pro choice.” I don’t support the death penalty, for example, and I think women shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term (within some limits.)

        The question is really, do I have the right to override another person’s choice here? The libertarian position is “no, I do not.”

        1. You saying *within limits* just made you pro-life by default. The pro-choice side opposes all limits and want taxpayers to foot the bill

          1. By that logic, nearly everyone is “pro-life”. Even Clinton agreed there should be limits.

            1. Bill Clinton. Not Hillary or the Democratic Party. Read the platform

              1. As much as y’all like to ignore it, Hillary Clinton does not support abortion in any circumstance, and never has. She has stated as such numerous times, including on the debate stage in 2016.

                1. I’ve put on my tin-foil hat, and tapped into what Hillary REALLY thinks…

                  She thinks that everyone who wants an abortion, should be allowed to get one!

                  EXCEPT if you are the illicit lover of a married hypocritical Rethugglican imbecile politician, who condemns abortion in public, and pressures his secret mistress, in private, to GET an abortion! THEN it should be outlawed!

                2. WTF, seriously?! OMG, that is FUNNY!

  3. So this poll contradicts all other recent polls. Sorry, but medical technology is bound to render ENB’s extreme position on abortion (supported by less than 10% of the country) as a relic of barbarism.

    1. I really do think in two hundred years we will look back on abortion the way we now look at slavery.

      1. I totally get many pro-choice arguments and I don’t think people are evil. I am fine with the argument that it is a necessary evil, for the greater good of both individual women and society. However, I’m not okay with people saying fetus’s aren’t human and are no different than a tumor or a parasite, that there is no negative aspect of abortion and no life ended. That is just scientifically wrong and morally atrocious.

        1. fetuses*

          Pluralizing words with apostrophes is like my biggest pet grammar peeve.

          1. I think it’s fair to have reasonable limitations on the procedure since it is a conflicted between the life of the child and the autonomy of the woman. A twenty week ban would still be one of the most liberal abortion laws (except for communist countries that are barbaric by design).

            Just like a full ban is extreme, the current status quo of no limitations is obscene

            1. 20 weeks is probably too early. I think the right time is somewhere in the 25-30 week range.

              1. Babies have survived and lived healthy lives at at 21/22 weeks. I think that should always be the limit; whatever point at which we know a baby has been proven able to survive. This limit will obviously get shorter and shorter as technology progresses.

                1. Ok, 21 weeks, then. As long as abortions before then are legal. Also, someone has to agree to pay for the incubator and homestead the guardianship rights. There should be no obligations placed on the mother.

              2. Where did you come up with 25 to 30? Earliest viability is 22 weeks, I believe

            2. the current status quo of no limitations is obscene
              And also not the status quo.

              1. And also is the status quo. Look it up. All state limitations are meaningless as an abortion must be provided, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy, if carrying the pregnancy to term can impact the physical or mental health of the woman. But, no medical review is necessary. You only have to contend that it may be detrimental to mental health. And nearly all state bans are bans on paper only as courts have nearly never allowed one to take effect. The only abortion restriction that has ever been upheld is the “partial birth abortion ban” which only bans a procedure and not when an abortion can occur. If you don’t think the current system is barbarism then look up Kermit Gosnell

                1. Most wonderful progressive utopian European countries have 12 week elective abortion bans, mandatory ultrasounds, and mandatory waiting periods. Some countries require you to explain in writing why an abortion is necessary before being approved for one.

                2. @Just Say’n
                  So all you’ve got are unsupported hypotheticals, lies about the efficacy of TARP laws, and a doctor that was arrested and convicted.

                  Yeah, clearly the status quo is “no limitations”.

                  1. Read about the law for yourself. In fact, WaPo did a fact check and had to admit that the US has essentially no limits on abortion.

                    1. By that logic, under prohibition there was essentially no limits on alcohol.

                      Sure, it was illegal, and folks got jailed and killed over it, but since it was possible to do it illegally, there weren’t really limits.

                    2. You’re just sprouted nonsense. Why outlaw murder by your lack of logic.

                    3. Nah, you’re the one that pointed at a convicted felon and said “see? If a criminal can do it, there’s essentially no limits!”

      2. I’m hoping we look back in 200 years and consider it barbaric that we thought all of society should have a say in what women do with their bodies.

        1. So you don’t think that current law allowing abortion mere hours before delivery will be viewed as barbarism? The rest of the world (except for China, Vietnam, and Cuba) seem to disagree

          1. I think it’s reasonable to say that the state should have no say in the matter. That it should be between the mother and the doctor (and perhaps the father). It is a complicated issue, after all. While late term abortions are legal in some places, they aren’t common. The vast majority of abortions happen before 22/23 weeks, which is the earliest a live birth has ever occurred. Of the few that happen later, it’s reasonable to believe that these are done for a wide range of reasons, from sudden changes in relationships/income to the sudden appearance of a serious medical condition. Should a mother be forced to deliver an infant that will not survive just because the defect was discovered late in the pregnancy? To me, that is barbarism. Should the mother be forced to deliver an infant that is likely to not survive or will be seriously impaired just because the defect was discovered late in the pregnancy? I would argue that this is a difficult decision that should be left up to the mother and doctor as they have the most skin in the game (of the people capable of voicing their opinions). I’m really hesitant to let the state decide anything this complicated because the state has such a terrible record when making important decisions that apply widely to all people.

            1. I’m not disputing it’s a difficult choice, but it is killing a viable life after 22 weeks. Restrictions are more than fair. We have more restrictions on speech, guns, assembly, and religious liberty than we do on abortion.

              1. Which makes sense because those are things that affect other people. This only affects the woman.

                1. Guns, speech, and religious liberty effect others more than abortion? That is so profoundly moronic

                  1. The abortion doesn’t affect anyone else.

                    Guns shoot projectiles at (sometimes) people. Speech is directed at other people. Assembly is… assembling other people. Religious liberty is the one I was reluctant to include, but wanted to stay brief.

                    Those other things are regulated (stating as a matter of fact, not endorsement) because they are things that cause problems when people rub up against each other under involuntary circumstances. Abortion, well, a woman could have an abortion and no one except her would know.

            2. I think it’s reasonable to say that the state should have no say in the matter.

              If government is incompetent to define “murder”, then what use is it?

          2. Nope.

        2. I support legal abortion access at any point in pregnancy, but be careful using transphobic wording like “what women do with their bodies.” After all, transgender men and nonbinary people sometimes need abortion too.

          1. Shut the fuck up Will Wilkinson

            1. I don’t know who Will Wilkinson is. Is he that former child actor on Star Trek?

              1. No. He’s a “libertarian” *wink, wink* that you would love if you weren’t such a bad parody. He is literally the guy who coined the term “liberal-tarian”

                1. BAD parody?

                  How dare you!

                  I, for one, am a big OBL fan and appreciate how concisely he captures progressivism.

          2. OBL has had to abort quite a few jelly babies in his time.

          3. Talk about open borders and all… What we really NEED here is, a TALLER WALL between a woman and her fartilized egg cell, ballisticoocycst, emryo, fetus-beatus, etc.!!! A TALL WALL to force a separation of the rights of the residents of both sides of the wall!!! Quadruple-lined (or more) placental walls, baby, THAT’S wut I’m talkin’ about!

            Keep to yer OWN side of the wall, dammit!!!!

            Best of all, we make the fartilized egg cells, ballisticoocycsts, emryos, fetus-beatuses, etc., pay for it ALL!!!

            (Yer welcum!)

          4. Sadly OBL is right.
            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38831313

            The world has lost its mind.

            1. Well OK then, yes? I see your concern!
              What about species-change surgery?!?! See specifically here, I am worried that “gender re-assignment surgery” is going to, more and more, be MANDATED on insurance coverage, as it being “medically necessary”, just because “I feel like I am of the opposite sex.” Then I have to pay for insurance coverage that I do NOT, no way in HELL, want!
              Dammit, I feel like I am a tiger! (Channeling Charlie Sheen here, I am). Can I get species-change operation, and make all you bastards pay for it, via mandated insurance coverage?!?!?!

              To see the results of “species change surgery” on people who are nominally human, but feel like cats, google “Dennis Avner” “Stalking Cat” ? Search on images especially?

              So if Dennis Avner had had kids, would his kids have been entitled to publically-subsidized “therapy” to help them adapt from the human-children-to-kittens transition!?!?! Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

    2. PRRI CEO Dr. Robert P. Jones. “As this younger generation continues to flex its political muscles?as we saw in the response to the Parkland shooting?they could also reshape the national conversation on women’s health issues.”

      Holy shit, for being ‘non-partisan’, I’m having a hard time thinking of how you’d more clearly say ‘(but really partisan)’ without openly endorsing a political candidate.

    3. Republican men are divided over whether false accusations or failures to address actual incidences of sexual violence are a bigger problem in the United States,” said Dr. Carolyn Davis, PRRI Director of Strategic Engagement and co-author of the report. “Given this, the party is not likely to prioritize effectively combatting sexual harassment or assault unless the women of the party push the GOP to action.

      I’m beginning to think that ENB’s source, that effaces itself as non-partisan may not, in fact, be non-partisan. I can’t wait to see what their non-partisan questionnaire looks like.

      1. He’s about as non-partisan as ENB is a libertarian (lol)

  4. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI)

    Another non-partisan public opinion polling ‘institute’? When do we start aborting them? The acronym isn’t even very original. At the very least can we all agree on some common sense acronym control? Nobody needs more than two ‘R’s in their acronym.

  5. Huh, I didn’t know there was any dispute on this.

    1. It is in dispute because every poll for the past five years has shown young people to be more pro-life than older people, until this most recent poll.

      1. There was a whole Atlantic article a couple years back about how ultrasound technology was going to make younger kids more pro-life that upset the pro-abortion crowd

  6. Compare polls of young people’s views on socialism to older people’s views.

    The wave of the future!

  7. Individual rights are only for individuals not connected to another individual via umbilical cord.

    1. What about those connected to a machine? They can be killed at will too?

    2. They are not legally “individuals” until they can speak for themselves.

      The larger question is should other people’s opinions override a woman’s right to determine her own health questions.

      1. Damn, I couldn’t speak well until I was three. I guess I wasn’t an individual them.

        That’s only the question if you assume that the mother’s right outweighs the baby’s right to live. IOW, not the question for virtually anyone pro-life.

    3. Mothers are also connected to the child by the umbilical cord… I think you may want to rethink your pithy phrase.

      1. Maybe you should think about it harder.

        1. Then is it intended as sarcasm or are you seriously saying that mothers shouldn’t have rights?

          1. (Prospective) mothers certainly have the right to refrain from behavior that could result in their pregnancy, or take other precautions to prevent or lower the chances of pregnancy. However, once pregnant, (prospective) mothers have responsibilities to the dependant human they’ve created inside of them. Actions have consequences.

            Abortion is homicide.
            That being said, I’m fairly pro-abortion myself. I don’t intrinsically value all human life, or individual lives, equally. I don’t ask that others do or don’t, but I do value reality and consistency. If one wants to argue abortion as morally acceptable or a fundamental right, one must also assess their approach to other forms of abstract humanity – be they “refugees”, “the poor”, “immigrants”, “celebrities”, “Africans”, and so on.
            A child that’s aborted is far more real to the homicidal mother (and doctor) than any imaginary person she may/often will simultaneously advocate for yet never interact with or experience other than as an idea. To proclaim value for the life of the latter while dismissing it for the former is inconsistent and dishonest.

            1. *proclaim intrinsic value for…
              Individuals are free to make their own value judgements, I just ask that they not be deceptive about it.

  8. I found where I stand when there was a near-miss at 17.

    Also is Freakanomics not in vogue anymore? Nobody ever references that book.

    1. If you are referring to its argument that legalized abortion led to a decline in crime in the 90s (a ghastly eugenics argument to begin with) that has been thoroughly discredited

      1. Actually a lot of the conclusions in that book have been disputed or discredited as they purposely avoided multifaceted explanations for results and instead focused on a single cause in a whole host of scenarios. Pop economics is almost always shitty economics. Paul Krugman agrees

      2. It’s only a “eugenics argument” if you are pro-life.

        1. What is the difference between Iceland “curing down syndrome” with abortion and saying crime decreased because poor people were aborted. And let’s get real, there is a racial component that they are discussing there that they use “poor” as a euphemism for.

          1. Excuse me, let’s “get lit”

          2. I seem to remember the argument as just being unwanted children have a higher likelihood of harsh childhoods and this is a leading indicator for people to start down the path of crime.

            And I thought he looked at a European country that went from having abortions to blocking it and they further looked at growing crime rates in the youth since that time?

            idk it was a while ago, I read it in high school and at the time it seemed like a novel work — it must have as you say, been debunked.

            (even the pools are more dangerous than guns to children argument?)

            1. That country: Yugoslavia under communism

        2. It’s only a “eugenics argument” if you are pro-life.

          I took what he was saying as “not necessarily eugenic but, only through painstaking effort, distinguishable from eugenics”.

          You may not legitimately want more abortions in order to prevent crime, but if you enact policy under the auspices of lowering crime, you’re specifically enabling someone who wants to perform more abortions to lower crime rates.

          Most any policy you enact along the lines of passive or agnostic “abortions correlate with lower crime” would almost certainly require additional laws to prevent a social policy of “abortions to prevent crime”.

          1. Isn’t that basically a disparate impact claim? That in the face of racist consequences, a lack of racist intent is immaterial?

            1. You have disparate impact backwards

              1. A theory of liability that prohibits an employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.

                So yeah.

                Arguing that anti-crime policies are (to use mad.casual’s paraphrase) “not necessarily eugenic but, only through painstaking effort, distinguishable from eugenics” is basically a disparate impact claim.

  9. So, if a majority of people think a class of humans should not have legal rights, then they don not jave rights?

    1. Every kulak a wanted kulak!

      1. Every libertarian a wanted libertarian! Eliminate the rest!

    2. Welcome to Progressivism, comrade!

      The only true freedom is freedom from consequence, I suppose.

    3. That’s how all right work in practice, unfortunately.

    4. According to the entirety of human history? Yes.

      1. Is that something ENB or libertarians in general would argue was true on any other issue but abortion?

        1. To be clear, I’m not a libertarian or Libertarian, and do not speak to them.

          That said, I suspect it really depends on where you think “rights” come from. If you’re in the “natural rights” crowd, then you probably think that rights are immutable and don’t change over time, just our understanding of them changes. If you’re religious, you say they’re from God and give the same crap-ass excuse.

          If you’re me, you say “rights are the aspirational promises we make to each other regarding what lines we will not cross. But they are aspirational, not actual, and as quick to be sacrificed as they are hard to win”.

          1. So your argument on rights are “whatever I like”

            1. No, I think that it might be more accurate to say… Maybe EscherEnigma is saying this, maybe he or she is not.. But I can say it! …

              Rights are whatever the people with the most swords and guns, say that they are!!!

              Sometimes you can fight them with pens or keyboards, yes… If all else fails, and they are utterly unspeakable bastards, grab a sword or a gun or a broken bottle, and let them have it!!! Or be a martyr… Whatever works for you!

            2. Nah. Even if you want to erase nuance and simplify it to a bumper-sticker, “whatever I can keep” is a lot closer.

              And you shouldn’t confuse me saying what rights are with me saying what rights should be.

              1. Gotcha, Dude or Dudette… Keep on truckin’!!!

                (I was addressing, what the rights ARE right now, which are sadly lacking compared to what they should be. Also I was NOT trying to denigrate being a non-violent martyr… Sometimes that actually CAN work!).

                1. @SQRLSY One
                  Wasn’t actually responding to you, just didn’t realize we were already deep enough that it was giving up on threading.

                  Your summary is still more accurate then Just Say’n’s summary.

              2. Rights, in the American sense, are contractual stipulations/obligations.
                The US Constitution is a contract granting legitimacy to the individuals, institutions, and policies that execute the functions of government.
                To the extent that the terms of contract are not met (as with “aspirational” rights), the government (individuals, institutions, policies) are in breach and therefore illegitimate.
                At that point, they are no more than warlords or organized criminals possessing no more than superior force.

  10. What is the opinion of women who have actually had an abortion? I only know three close female friends who have disclosed it and they all regret it.

    Small sample size. I want more data.

    1. Those 3 close female friends… Are 1 or 2 or 3 of them now married or bonded to a close male friend, who was NOT the father-to-be, and who would NOT have been too happy about jumping into “pre-made family” mode, pre-made fatherhood mode? Wanting to be the BIOLOGICAL father runs deep! Have you ever asked your female friends about that, could you envision doing so? Else the females always get to be biological moms, and the BETTER halves of the men (those not all hung up on spreading their genes), get to help perpetrate the genes of those who are better at lying to the females!!! The lying Romeos and those-who-are-skilled-at-flattering-females, NOT those who are skilled at RAISING children, get their genes passed on!!! You OK with that?

      1. For many-many women (excluding hookers) there is an implied contract that the man that they have sex with, will honor here by being reasonably faithful, loving, kind, considerate?

        “Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?”

        Dude get in her pants… Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who “learned better”, but too late… And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street?

        Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you? Hooray!

        Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

        A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

        Can you say,
        “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

        1. One (in a free nation) can FLEE the harem, after the deception becomes apparent, AND get an abortion! Many-many men do NOT want to pick up a ready-made family; they want to start their own, with their own genes! It is deeply buried into our biology, this is… Otherwise, the scumbucket men will pass on their genes, and the decent men will raise all of the babies… Not their own genetic babies. So, to whatever basis human behavior is genetically based, the scumbucket genes will prevail, and the good-responsible-fathering-genes will go extinct. We will become like horses and elephant seals and others, capable of fighting all day to gather our harems and father offspring, but no longer able to be responsible fathers. This is what is at stake, here…
          Post-abortion fled-the-harem deceived woman is now free to find a better father, free of the ready-made family, that many-many men (for good reason) do not want. It is that simple.

          1. OK, so, then, your “close” 3 female friends? If you are going to base your voting decisions on their opinions, and then, in the aggregate, if we are going to base public policy on their “feelings”? Has anyone asked them hard questions yet? Or are they living in fantasy land? At the logical near-extreme, they are bonded to a man who is helping to support their 3 mutually biological offspring? And she is IMAGINING that he is SUCH a good, saintly Dude Extraordinaire, that he wouldn’t mind ONE IOTA about having to help support and raise the other 5 kids that she aborted!!! Is this REAL, or is it just a fantasy?!? Do the math, Dude!!!

        2. Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men

          Punish the guilty by killing the innocent.

          If government is incompetent to define “murder”, then what use is it?

  11. PRRI is run by Robert P. Jones.

    This Robert P. Jones.

    The Robert P. Jones whose livelihood depends on selling the decline of white Christianity in America.

    Hang your hopes on the polls telling you what you want to hear at your peril. Didn’t work for your god queen.

  12. Still, the prospect of importing RU-486 from Canada for sale on the streets somehow seems appealing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.