# US Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade In Landmark Opinion



## njcam (Mar 30, 2014)

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark abortion decision


The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, with their ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion.




www.foxnews.com












Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Link to PDF of Opinion)


----------



## dsnotgood (Jun 28, 2011)

In before the “peaceful protests” burning down cities and killing people, peaceful of course…


----------



## Eric Fleischer (Mar 28, 2012)

"The opinion notably quotes a 17th century English jurist who had two women executed for 'witchcraft,' defended marital rape, and believed capital punishment should extend to kids as young as 14."


Ahhhh, 2022. Two thousand, twenty two.


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm ambivalent about the decision; mostly, I feel bad for the young women who want an abortion but are too poor to travel to a state where abortion is legal.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

This is a pretty trash decision based on a few guys feelings about abortion. Imagine constantly citing people for whom marital rape is normal and witchcraft is an offense punishable by death to justify your position on abortion. I guess it'll make the fake pro-life people happy?


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Disgusting.


----------



## njcam (Mar 30, 2014)

*Majority Opinion (6)*
Justice Samuel Alito (writing for the Court majority)
Chief Justice John Roberts (writing a separate concurring opinion)
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Neil Gorsuch
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Justice Amy Coney Barrett

*Dissenting Opinion (3)*
Justice Stephen Breyer
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Elena Kagan

Trump said that he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe. He was able to appoint three conservative justices during his four years in office, moving the court rightward and building a 6-3 conservative majority. All three Trump appointees - Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - were in the majority.

And the 3 Trump appointees; Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are only in their 50s... they could be on the US Supreme Court for another 25 years.


----------



## Mr316 (Dec 3, 2020)

Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


Now, let's be fair: like the decision or not, we both know that "move to a blue state" is an overly simplistic response to the decision, and frankly isn't an option for many many people, either because of cost or family commitments or employment or some other reason.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

Good.


----------



## Eric Fleischer (Mar 28, 2012)




----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

Not much to say about the topic I haven't said already, but this just flat out sucks for women's rights in general. 



Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


"Why don't poor people just not be poor?"


----------



## Hayabusasc (Dec 19, 2009)

Welp. America continues to surprise me with how backwards it can be.

Though I shouldn't be too surprised given this is the same country that elects people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz to be a representative.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

This is just the beginning.









Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings


Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.




www.politico.com


----------



## Naifu (Oct 21, 2011)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


You can't even be sure of that. NYC made people get the covid vaccine in order to work.


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Hayabusasc said:


> Welp. America continues to surprise me with how backwards it can be.


To be fair and factual, until this decision, the United States was one of the most extreme liberal countries in the world regarding abortions. From the New York Times:

"With Roe in place, the United States has also been an international outlier on abortion rights, but in the other direction. Few countries allow abortion without restriction until fetal viability, the cutoff set by Roe v. Wade half a century ago — currently around 23 weeks, because of medical advances. That makes the United States one of just over a dozen countries that allow abortions for any reason beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy, the threshold in the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court considered in its private vote to overturn Roe. France and Colombia recently joined that group."


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Ooooooh booooooy. This is going to get wild.


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

Well this thread is going to give cat some mod exercise.

I knew this was going to happen. They overturn this and they can distract from doing anything significant with the January 6 hearings. Americans have shown they can't multi rage


----------



## Prized Fighter (Aug 31, 2016)

Absolute trash. Anybody celebrating this has no idea how far this ruling will be used to infringe on rights that go beyond just abortions. You can guarantee that certains states will make the simple consideration of getting an abortion into a imprisonable crime. Imagine getting raped and being forced to choose between having the child or being imprisoned. Imagine having an ectopic pregnancy and you have to choose between possibly dying or going to prison for life. And if you don't think that is going to happen here is a thread for you:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540368507438858241


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Prized Fighter said:


> Absolute trash. Anybody celebrating this has no idea how far this ruling will be used to infringe on rights that go beyond just abortions. You can guarantee that certains states will make the simple consideration of getting an abortion into a imprisonable crime. Imagine getting raped and being forced to choose between having the child or being imprisoned. Imagine having an ectopic pregnancy and you have to choose between possibly dying or going to prison for life. And if you don't think that is going to happen here is a thread for you:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540368507438858241


Question: would you favor outlawing abortion IF exceptions were made for rape, incest, and the life of the mother?


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

Dumbfuckistan outdoing itself as usual. "The land of the free."


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.











Mike Pence Celebrates Overturning of Roe v. Wade By Calling for a NATIONAL Ban on Abortion


Mike Pence commemorated the Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark reproductive rights Roe v. Wade decision by calling for a national ban on abortions.




www.mediaite.com






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540374063666839556
Watched EWTN this morning (Catholic channel). The talking heads there are saying that it’s time to go state by state or most likely just go to Congress and get a nationwide ban on abortion. The Republicans have shown they will pivot in a heartbeat.


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

Decency and morality has returned to America.

To anyone who thinks slaughtering the unborn in the womb if acceptable, or even righteous: take your trashy, barbaric self elsewhere. You're no longer welcomed in America.


----------



## Prized Fighter (Aug 31, 2016)

Strike Force said:


> Question: would you favor outlawing abortion IF exceptions were made for rape, incest, and the life of the mother?


Personally, no. However, I would at least be willing to have the debate about when life begins.

My bigger issue is that when ever states create criminal laws there is always overreach. That will happen here and it guaranteed that a lot of women will end up in prison for choosing to end a pregnancy due to rape or incest. At minimum there will be women getting unsafe abortions out of desperation.

You can also be sure that the next thing the Supreme Court overturns will be same sex marriage and state will use the Roe ruling to go after contraceptives.

There is a debate worth having about how Supreme Court justices are picked and their life time appointments, but I will save that one for another day.


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

Firefromthegods said:


> Well this thread is going to give cat some mod exercise.
> 
> I knew this was going to happen. They overturn this and they can distract from doing anything significant with the January 6 hearings. Americans have shown they can't multi rage


Speaking of January 6, Liz Cheney tweeted about today's decision:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540361645159055360


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

As a country, the majority of us have pretty much agreed that we are ok with abortion as long as it is done within the first trimester. At least that is what the polling shows. It was a very reasonable middle ground. So why not just leave it at that? Of course both parties had to politicize the shit out of everything and tried pulling the abortion rights way too far right or left and now the Republicans got enough power in the SCOTUS to actually get their way. The majority of Americans want policies that exist between the extremes of these two parties but neither party seems to care about that, they just want to go as for one direction as they can for political reasons. 

Personally, I hate abortions. I wish there was never an abortion and I do think that we have way too many abortions every single year and we lack personal responsibility as a society. However, there are a lot of things I disagree with that I don't necessarily want the government to take away. I still want women to have that choice even if I disagree with that choice. Making something illegal never gets rid of it, it almost always just makes that situation worse and more dangerous. Look at the war on drugs. Look at the attempt to ban alcohol. Women are still going to get abortions if they don't want to carry a child except now they will probably do it in more unsafe ways if they live in a state that doesn't allow it.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

WrestleFAQ said:


> To anyone who thinks slaughtering the unborn in the womb if acceptable


They're glorified tadpoles.


----------



## Lenny Leonard (Dec 17, 2016)

Guns have more rights in America then women,lol


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

A-freakin'-men. Lock these violent terrorists up, as well as any politician inciting anti-pro-life violence or insurrections, like fake president Biden and that horsefaced bag of dog shit AOC.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540171985816256512

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540344771646038017

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540359953914937349

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540356083830915072


----------



## Chasingamymatt (Mar 24, 2014)

Womans body is her business. End of


----------



## Dickhead1990 (Aug 31, 2016)

The US has fallen to the Talliban.


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

Chasingamymatt said:


> Womans body is her business. End of


----------



## Chasingamymatt (Mar 24, 2014)

WrestleFAQ said:


>


except that body cant exist without a mother, in womb and when post birth. Women should have a choice, regardless of circs, or if males were child bearing would you be stepping up to take on the responsibility if you were inpregnated by rape or accident or "act of god"?


----------



## Adapting (Jun 21, 2020)

Why do I care what someone does with their body? it should be their choice.


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

This may be only the beginning.

*Justice Thomas: Revisit SCOTUS rulings on sodomy, contraception, and same-sex ‘marriage’ - LifeSite*


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

If you hated vaccines and hated the mandates. Yiu should also hate this repeal as well.

Youve basically made it known to the state that you dont care about autonomy. The state is now sending a message that your autonomy is not your own.

Congrats

As we enter a new theocratic hellscape


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

The same people who yelled “my body, my choice” when it came to the vaccine mandates are some of the same people happy this was overturned.


----------



## Sad Panda (Aug 16, 2021)

This country is ass backwards. Years of progress flushed down the toilet. But hey, at least we have our guns, yee haw!!


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Doesn't this just mean that the laws go back to the state level?


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

SolarPowerBat said:


> Doesn't this just mean that the laws go back to the state level?



Yes. That's literally all it means. If you're in a state that outlaws it, vote em out or move. Same with a lot of things.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Yes. That's literally all it means. If you're in a state that outlaws it, vote em out or move. Same with a lot of things.


So democracy carries on and the end of the world is not coming? What is the issue then? Surely the "United States" has the clue in the name? 

'States'


----------



## RyRyLloyd (May 23, 2020)

All in the name of a fairytale scripture.


----------



## Magicman38 (Jun 27, 2016)

Women should have the right to choose. Religious views should not be the law of the land.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

So people decided this because of so called fictional being doesn't want this?


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Stephen90 said:


> So people decided this because of so called fictional being doesn't want this?


It's simply being given back to the states like anything else that isn't in the Constitution.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

it's kind of scary that 9 people get to make a decision like this for a whole country and none of them are the guy that the country voted for


----------



## LVGout (Jan 25, 2016)

Geeee said:


> it's kind of scary that 9 people get to make a decision like this for a whole country and none of them are the guy that the country voted for


please educate yourself, it goes back to the state level. There are states that have to right to abortion protected by state law.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Geeee said:


> it's kind of scary that 9 people get to make a decision like this for a whole country and none of them are the guy that the country voted for


9 people who examine, have better knowledge and uphold the court with pretty much no bias? That must be odd to a canuck? lol


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Yes. That's literally all it means. If you're in a state that outlaws it, vote em out or move. Same with a lot of things.



Gotta love that human rights is a state issue...



SolarPowerBat said:


> 9 people who examine, have better knowledge and uphold the court with pretty much no bias? That must be odd to a canuck? lol


No bias my ass


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> No bias my ass



Of course there's bias lol. Trump said it was going to happen, he won anyway. And it happened.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Razgriz said:


> No bias my ass


Exactly. Your ass is fat and full of shit. The court however is not.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

Magicman38 said:


> Women should have the right to choose. Religious views should not be the law of the land.


Well that your opinion , however here in America the 10th amendment gives the states rights to vote their own laws and customs , and the 1st ammendment separation clause was really about the federal government not imposing one sect like say Catholicism or Aglicanism upon all the states, not that religion cant play a role on the local and state level or have no say in politics, this isnt the EU or Red China. So while your opinion is respected it not the law or original intent of the us constitution, dont like it run for congress, be a judge and get nominated by a libertarian or liberal , and approved by the senate.



Razgriz said:


> Gotta love that human rights is a state issue...


If it ain't in the first ten of the constitution, it not a protected right, if the Democrats and moderates are angry , instead of attack another teen crisis pregnancy center or attempt to kill a sc judge , how about push your representatives, and senators to codify the abortion right, if it possible.


----------



## LVGout (Jan 25, 2016)

look at the bright side people, if you still want to get an abortion. work for a company that will pay for your travel expenses to do the damn thing and you get a free vacation. I am going to identify as a woman and get my abortion on the big island.


----------



## A PG Attitude (Nov 5, 2012)

America is a weird ass country. I feel bad for all of its 21st century citizens forced to live with its 18th century ones.


----------



## Will Teasle (8 mo ago)

When you pack the courts with reactionary fascist judges you get segments of the population stripped of their rights like women in this case. Notice I said reactionary and not conservative cause these are not conservatives, these are reactionaries.


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

SolarPowerBat said:


> 9 people who examine, have better knowledge and uphold the court with pretty much no bias? That must be odd to a canuck? lol


I think its funny that this ruling which is trying to show that every life is significant, actually shows how insignificant the majority of people are, even in the 160th trimester


----------



## HookedOnThuganomics (10 mo ago)

Good, I am pro life myself. But I do imagine there's going to be more riots


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Geeee said:


> I think its funny that this ruling which is trying to show that every life is significant, actually shows how insignificant the majority of people are, even in the 160th trimester


Try and abort that feeling. See how well you do


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

HookedOnThuganomics said:


> Good, I am pro life myself. But I do imagine there's going to be more riots


Riots over alleged police brutality, urban riots during the 60s counter culture, lay down in traffic and block civilians from getting to work over a misguided war, in the 60s bombing recruitment centers, blm riots over race issues in recent years (really they were smash and grabs targeting the communities they claim to represent), using metoo to extort males for money and ruin their lives, brainwashing children to commit violence against their own bodies in the name of transition, search block violence during wto protetests, it all the other side knows is violence, extortion, ruining lives, brainwashing.


----------



## EvilDead (Apr 15, 2014)

The Democratic Party had most 50 years to enshrine the court decision into law. They had multiple chances.

The Dems have shown themselves useless to their voters compared to the Republicans.

It is time for a new party to come about that will bring power to the people.


----------



## Interceptor88 (May 5, 2010)

It's funny reading so many conservative cuckoos being proud of laws and customs that make their beloved USA feel like more and more like those Arabic and underdeveloped countries they like so much. In 20 years they'll be stoning women, banning homosexuality while letting people own missile launchers so they all can be even more effective at killing each other on a whim. _Oh, freedom_.


----------



## BlueEyedDevil (Dec 26, 2019)

I totally agree with what that guy before said. 100%. No exception. Shame more people don't think that way these days. Shake my darn head...


----------



## DammitChrist (Apr 3, 2016)

They actually overturned it?

*Fuck off.*


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

SolarPowerBat said:


> Exactly. Your ass is fat and full of shit. The court however is not.



I see you didnt read the majority opinion then.


----------



## BlueEyedDevil (Dec 26, 2019)

Thank God these ladies have enough extra time and are lonely enough to stand up for the attractive ladies who are too busy having sex to protest for themselves.

*WARNING: This video may cause abstinence from wanting to do the sex.*


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

I can't believe wrestling fans are surprised by Mayor Kane's views on this topic. Their heads will explode when he makes his 2024 endorsement.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Razgriz said:


> I see you didnt read the majority opinion then.


I see you are butt hurt over the facts then?


----------



## BlueEyedDevil (Dec 26, 2019)

The Boy Wonder said:


> I can't believe wrestling fans are surprised by Mayor Kane's views on this topic. Their heads will explode when he makes his 2024 endorsement.


You’d think he’d be endorsing The Dead Man for re-election.


----------



## $Dolladrew$ (Jun 15, 2020)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


Fuckoff you bloody Canadian!!!



BlueEyedDevil said:


> You’d think he’d be endorsing The Dead Man for re-election.


When did trump die???? Did i miss celebration parade?


----------



## KingofKings1524 (Aug 27, 2007)

BlueEyedDevil said:


> Thank God these ladies have enough extra time and are lonely enough to stand up for the attractive ladies who are too busy having sex to protest for themselves.
> 
> *WARNING: This video may cause abstinence from wanting to do the sex.*


Fucking hell. This video is a prime example as to why I have zero social media accounts.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

SolarPowerBat said:


> I see you are butt hurt over the facts then?



The three appointed Trump judges lied their ass off.

The facts are that those 3 judges are not the most law equipped in the land. They were placed there by the comservative machine.

Its why thomas said that they are going to challenge gay marriage, consensual sex (sodomy), and contraceptives.

All of these challenge autonomy as a person in the United States.

The facts are that civil rights are going to get turned back to 1946 if they keep going.



BlueEyedDevil said:


> Thank God these ladies have enough extra time and are lonely enough to stand up for the attractive ladies who are too busy having sex to protest for themselves.
> 
> *WARNING: This video may cause abstinence from wanting to do the sex.*


Its a wonder why women dont feel like theyre people in this country.

Cant allow them to have their own autonomy... and have to objectify them as they lose their right to choose.

Yall are disgusting


----------



## Rick Sanchez (Dec 30, 2012)

And bigotry wins again in America.

No doubt same sex marriage will be next.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Prized Fighter said:


> Personally, no. However, I would at least be willing to have the debate about when life begins.
> 
> My bigger issue is that when ever states create criminal laws there is always overreach. That will happen here and it guaranteed that a lot of women will end up in prison for choosing to end a pregnancy due to rape or incest. At minimum there will be women getting unsafe abortions out of desperation.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day this is an argument over what the state use to decide the legality of this specific medical procedure. IMO, rape and incest exceptions are just noise by both pro and anti choice crowd. People opposed to abortions based on religious morality will have no issue to delay verifying these claims until it is too late for the woman to get an abortion. Just look at how long it normally takes for everyday criminal cases to be heard in courts. All it takes is a little bad faith decision making to stop any of these exceptions even mattering. What is a moral decision for 'exceptions' is a legal decision for these women now.

Another big issue is what is legal for doctors to do with regards to a miscarriage because many of the wording in abortion bans can also be applied to women who needs a procedure to remove a dead fetus in their body.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

This is the biggest expansion of the power of the us gov vis a vis the us people since the second world war.

The legal underpinning of Roe v Wade was the idea that there are certain areas of life that are so personal that the government can't interfere with them, a right to privacy which comes from an express provision in the Constitution providing that the US government must pay US civilians if it wants to put troops in civilians homes. 

Watch a lot of people who "love freedom" and "oppose big government" celebrate this overruling of the right to privacy from government interference.


----------



## PhenomenalOne11 (Oct 2, 2016)

Well this should be interesting.


----------



## Eric Fleischer (Mar 28, 2012)

LOL


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540508534131068928
Wonder how many abortions Vince has paid for....


----------



## The XL 2 (Sep 13, 2016)

It's funny how everyone is whining for women and their "rights" or whatever, but no one seems to care when a man has no say in his child being aborted against his will, or when a man is forced to pay for a child he didn't want. Cry me a fucking river.


----------



## CMPunkRock316 (Jan 17, 2016)

Who said that a woman shouldn’t have the* “sole right to say what should happen to her body.” ???*
















Joe Biden


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

The XL 2 said:


> It's funny how everyone is whining for women and their "rights" or whatever, but no one seems to care when a man has no say in his child being aborted against his will, or when a man is forced to pay for a child he didn't want. Cry me a fucking river.


So the argument against a man being forced to pay financial support for a child he didn't want is....to remove a mean for other men to avoid the situation?


----------



## The XL 2 (Sep 13, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> So the argument against a man being forced to pay financial support for a child he didn't want is....to remove a mean for other men to avoid the situation?


The point is that all the laws and courts are favored for the benefit of women's "rights" and men get fucked over. Men can go to prison for not paying child support. If having a child is a woman's choice, the responsibility should be all hers as well. The fact that modern western women, the most entitled and privileged entity to ever walk the planet Earth, have the nerve to talk about oppression is downright hilarious.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

I think I’d rather slit my throat than argue with some of you pricks on this. Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

The XL 2 said:


> The point is that all the laws and courts are favored for the benefit of women's "rights" and men get fucked over. Men can go to prison for not paying child support. If having a child is a woman's choice, the responsibility should be all hers as well. The fact that modern western women, the most entitled and privileged entity to ever walk the planet Earth, have the nerve to talk about oppression is downright hilarious.


Seems it would be better to argue for men to not have to pay child support for unwanted pregnancies than celebrate taking the abortion option away?


----------



## The XL 2 (Sep 13, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> Seems it would be better to argue for men to not have to pay child support for unwanted pregnancies than celebrate taking the abortion option away?


I just want consistency. Women have gotten their way with favorable laws and the biased courts for many, many decades. No one cares about mens rights and issues, but I'm supposed to care about women's so called rights, despite the fact that they're far more privileged and protected? Nah. Time for them to have to eat some responsibility and equality for once.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

The XL 2 said:


> That's because you're an indoctrinated dumb fuck. You lot don't seem to give a shit when men's rights are violated. Cry more.


Hopefully your future daughter doesn’t get an ectopic pregnancy in Missouri 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JeSeGaN (Jun 5, 2018)

I guess same-sex marriage is next.

Have fun living in the middle ages, America.


----------



## The XL 2 (Sep 13, 2016)

JeSeGaN said:


> I guess same-sex marriage is next.
> 
> Have fun living in the middle ages, America.


The same people who championed forced experimental inoculations and have no problem with men being thrown in jail for not subsidizing their baby momma are talking about "middle ages." Hilarious. 

Time for women to women up and take responsibility for their actions, just like men are forced to when they make mistakes.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

The XL 2 said:


> I just want consistency. Women have gotten their way with favorable laws and the biased courts for many, many decades. No one cares about mens rights and issues, but I'm supposed to care about women's so called rights, despite the fact that they're far more privileged and protected? Nah. Time for them to have to eat some responsibility and equality for once.


For consistency sake, what men's rights and issues are being ignored that is as important as the issue of a woman's body autonomy here? Isn't it because people assumed the abortion issue was settled that led to the complacency that allowed for Roe to be overturned?

You seem to think it is a zero sum game in regards to woman's right and men's right over here and it isn't always the case.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Dr. Middy said:


> Not much to say about the topic I haven't said already, but this just flat out sucks for women's rights in general.
> 
> 
> 
> "Why don't poor people just not be poor?"


This sucks for almost everyone's rights. Men who already have little to no say in abortion have just lost out on this with women. Who even won here? Christians? Fuck me this is why I'm a secularist People changing laws based off their made up man in the sky in 2022 is a joke.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Considering this may lead to way more unwanted babies being born, meaning more government money will be needed for them. I would hope those who are happy about this would accept being taxed a higher rate, yeah?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

The society we live in is predecated by men stating that children should live with their mother. The "natural caretaker"

The men in this country who make the laws are the people you should be taking up issue with.

This shitting on women for wanting to have more rights than a gun is absurd.

If youre a guy. And you dont want kids. Get a vasectomy. Take responsibility for your own actions for once.

People like to fuck for pleasure. People should be able to fuck for pleasure. Stop shaming people for wanting to experience pleasure conensually with another person who can consent.


----------



## BlueEyedDevil (Dec 26, 2019)

Razgriz said:


> This shitting on women for wanting to have more rights than a gun is absurd.


What rights does a gun have other than to cooperate with me when I pick it up? At least women have a choice in that scenario.


----------



## DammitChrist (Apr 3, 2016)

Yea, this baffling decision is going to have serious ramifications for everyone else in the long-term.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Razgriz said:


> The society we live in is predecated by men stating that children should live with their mother. The "natural caretaker"
> 
> The men in this country who make the laws are the people you should be taking up issue with.
> 
> ...


Stop speaking for us men. Let's not make this a shitting on men thread, thanks. If you look at the votes, one of them voting against the majority was a man. One of the people who voted to take away the rights, was a woman. Majority of men I know are pro choice, this is fully a religious/right wing thing.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Guys, let’s all chill, I don’t want to have to close this thread. If you want to fight, go to rants.

Cheers


----------



## $Dolladrew$ (Jun 15, 2020)

Already protests in the streets round here git the freeway shutdown and most of downtown modesto.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> Stop speaking for us men. Let's not make this a shitting on men thread, thanks. If you look at the votes, one of them voting against the majority was a man. One of the people who voted to take away the rights, was a woman. Majority of men I know are pro choice, this is fully a religious/right wing thing.


To be fair, you liked a post shitting on women over people getting upset over this decision.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> To be fair, you liked a post shitting on women over people getting upset over this decision.


Imagine still trying to interact with me after being on a block list for over a year and still you are desperate for my attention. Do you have a humiliation kink, are you that desperate for me to make you look stupid, again? Oh no I didn't mean to reply to you! Hope this isn't scaring you into shitting your pants again.


----------



## Rick Sanchez (Dec 30, 2012)

The XL 2 said:


> The same people who championed forced experimental inoculations and have no problem with men being thrown in jail for not subsidizing their baby momma are talking about "middle ages." Hilarious.
> 
> Time for women to women up and take responsibility for their actions, *just like men are forced to when they make mistakes.*


Yeah because that happens all the time right?


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

I’d rather a baby never be born than a baby growing up in a house that doesn’t want it.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Seth Grimes said:


> Stop speaking for us men. Let's not make this a shitting on men thread, thanks. If you look at the votes, one of them voting against the majority was a man. One of the people who voted to take away the rights, was a woman. Majority of men I know are pro choice, this is fully a religious/right wing thing.



Im not shitting on men. Im shitting on patriarchy.

It is a religious thing.. you should look at how religious people think.

In their idea... this is the natural order of things:


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Razgriz said:


> Im not shitting on men. Im shitting on patriarchy.
> 
> It is a religious thing.. you should look at how religious people think.
> 
> ...


Yet as I pointed out, out of that 9 people, one of the men voted against, and one of the women voted for it. If you wanna paint it as a patriarchal problem even whilst having religious/right wing women be for this then it kinda begs the question why you're still repeatedly saying "men" and putting an emphasis on that. Cause as I said, both men and women are pissed off about this, even you admitted that it's religious people, so it's sus to see the focus still being on "men" or the "patriarchy"


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

Moderators: Am I allowed to post post-abortion photos in this thread? Let's take a look at exactly what an abortion is and does, and then let's laugh at the people who call it progressive and civilized.


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

WrestleFAQ said:


> Moderators: Am I allowed to post post-abortion photos in this thread? Let's take a look at exactly what an abortion is and does, and then let's laugh at the people who call it progressive and civilized.


That’s a huge factor. Very few people have seen what a procedure actually entails. It’s something that should be available to view to make a fully informed decision one way or another.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

People can google it if they really want to see any of that. VS definitely won’t want that here.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Name a serious medical procedure that doesn’t look horrific. Even if it does look horrific, it is irrelevant to the point of whether a woman wants to do it or not.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

WrestleFAQ said:


> Moderators: Am I allowed to post post-abortion photos in this thread? Let's take a look at exactly what an abortion is and does, and then let's laugh at the people who call it progressive and civilized.





Seafort said:


> That’s a huge factor. Very few people have seen what a procedure actually entails. It’s something that should be available to view to make a fully informed decision one way or another.


So are you both vegans in this case? I'm not sure that a grizzly looking surgery should make any difference. Also, you are both for higher taxes as well yes?


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Beautiful. Q is back today too. How many coincidences until mathematically impossible?


----------



## Magicman38 (Jun 27, 2016)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Well that your opinion , however here in America the 10th amendment gives the states rights to vote their own laws and customs , and the 1st ammendment separation clause was really about the federal government not imposing one sect like say Catholicism or Aglicanism upon all the states, not that religion cant play a role on the local and state level or have no say in politics, this isnt the EU or Red China. So while your opinion is respected it not the law or original intent of the us constitution, dont like it run for congress, be a judge and get nominated by a libertarian or liberal , and approved by the senate.
> 
> 
> If it ain't in the first ten of the constitution, it not a protected right, if the Democrats and moderates are angry , instead of attack another teen crisis pregnancy center or attempt to kill a sc judge , how about push your representatives, and senators to codify the abortion right, if it possible.


If we went by “States Rights”, slavery and segregation would still be legal in this country. It is up to the federal government to protect basic human rights such as a woman’s right to choose.


----------



## DUD (Feb 21, 2021)

People's views on abortion will be their own and that's fine, but you are some backwards cunt if you purposely decide to ban abortions and force women who need them into back alley jobs. If a woman isn't free to do what she wants with her own body, be that an abortion, then she isn't free. Mental stuff.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Everything has already been written. But it’s truly fucked up.


----------



## Upstart474 (May 13, 2018)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540397251394142210

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540484137831653376


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Glenn Jacobs is a douche.

I certainly hope the people happy about this are going to do something about all the children in the system.

If anything ever happened to any females they know…mother, daughter, friend….hopefully nothing ever will….but, if it ever did….they will remember the day they were overjoyed to hear that the women in their life just had rights taken away and that they may have nowhere to turn.

This is going to result in many women deaths and many unwanted children. This is not a joyous day.


----------



## Lorromire (Jun 17, 2014)

I'm so fucking glad that I don't live in America. I feel sorry for anyone that does in 2022.


----------



## Upstart474 (May 13, 2018)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540549529317085184


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Incredible that abortions got banned before fucking assault rifles. Think about that. It’s cool that someone can walk in to a school and shoot a bunch of kids, but, holy fuck, how dare you get an abortion because you’d die carrying the baby.


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> So are you both vegans in this case? I'm not sure that a grizzly looking surgery should make any difference. Also, you are both for higher taxes as well yes?


That’s the thing. You can watch any number of cysts removed or liposuction performed on cable TV. You can watch various surgeries being depicted on medical dramas, sometimes in explicit detail. However you will never see this procedure depicted.

To answer your second question, yes.


----------



## A PG Attitude (Nov 5, 2012)

I don't want to see Glenn Jacobs on my TV again.


----------



## HookedOnThuganomics (10 mo ago)

Actually wild look how insane this people are..


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Seafort said:


> That’s the thing. You can watch any number of cysts removed or liposuction performed on cable TV. You can watch various surgeries being depicted on medical dramas, sometimes in explicit detail. However you will never see this procedure depicted on the same manner.
> 
> To answer your second question, yes.


Yeah because why would anyone want to watch that? It's the same as animal slaughter. We aren't watching how our food is made, because it's horrible to watch and we wanna eat them without feeling bad about it, does that make it immoral to eat animals, though?

Good, but do you realise that many people against taxes are also the same people who are pro-life? There's a clear problem that pro-life people are happy to have these unwanted children be born, but the second they're born they no longer care what happens to that child


----------



## DammitChrist (Apr 3, 2016)

Catalanotto said:


> Incredible that abortions got banned before fucking assault rifles. Think about that. It’s cool that someone can walk in to a school and shoot a bunch of kids, but, holy fuck, how dare you get an abortion because you’d die carrying the baby.


Apparently, this song was partially made to bring more awareness to gun violence in young children and teenagers in schools.






How the hell is this subject *still* relevant, and a major issue OVER a decade later!??

How are guns more important than women's rights?

You can live a full life without having to use or see a gun.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

DammitChrist said:


> This song was made to bring more awareness to gun violence in young children and teenagers in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like that song and I heard it was about columbine in particular. Not sure if the band ever commented on that, but, either way, yeah, it’s fucking unbelievable that banning abortions was more important and it’s even more shameful when other women are agreeing with it.


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> Yeah because why would anyone want to watch that? It's the same as animal slaughter. We aren't watching how our food is made, because it's horrible to watch and we wanna eat them without feeling bad about it, does that make it immoral to eat animals, though?
> 
> Good, but do you realise that many people against taxes are also the same people who are pro-life? There's a clear problem that pro-choice people are happy to have these unwanted children be born, but the second they're born they no longer care what happens to that child


Perhaps for some. But in a scenario where a state outlaws abortion it should be coupled with greatly enhanced child support, which would entail more taxes.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

A PG Attitude said:


> I don't want to see Glenn Jacobs on my TV again.


I hope he gets a wwe title push and beats Romn Reigns record, and completely buries Becky Lynch


----------



## InexorableJourney (Sep 10, 2016)

I wonder why the media hasn't gone big on religious leaders opinions as it used to.

In the past the Pope and all the religious civic leaders would have been plastered all over the telly showing their glee.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Seafort said:


> That’s the thing. You can watch any number of cysts removed or liposuction performed on cable TV. You can watch various surgeries being depicted on medical dramas, sometimes in explicit detail. However you will never see this procedure depicted.
> 
> To answer your second question, yes.


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

HookedOnThuganomics said:


> Actually wild look how insane this people are..


Yep. Sick, sick people.

Racism, death threats, violence, seething hatred... the pro-abortion animals have been knee deep in it all day.

If I knew nothing about the abortion debate, I'd immediately know which side was right just from watching how each side behaves.

One side is classy and peaceful. The other side is absolute grade A human garbage.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

WrestleFAQ said:


> Yep. Sick, sick people.
> 
> Racism, death threats, violence, seething hatred... the pro-abortion animals have been knee deep in it all day.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. The side forcing children to have rape-babies are… which side?


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

WrestleFAQ said:


> Yep. Sick, sick people.
> 
> Racism, death threats, violence, seething hatred... the pro-abortion animals have been knee deep in it all day.
> 
> ...


Stop trolling. You know damn well that not all pro choice people are violent. Just like pro life people aren't all saints.

If you go out of your way to continue to troll and post extreme shit to shit on people then you'll be banned from this thread.

Be an adult and mature or be treated like a child and disciplined.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Seafort said:


> Perhaps for some. But in a scenario where a state outlaws abortion it should be coupled with greatly enhanced child support, which would entail more taxes.


Okay that's fine, as you are morally consistent and understanding one of the problems caused by this. But I still don't think it's beneficial for society to force women to have babies that they don't want. Are you religious by any chance? I can understand why you'd be pro-life this way and that's okay, but if you're not I'd be interested to know why you are


----------



## WrestleFAQ (May 26, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540602004137017346
How about a compromise: we leave the unborn babies alone and abort these people instead. Deal?


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

Catalanotto said:


> Incredible that abortions got banned before fucking assault rifles. Think about that.


Abortion has not been made illegal nationwide.



Catalanotto said:


> It’s cool that someone can walk in to a school and shoot a bunch of kids


No one in their right mind thinks that's cool.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> Abortion has not been made illegal nationwide.


I am aware, however, this has reduced the rights of women and now those in places where it’s not legal will have to either do it themselves, unsafely, find the means to travel to a place where it’s legal, or, carry a child they don’t want and put it in the system. 





> No one in their right mind thinks that's cool.


That was pure sarcasm, not literal at all, just emphasizing the fact assault rifles don’t seem to be as big of a problem to them.


----------



## HBK Styles Ospreay (Jan 15, 2020)

dsnotgood said:


> In before the “peaceful protests” burning down cities and killing people, peaceful of course…


When you start denying women basic human rights, peaceful kind of goes out the window!


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

I mean if we want to get into the hypocritical approach to gun rights and abortion rights, this court expanded guns rights just the other day based on a ridiculous interpretation of rights to bear arms instead of in the interest of public safety.









Supreme Court strikes down N.Y. law that restricts concealed carrying of guns


The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, invalidates New York's requirement for people to show "proper cause" to get public carry gun licenses.




www.npr.org


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

Catalanotto said:


> I am aware, however, this has reduced the rights of women and now those in places where it’s not legal will have to either do it themselves, unsafely, find the means to travel to a place where it’s legal, or, carry a child they don’t want and put it in the system.


So we agree that it's still possible and not banned. There's no need to exaggerate and fan the flames here. We're dealing with enough theater as it is. 

And maybe people, so not just women, should behave more responsibly. Choices have consequences, that's what folks have told the unvaxxed over and over again.


----------



## Cooper09 (Aug 24, 2016)

Cringing at all these men on twitter saying 'To women, I'm so sorry'. Creepy predators who Women should be aware off.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Razgriz said:


> The three appointed Trump judges lied their ass off.
> 
> The facts are that those 3 judges are not the most law equipped in the land. They were placed there by the comservative machine.
> 
> ...


may be something to do with the fact that those "women" started off with a penis? Maybe I am reaching on that one? The blue haired lot also seem to go crazy about abortion law and yet 99 percent of men would never even sleep with them. Another oddity 😂😂😂


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> When you start denying women basic human rights, peaceful kind of goes out the window!


Stop being transphobic. Men can get pregnant too.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> When you start denying women basic human rights, peaceful kind of goes out the window!


Justifying violence because some states may not allow women who cant keep their legs closed to murder this own child, because "they dont want children" is the height of insanity, btw I'm sure the fbi will look closer at forums like this when violence is justified.


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Justifying violence because some states may not allow women who cant keep their legs closed to murder this own child, because "they dont want children" is the height of insanity, btw I'm sure the fbi will look closer at forums like this when violence is justified.


Stop. The fbi won't care about this shit. Grow up and stop going to extremes. @Mr. King Of Kings knock off the smartass shit.

Again folks BE FUCKING ADULTS. If you can not discuss this rationally and understand where people are coming from you will follow wrestlefaq out of this thread.


----------



## The Beast Incarnate (Feb 23, 2014)

EvilDead said:


> The Democratic Party had most 50 years to enshrine the court decision into law. They had multiple chances.


This important point seems to be glossed over while people get mad at false targets like the Supreme Court, Christians, Conservatives, or individual States. If you want to get mad at anyone, get pissed at Congress who didn’t codify abortion access into the constitution when they had supermajorities *multiple times* to overcome a filibuster.

Congress acted like a bunch of sissies over the past 50 years and instead of doing what was required (pass legislation), they simply passed the buck and were content with the Supreme Court doing their jobs for them.

While I’m pro-choice and would like to see Congress codify abortion access into federal law, I am 100% against it being done via “legislating from the bench” like the Supreme Court did originally with Roe-v-Wade.

The Supreme Court is there to simply interpret what’s in the constitution, and if Congress doesn’t want to do it’s ****ing job and put it in the constitution then neither the Supreme Court, Christian’s, or Conservatives, or States are to blame.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Congress can't put things in the constitution lol


----------



## Not Lying (Sep 9, 2013)

i said it before and i’ll say it again.
Millenials need to kill all boomers so we can start living.
Why all? Because it’s just fucking easier.

k, thanks; bye.


----------



## Magicman38 (Jun 27, 2016)

One of the things that has bothered me about those who claim to be “Pro-Life” is the following: They are only “Pro-Life” until birth. Once the birth happens, they could care less. If they were truly “Pro-Life” they would support Healthcare for all and other Social Assistance Programs. If they were truly “Pro-Life” then they would support immigration especially of children who have come here and will probably die if they go back to their country. They’re not “Pro-Life”. They’re just “Pro-Birth” and that’s ridiculous.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Justifying violence because some states may not allow women who cant keep their legs closed to murder this own child, because "they dont want children" is the height of insanity, btw I'm sure the fbi will look closer at forums like this when violence is justified.



Oh sweet slut shaming. You all are disgusting


----------



## Lorromire (Jun 17, 2014)

Calling for violence isn't the answer, so despite this being a disgusting ruling, I'd rather that people avoided that line of talking. It does nothing but causes further harm to the actual cause at hand.


----------



## Pure_Dynamite12 (Nov 3, 2015)

This whole thing is gay. All it's done is prove leftists are fucking hypocritical sea creatures who want to take zero responsibility for their actions and want everyone else to pay for it. Roe v wade was based on a lie in the first place, and anyone who thinks 'my body my choice' while saying that people who won't take the vaccine, which has been proven to be poison, is a fucking scumbag. What's completely fucking psychotic about this is that the whingy, pathetic left wing filth are going to destroy innocent peoples stuff over this, just like they did for the BLM scam. The only ones who are having their rights infringed here are the good people who are having their lives threatened by demoncrat garbage over it.

Fuck all of them.


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Art Vandaley said:


> Congress can't put things in the constitution lol


How do you think amendments are created, ace? Congress is literally the ONLY group that can "put things" in the Constitution, as you put it (pending ratification by state legislatures, of course).


----------



## Kewf1988 (Nov 21, 2007)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Yes. That's literally all it means. If you're in a state that outlaws it, vote em out or move. Same with a lot of things.


But many people can't afford to move... especially since the poorest states in the country outside of New Mexico are "red" states. Abortion will soon be, if not already, illegal for these women, and they will have to either travel to a "blue" state, send their baby to an orphanage (which will NOT give them the best quality of life... pro life should also be pro QUALITY of life), or get an illegal abortion. In swing states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, this could be a VERY costly decision, combined with the gun control issue and January 6 fallout (there is a good argument that the GOP might have already had the midterms won with stuff like inflation being a huge issue before the culture wars reared their ugly head again). If the GOP loses Texas or Florida, they are TOAST. There are so many African American and Latino voters (that are reliably Democratic) in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. that it isn't even funny, and you just mobilized them...

This is similar to bad booking, but blowing your load too early out of sheer arrogance... during the last election, the pandemic was strong, as well as racial injustice, and those were the biggest issues during the presidential election, and now gun control and abortion rights, which were non factors until the last month, can take precedence over inflation and the economy, especially since COVID isn't even a huge issue anymore!).


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Kewf1988 said:


> But many people can't afford to move... especially since the poorest states in the country outside of New Mexico are "red" states. Abortion will soon be, if not already, illegal for these women, and they will have to either travel to a "blue" state, send their baby to an orphanage (which will NOT give them the best quality of life... pro life should also be pro QUALITY of life), or get an illegal abortion. In swing states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, this could be a VERY costly decision, combined with the gun control issue and January 6 fallout (there is a good argument that the GOP might have already had the midterms won with stuff like inflation being a huge issue before the culture wars reared their ugly head again). If the GOP loses Texas or Florida, they are TOAST. There are so many African American and Latino voters (that are reliably Democratic) in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc. that it isn't even funny, and you just mobilized them...
> 
> This is similar to bad booking, but blowing your load too early out of sheer arrogance... during the last election, the pandemic was strong, as well as racial injustice, and those were the biggest issues during the presidential election, and now gun control and abortion rights, which were non factors until the last month, can take precedence over inflation and the economy, especially since COVID isn't even a huge issue anymore!).


I hate to break it to you, champ, but if you think this decision is going to somehow save the Democrats in the fall, you're either woefully optimistic or just aren't all that informed about politics. Every poll shows that abortion just isn't one of the top issues for most voters, and besides, even the most optimistic left-wing pundits are pretty much resigned to the Republicans absolutely rolling in the fall. This will not change that.


----------



## The Beast Incarnate (Feb 23, 2014)

Strike Force said:


> I hate to break it to you, champ, but if you think this decision is going to somehow save the Democrats in the fall, you're either woefully optimistic or just aren't all that informed about politics. Every poll shows that abortion just isn't one of the top issues for most voters, and besides, even the most optimistic left-wing pundits are pretty much resigned to the Republicans absolutely rolling in the fall. This will not change that.


Yeah, from my experience it’s the natural order of things. Usually a president of a certain party gets elected the following midterms usually swing congress back the other way to balance things out.

While the abortion topic will be endlessly blasted over the news all the way until November, IMO it’s not as big of a topic to everyday working people as being unable to put food on the table due to high inflation, $5-6/gallon gas, an upcoming recession costing people their jobs.

Trust me my high and mighty political stances go right out the window when I can’t even afford to live 😄

Regardless of whose fault it is, Americans quality of life is going down while under a Democrat Congress + President. People will remember this and vote accordingly during the upcoming midterms. This doesn’t even take into account other very unpopular topics the Democrats are holding onto such as CRT and trans ideology being pushed upon children in schools.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

Firefromthegods said:


> Stop. The fbi won't care about this shit. Grow up and stop going to extremes. @Mr. King Of Kings knock off the smartass shit.
> 
> Again folks BE FUCKING ADULTS. If you can not discuss this rationally and understand where people are coming from you will follow wrestlefaq out of this thread.


Bit if people are justifying violence it's pretty bad for this site, whatever side of the the life issue anyone stands on.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

Strike Force said:


> How do you think amendments are created, ace? Congress is literally the ONLY group that can "put things" in the Constitution, as you put it (pending ratification by state legislatures, of course).


Fair call to the extent that they can propose amendments.


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> Okay that's fine, as you are morally consistent and understanding one of the problems caused by this. But I still don't think it's beneficial for society to force women to have babies that they don't want. Are you religious by any chance? I can understand why you'd be pro-life this way and that's okay, but if you're not I'd be interested to know why you are


I’m a Christian and that informs some of my own opinions on this issue. But I believe that anyone can come to the same opinion. The fundamental question should be twofold. Is the fetus a human being? And if so, does its needs for survival and rights trump the person within whom it is gestating in?

For some, even the acknowledgment of the former is still trumped by the rights issue. It’s a potent and hard argument, because for one individual to have rights the other’s rights are infringed upon.


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Bit if people are justifying violence it's pretty bad for this site, whatever side of the the life issue anyone stands on.


You should have seen what rants was like 10 years ago


----------



## stew mack (Apr 24, 2013)

Chasingamymatt said:


> Womans body is her business. End of


"YMMV when it comes to taking an experimental vaccine though"


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Seafort said:


> I’m a Christian and that informs some of my own opinions on this issue. But I believe that anyone can come to the same opinion. The fundamental question should be twofold. Is the fetus a human being? And if so, does its needs for survival and rights trump the person within whom it is gestating in?
> 
> For some, even the acknowledgment of the former is still trumped by the rights issue. It’s a potent and hard argument, because for one individual to have rights the other’s rights are infringed upon.


Which part of the bible is it that makes Christians so pro-life? No the fetus isn't a human being imo, but even if it is I still don't care much it's gonna have such a low quality of life if it's an unwanted baby that I'd value the would-be parents freedom and people who are now gonna need to subsidise for it


----------



## stew mack (Apr 24, 2013)

Mister Abigail said:


> I’d rather a baby never be born than a baby growing up in a house that doesn’t want it.



thatss true... working with the population i have has made me more pro abortion than before. but i still dont want it glorified, and some of these mfs bring out the pat robertson in me with just how degenerate they can be



DammitChrist said:


> Apparently, this song was partially made to bring more awareness to gun violence in young children and teenagers in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



cant you.. live a full a life without using an abortion either? i was a fucking man whore and yet ive never ever knocked anyone up. for the record i think it should be safe legal and rare but some of these arguments yall make just dont mesh with me


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

stew mack said:


> "YMMV when it comes to taking an experimental vaccine though"



Ffs the vaccine wasnt experimental..can... can we stop with this narriative because its not true.

The technology is as old as previous SARS. 

This is like saying the newest flavor of mountain dew is "experimental"


Just because its new on the market does not mean that everything used was already known and understood.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> So we agree that it's still possible and not banned. There's no need to exaggerate and fan the flames here. We're dealing with enough theater as it is.
> 
> And maybe people, so not just women, should behave more responsibly. Choices have consequences, that's what folks have told the unvaxxed over and over again.


You are missing the point here.

Women living in places where they aren’t allowed to get it need to find other means. They had rights stripped from them. If you don’t see a problem in women having rights taken away….human beings having their rights taken away….that’s scary. America just went back in time. Every woman should have a safe place to go in these situations.

…..and the good old ignorant “responsibility” comment has come to play. How about men go Jack off in the corner instead of throwing their dicks in a woman or get a snip? Sounds good to me, then we can prevent women from having to get an abortion.

I highly suggest people watch videos and read things from women who have had abortions.

At the end of the day, it shouldn’t be anyone else’s choice.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> Abortion has not been made illegal nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> No one in their right mind thinks that's cool.





Mr. King Of Kings said:


> So we agree that it's still possible and not banned. There's no need to exaggerate and fan the flames here. We're dealing with enough theater as it is.
> 
> And maybe people, so not just women, should behave more responsibly. Choices have consequences, that's what folks have told the unvaxxed over and over again.


But it’s a very real possibility here. McConnell has stated he’s willing to consider a national ban on abortion.









McConnell says national abortion ban ‘possible’


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in an interview with USA Today that a national abortion ban is “possible” if Roe v. Wade gets overturned this summer. “If the l…



thehill.com





So is McCarthy.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540374063666839556
And for the record, I’m pro life. But the way forward with this was not outlawing abortion but access to birth control, cutting red tape and eliminating the stigma of adoption, help for the poor, etc. I disagreed with Obama on everything but the truth was that during his administration abortion rates dropped significantly.






Access to birth control through ACA drives down abortion rate







ihpi.umich.edu





Meanwhile, for those of you saying, “Serves the Rona vaxxers right”…this ruling is a direct assault on not just bodily autonomy but also a reasonable right to privacy. The same forces that say a woman has no say in her own medical decisions can turn around and say you can be forced to undergo procedures and take vaccines. Cuts both ways.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

It's good that all the pro-fetus people are coming mask off and can't pretend to care about the children anymore. If they did, they wouldn't make abortion the fulcrum of their entire movement. Care enough about the fetus to force rape and incest victims to carry to term, but not enough about children to address things like... social services for single mothers, for low-income families, better school programs for kids. Nope, let's degrade bodily autonomy in the name of fake morality.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Those same individuals would be telling their raped daughters to abort the monster’s baby.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> It's good that all the pro-fetus people are coming mask off and can't pretend to care about the children anymore. If they did, they wouldn't make abortion the fulcrum of their entire movement. Care enough about the fetus to force rape and incest victims to carry to term, but not enough about children to address things like... social services for single mothers, for low-income families, better school programs for kids. Nope, let's degrade bodily autonomy in the name of fake morality.


So so many of people always say rape, incest, and child pregnancy are exceptions to the rules.

I'm all for working to better our systems for kids. But just cause the systems are not in place doesn't mean that life is not worth it and their better off dead

The issue I have is to me the fetues is human
Dna? Human, cells? Human. All we are are more developed humans

I don't belive rights are based on how developed you are, a child can be born with defects thag remove some of those things their not "less human"
A fetues may not feel anything children can be born paralyzed and never feel anything, still human
A fetues may not know its alive, most baby's don't have conscious thought in till 5 months, other kids have development issues and go longer. Some even never have it.

What about a fetus makes it not human? Not alive? No definition of alive requires self sufficient and able to survive on their own.

Children can be born with defects in hearts, brain and any other part of them. Still human.

As for body auntomy 
I agree evrey human should have it

I also agree when two peoples rights can't exist together the one who forces the other in to the situation loses their right.

I.e yoy have the right to religion, but if you sacrifice people the other person has the right to live.

All humans have body autonomy but since it was the mothers actions (again rape etc are exceptions and then abortins can happen) their right is not more powerful then the babies right.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> So so many of people always say rape, incest, and child pregnancy are exceptions to the rules.
> 
> I'm all for working to better our systems for kids. But just cause the systems are not in place doesn't mean that life is not worth it and their better off dead
> 
> ...



All 3 embryos... all 3 not human embryos... notice how similar they all look. What discerns these 3 from a human embryo?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> All 3 embryos... all 3 not human embryos... notice how similar they all look. What discerns these 3 from a human embryo?
> View attachment 126145
> 
> View attachment 126144


Wasn't aware appearance decide what is and isn't human. Didn't we do that with skin pigmentation?
You look different so you're not human.
Dna cells are what make them different 
An albino black person is still a black person even if they don't look it. Someone who gets horfficly disfigured is still a human

How something looks like doesn't set what it is.

Science can 100% of the time pick put the human embryo 

You won't always be able to pick out the Mexican, Asian, or any other race of a human in a line up, doesn't mean their not part of that race


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> *So so many of people always say rape, incest, and child pregnancy are exceptions to the rules.*
> 
> I'm all for working to better our systems for kids. But just cause the systems are not in place doesn't mean that life is not worth it and their better off dead
> 
> ...


People are genuinely okay with say forcing child victims of incest to give birth.
The rest is all baseless appeals. Nobody is saying a fetus isn't alive. Individual cells are alive.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> People are genuinely okay with say forcing child victims of incest to give birth.
> The rest is all baseless appeals. Nobody is saying a fetus isn't alive. Individual cells are alive.


Care to actually back this up? The pro choice side loves to say this over and over but I constantly see people saying that is an exception their fine with

Got any polls or research that back up your claim?









America's Abortion Quandary


A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances.




www.pewresearch.org





Not according to this poll


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Wasn't aware appearance decide what is and isn't human. Didn't we do that with skin pigmentation?
> You look different so you're not human.
> Dna cells are what make them different
> An albino black person is still a black person even if they don't look it. Someone who gets horfficly disfigured is still a human
> ...


Explain to me that the thing that looks similar to those things has larger right to life than the person living and breathing right now. Who would be forced to carry that thing for 9 months.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Explain to me that the thing that looks similar to those things has larger right to life than the person living and breathing right now. Who would be forced to carry that thing for 9 months.


They don't have larger rights. They have the SAME right. And as I already said your rights end when you force another to lose their rights

The child didn't force it self in to the mother. The mothers actions lead to this

It's the same if a mad scientist forced a person to be "joined" with them surgically. Their actions lead to it, the other person's right to live is then the one that wins out

Someone being more developed doesn't make them "more right to live"
It's equal across all humans in all levels of development


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Care to actually back this up? The pro choice side loves to say this over and over but I constantly see people saying that is an exception their fine with
> 
> Got any polls or research that back up your claim?
> 
> ...


Louisiana and Missouri both are banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Do you know what trigger bans are? So, yes, they would literally have rape and incest victims forced to carry to term.


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

Judging by this thread (and social media) the Democrats should easily win the midterms and the presidential election in 2024. If that happens they can make the necessary changes in the Supreme Court (through Congress) to change yesterday's decision.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Louisiana and Missouri both are banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Do you know what trigger bans are? So, yes, they would literally have rape and incest victims forced to carry to term.


Did I say evrey single person in the us agrees? No
In most cases those laws just don't mention it. It's not their saying it doesn't matter they don't have it written 

Just like the constitution doesn't say anything about abortin laws are imperfect sometimes and don't have evrey list

Statistics over 70% of people are in favor of exceptions 

Those who don't put the exception are wrong. The majority DONT want that they want the exceptions


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Did I say evrey single person in the us agrees? No
> In most cases those laws just don't mention it. It's not their saying it doesn't matter they don't have it written
> 
> Just like the constitution doesn't say anything about abortin laws are imperfect sometimes and don't have evrey list
> ...


I don't care if everyone agrees. You asked where they would be forcing rape and incest victims to carry to term and I showed you. Those are just two states where abortion bans are going to be implemented.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> I don't care if everyone agrees. You asked where they would be forcing rape and incest victims to carry to term and I showed you. Those are just two states where abortion bans are going to be implemented.


A law not mention it doesn't mean they force it.
They have no law that explicitly states aboring os wrong 100% of the time. Some will argue that sense the state has no law either way it means they are against it
Not how things work.
With no law saying yoy can ot can't do it means 

And again my thing was you said the MAJORITY want it.
You said they "generally" meaning usually. It's outliers that feel that way and even the laws them self make no actual statement of it. An omission is NOT a approval of something.

Missouri law bans it except medical emergency, now if rape is consider a medical emergency I do not know for their state. I do know the rape kit etc are consider medical emergency 

They need to flesh out the law


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

How soon will the fans demand that WWE remove Kane from the Hall of Fame?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Louisiana and Missouri both are banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Do you know what trigger bans are? So, yes, they would literally have rape and incest victims forced to carry to term.











Gov. Edwards Issues Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Overturning Roe V. Wade | Office of Governor John Bel Edwards


The Office of Governor John Bel Edwards, putting Louisiana first..




gov.louisiana.gov




They have added new clauses to it and while they still haven't added all it shows people are trying to introduce the exceptions 

It's VERY few people who actually want no expecting what so ever.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

kentl said:


> They don't have larger rights. They have the SAME right. And as I already said your rights end when you force another to lose their rights
> 
> The child didn't force it self in to the mother. The mothers actions lead to this
> 
> ...


“The mother’s actions”

This is why people without a uterus shouldn’t discuss what people who do have one “should” do.

I encourage you to actually read the stories of women who have had an abortion, look up the various reasons why, and stop shaming women. It takes an egg and sperm to make a baby. The blame on the men is being widely ignored, like women just sit around and impregnate themselves with their fingers. There are many reasons why a woman gets an abortion. If your response is that women should “keep their legs closed”, then you should tuck your dick in.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Save babies.

No matter what it takes.

Save the babies. They are the most defenseless of us.

At the very least, don't murder them and call it justice.

And before anyone asks me if I'm vegan, yes I am. In fact I go even further beyond. I only eat fruits, have done so for the last year+. So don't @ me.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> “The mother’s actions”
> 
> This is why people without a uterus shouldn’t discuss what people who do have one “should” do.
> 
> I encourage you to actually read the stories of women who have had an abortion, look up the various reasons why, and stop shaming women. It takes an egg and sperm to make a baby. The blame on the men is being widely ignored, like women just sit around and impregnate themselves with their fingers. There are many reasons why a woman gets an abortion. If your response is that women should “keep their legs closed”, then you should tuck your dick in.


I don't belive the man has a right to kill the baby either. They both made it they both have a responsibility. Sex isn't a carefree fun thing to do. It has risk. The child didn't sign up for those risks. Both parents did.

The child is defense and was put there by them so why would it lose its body autonomy when the mother (and farther) forced the child there?

I do keep my dick in. I won't have sex unless I'm ready for kids, had sex as a teenage a but quickly decide that it's wrong to have sex and just discard baby's cause "you're not ready"

Abstinence is entirely possible. Humans can live their whole life with no sex. Stop acting like sex is more important then a life of a human


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Gov. Edwards Issues Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Overturning Roe V. Wade | Office of Governor John Bel Edwards
> 
> 
> The Office of Governor John Bel Edwards, putting Louisiana first..
> ...


Are the exceptions for rape and incest there or not?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Are the exceptions for rape and incest there or not?


They are working on adding them. If it gets in or not remains to be seen the point how ever is the state is NOT just leaving it as is and forcing this. There are plenty of people in power trying to get them in to the law.
The state isn't saying "no you can't abort ever for any reason" 
The law doesn't even take affect yet. There is still time for it to be added.

And even if it ends up failing thay doesn't mean it's a "generally" thing
It's one state that failed the vast majority pro life pro choice wwnt exceptions for those sort of things. That's my point. Didn't say evrueone want ot I just disagreed with your idea thay pro life "generally" don't want any exceptions

If they don't pass a law or they make one that specifically states no exceptions I'll protest right along with you as will the majority of pro life people in the country.


----------



## Cooper09 (Aug 24, 2016)

The Boy Wonder said:


> Judging by this thread (and social media) the Democrats should easily win the midterms and the presidential election in 2024. If that happens they can make the necessary changes in the Supreme Court (through Congress) to change yesterday's decision.


They won't because regardless what the media and twitter like to say the average man and WOMAN care more about how to pay their bills, feed their kids and keeping a roof over their heads; and under the shambolic Dems inflation disaster. Inflation is the number 1 priority!!!

Abortion, trans rights, BLM and all the other nonsense the Dems are obsessed with are waaaayyyyyyyy behind the list of priorities for the average American.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> *They are working on adding them.* If it gets in or not remains to be seen the point how ever is the state is NOT just leaving it as is and forcing this. There are plenty of people in power trying to get them in to the law.
> The state isn't saying "no you can't abort ever for any reason"
> The law doesn't even take affect yet. There is still time for it to be added.
> 
> ...


So, no then? Gotcha. I picked 2 states that have trigger bans that don't include those exceptions because you said it wasn't happening at all.


----------



## hunterxhunter (Sep 13, 2016)




----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> I don't belive the man has a right to kill the baby either. They both made it they both have a responsibility. Sex isn't a carefree fun thing to do. It has risk. The child didn't sign up for those risks. Both parents did.
> 
> The child is defense and was put there by them so why would it lose its body autonomy when the mother (and farther) forced the child there?
> 
> ...


What about a married couple trying for a child who can't afford the medical costs of raising a special need child or a married couple that can't afford to raise more children?


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> Which part of the bible is it that makes Christians so pro-life? No the fetus isn't a human being imo, but even if it is I still don't care much it's gonna have such a low quality of life if it's an unwanted baby that I'd value the would-be parents freedom and people who are now gonna need to subsidise for it


It’s actually more verses in the Old Testament that would give credence to a pro-life position, such as in Jeremiah:

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

That’s an example. But there is also the reference in the New Testament in Luke regarding John the Baptist, saying that he would be “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb,", or in Luke when speaking of John while he was still in his mother Elizabeth’s womb “"And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the baby leaped in her womb."

As for the issue of quality of life, I totally get the concerns. Again, not easy answers. But fundamentally, what takes precedence? The well being of the parent? Or the child? Very easily the question can also be asked, what is more important…the financial well being of the child or the well being of the elder parent who is now in declining health and is becoming a financial burden?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> So, no then? Gotcha. I picked 2 states that have trigger bans that don't include those exceptions because you said it wasn't happening at all.


That is NOT what i said.


Crona said:


> People are genuinely okay with say forcing child victims of incest to give birth.
> The rest is all baseless appeals. Nobody is saying a fetus isn't alive. Individual cells are alive.


See where yoy said generally?


kentl said:


> Care to actually back this up? The pro choice side loves to say this over and over but I constantly see people saying that is an exception their fine with
> 
> Got any polls or research that back up your claim?
> 
> ...


I then said 


kentl said:


> Did I say evrey single person in the us agrees? No
> In most cases those laws just don't mention it. It's not their saying it doesn't matter they don't have it written
> 
> Just like the constitution doesn't say anything about abortin laws are imperfect sometimes and don't have evrey list
> ...





kentl said:


> A law not mention it doesn't mean they force it.
> They have no law that explicitly states aboring os wrong 100% of the time. Some will argue that sense the state has no law either way it means they are against it
> Not how things work.
> With no law saying yoy can ot can't do it means
> ...



My issue is you said pro life generally don't want exceptions 
Two outlines (one of which may have it built in) do not cobstitue "genreal" I never said no one was doing it, I never said show me anyone person who wants that I said show me that it's the MAJOROTY of pro life that want no exceptions


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

You should honestly just stop discussing this matter because the uneducation is real.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> What about a married couple trying for a child who can't afford the medical costs of raising a special need child or a married couple that can't afford to raise more children?


I belive we should work on systems to better support the child. The awnser shouldn't be "kill them they are better off dead" 

Youre assuming their life will be miserable and not worth living 

Children in africa who have far less and can even starve have a right to live. Life worth is not based on how good it is.
In a perfect world I'd want everything to work out so everyone can afford it. That doesn't mean I think murder the kid cause we can't afford then

I was homeless as a kid for a time. My life wasn't worthless just cause my family couldn't afford to care for me.
Life has vaule regardless of what they can afford, how the live turns out etc

My little brother is autistic. He may of had rough spots as s child but he's HAPPY now having a rough childhood is not the end all be all of life. A lot of great and amazing people had struggles in childhood. It doesn't mean their better off dead


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> That is NOT what i said.
> See where yoy said generally?


I said GENUINELY, not GENERALLY. Jfc...


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> I said GENUINELY, not GENERALLY. Jfc...


Even then it still means the same thing.
Most pro life do not genuinely want that. As shown most WANT exceptions
Very feel want to force then to carry term for all reasons.

Again, exceptions should be in place and almost everyone agrees the over whelmingly majority


----------



## njcam (Mar 30, 2014)




----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> I said GENUINELY, not GENERALLY. Jfc...


Not to mention you quoted and boleded the part where I said MANY people are for exceptions. You disagree with that statement clearly


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Even then it still means the same thing.
> Most pro life do not genuinely want that. As shown most WANT exceptions
> Very feel want to force then to carry term for all reasons.
> 
> Again, exceptions should be in place and almost everyone agrees the over whelmingly majority


No, genuinely and generally do not mean the same thing. What the actual fuck are you on about? Your rant is based on you misreading what I actually wrote.


----------



## Blonde (Sep 8, 2018)

hunterxhunter said:


> View attachment 126153


Aww look at those little babies. We stop at nothing to protect their LIVES. We sacrifice the rights of half the population to protect their LIVES. 

Until they get to school age and get gunned down by AK47s. Then their lives are not worth anything more than thots and preys and are certainly not worthy enough to infringe on our RIGHTS to own an AK-47.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> No, genuinely and generally do not mean the same thing. What the actual fuck are you on about? Your rant is based on you misreading what I actually wrote.


You quote my part where I said SO many people are for exceptions and the idea that pro life doesn't want exceptions is not the majority at all.
You disagreed and commented 

After all why quote and bold kt when i say so many want those exceptions?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> You quote my part where I said SO many people are for exceptions and the idea that pro life doesn't want exceptions is not the majority at all.
> You disagreed and commented
> 
> After all why quote and bold kt when i say so many want those exceptions?


Sure, keep arguing against... stuff I guess? I'm not disagreeing that SO many people are for exceptions. If I had said GENERALLY in my first post your points might make sense. But, I didn't, I said GENUINELY, and generally and genuinely are not synonyms.


----------



## BigRedMonster47 (Jul 19, 2013)

The Boy Wonder said:


> How soon will the fans demand that WWE remove Kane from the Hall of Fame?


All because they’ve got a different opinion to Kane? Nobody will ever agree with everyone when it comes to political debates. If they’ve still got Hogan in the Hall of Fame, then Kane certainly is cemented in there and isn’t moving. I can’t believe we’re even having his conversation anyway?

Even Linda McMahon supports the change in law, so I’m assuming most of the McMahon family will back this stance.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Sure, keep arguing against... stuff I guess? I'm not disagreeing that SO many people are for exceptions. If I had said GENERALLY in my first post your points might make sense. But, I didn't, I said GENUINELY, and generally and genuinely are not synonyms.


So what was the point of bolding my part?

I never said there was never anyone who didn't want exceptions just that the majority do.

What purpose did it serve?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> So what was the point of bolding my part?
> 
> I never said there was never anyone who didn't want exceptions just that the majority do.
> 
> What purpose did it serve?


What was the point of misreading my original post? I'll break it down. I said people genuinely (never said how many, genuinely doesn't refer to a number, I hope you understand this) are okay with forcing rape/incest victims to carry to term. You said that wasn't happening and that most people support those exceptions. I then posted two states whose trigger bans--the ones that literally went into place the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned--do not include those exceptions. What purpose does this back and forth serve when you keep conflating words that aren't synonyms?


----------



## Blonde (Sep 8, 2018)

kentl said:


> Children in africa who have far less and can even starve have a right to live.


Except 2 million a year are dying from starvation, so it's not like starving is living but just living a lesser quality of life. And death by starvation is a slow, painful death. 

I don't believe in forcing people to donate to charity or pay extremely high taxes for social programs. But I also don't believe in forcing people to give birth to children they don't want. 

The majority of prolife people rely on the bible for their arguments against abortion, even though the bible in no uncertain terms tells them to feed the hungry and give to the poor. But even removing the bible from this, even if you're just focusing on protecting the life of innocent fetuses, then shouldn't the lives of innocent kids also be of grave concern? Why are they then left to just die from starvation.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Rhhodes said:


> Except 2 million a year are dying from starvation, so it's not like starving is living but just living a lesser quality of life. And death by starvation is a slow, painful death.
> 
> I don't believe in forcing people to donate to charity or pay extremely high taxes for social programs. But I also don't believe in forcing people to give birth to children they don't want.
> 
> The majority of prolife people rely on the bible for their arguments against abortion, even though the bible in no uncertain terms tells them to feed the hungry and give to the poor. But even removing the bible from this, even if you're just focusing on protecting the life of innocent fetuses, then shouldn't the lives of innocent kids also be of grave concern? Why are they then left to just die from starvation.


The issue is we can never protect evrue kid and sure they never suffer. It's an imperfect world.
Strive for it? Sure, all for it

But since it'll never fully happen how can it be "just" to kill someone cause you think live won't be worth living 

Lots of people find worth in simple life's. Many of them their parents thought they knew what would happen and they were wrong


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> They don't have larger rights. They have the SAME right. And as I already said your rights end when you force another to lose their rights
> 
> The child didn't force it self in to the mother. The mothers actions lead to this
> 
> ...



Its not the same rights though. That fetus is not going to be able to live for almost 22+ weeks on its own. At any point before that marker. Youre requiring someone to cultivate something inside of themselves so that it has the ability to live. 

Thats not equal rights. 

Youre choosing and saying that potential life is more important than the person who is living. 

Period


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Its not the same rights though. That fetus is not going to be able to live for almost 22+ weeks on its own. At any point before that marker. Youre requiring someone to cultivate something inside of themselves so that it has the ability to live.
> 
> Thats not equal rights.
> 
> ...


I miss where life definition requires you to be able to live on your own

I'm saying since the women FORCED the child against the will to be in them they lose their right to body autonomy while the baby keeps theirs.
If a mad scientist forced someone to be joined with them the mad scientist shouldn't be able to kill them at will when it was their action that forced them to be dependent on their body.

I'm saying a fetues is living even if it can't survive on its own

Plenty of life forms can't survive alone, plenty of life forms don't have brains. Don't feel, don't think

Your putting made up definition of what life is.
Acting like if something can't be on its own its not alive. What part of science says that? At best thats a PERSONAL moral belief you have


----------



## Blonde (Sep 8, 2018)

kentl said:


> The issue is we can never protect evrue kid and sure they never suffer. It's an imperfect world.
> Strive for it? Sure, all for it
> 
> But since it'll never fully happen how can it be "just" to kill someone cause you think live won't be worth living
> ...


No, that's a bullshit cop out. I'm talking about feeding children dying from starvation here. Not giving them some grand quality of life. When you have so many obese people in developed nations, you can't sincerely think there isn't enough food/money/resources to feed a starving child under 5 who is on their deathbed. 

The only difference is here now to protect a child's life, someone has to give something up (even if that is extra calories they don't need). They don't have to give anything up to protect the fetus, so that's the only time life matters.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Rhhodes said:


> No, that's a bullshit cop out. I'm talking about feeding children dying from starvation here. Not giving them some grand quality of life. When you have so many obese people in developed nations, you can't sincerely think there isn't enough food/money/resources to feed a starving child under 5 who is on their deathbed.
> 
> The only difference is here now to protect a child's life, someone has to give something up (even if that is extra calories they don't need). They don't have to give anything up to protect the fetus, so that's the only time life matters.


Life always matters. How ever part of life is also death and as long as we our selfs do not kill them then so be it.


You can't stop suffering. We can do better sure and I'm all for doing better but children will still starve its impossible to save everyone. That doesn't mean kill other kids cause some kids may be dying.

Just cause kids suffer doesn't mean we should "save" others from an assumed pain

It's a gamble you're assuming thise kids will also suffer. And even if they do suffering is a sad part of life. Impossible to go all the way through with no suffering.
A bad child hood is not the end of the world 



Crona said:


> What was the point of misreading my original post? I'll break it down. I said people genuinely (never said how many, genuinely doesn't refer to a number, I hope you understand this) are okay with forcing rape/incest victims to carry to term. You said that wasn't happening and that most people support those exceptions. I then posted two states whose trigger bans--the ones that literally went into place the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned--do not include those exceptions. What purpose does this back and forth serve when you keep conflating words that aren't synonyms?


Again my original post that you quoted said many are FOR the exceptions 

Did you misread my post? Why bold that part? Why bold me saying many are for the exception? You.clearly wanted to talk about that and that alone

I did misread your first post but looks like you misread mine first cause that first post NEVER says no one is for the exceptions yet you bolded it


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> I miss where life definition requires you to be able to live on your own
> 
> I'm saying since the women FORCED the child against the will to be in them they lose their right to body autonomy while the baby keeps theirs.
> If a mad scientist forced someone to be joined with them the mad scientist shouldn't be able to kill them at will when it was their action that forced them to be dependent on their body.
> ...



You said equal rights. If there was equality both would be able to survive on its own.

But there isnt equality. 

You have to choose one or the other.

And youre choosing the clump of cells that no viability outside the body. And only 50 percent viability inside the body. Vs. Someone who is already fucking living and breathing.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Again my original post that you quoted said many are FOR the exceptions
> 
> Did you misread my post? Why bold that part? Why bold me saying many are for the exception? You.clearly wanted to talk about that and that alone
> 
> I did misread your first post but looks like you misread mine first cause that first post NEVER says no one is for the exceptions yet you bolded it


I'm not disputing--and never have disputed--that many folks are for those exceptions. I'm saying it doesn't matter because there are bans that don't have those exceptions. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this? As soon as I brought up the bans you moved the goalpost to "oh well those are just outliers, the majority want exceptions," which was not the point I was making. Yeah, you misread my post and are still going off that initial misreading and other conjecture. Stop.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Excerpt from someone who worked in a nursing home before roe v wade

*Before Roe v Wade:
I worked in nursing homes for a good while. Let me tell you some of the stories these 70, 80 and 90+ women told me.
-"I kept telling my husband 6 kids was enough. After awhile, I just started throwing them in the river."
-"I knew it was my father's so I just left it in the hole in the outhouse."
-"I just shoved dirt in its mouth and left it in the woods."
-"I gave birth on my friend's couch. I don't know what she did with it. We never talked about it again."
There are so many more but I will stop here.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You said equal rights. If there was equality both would be able to survive on its own.
> 
> But there isnt equality.
> 
> ...


So if a women steals a fetues from another women and puts it inside her body she now has sole custody? 

The fact is there are times when both people have rights at odds with one another. 
In those cases the one who forced the other I'm the situation should lose their rights

The child did nothing. The women took steps she knew would force someone else to be dependent on her. The one forced should not lose their rights

Breathing is not proof of life. Plenty of born humans need help breathing and would die without help still very much alive.


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Razgriz said:


> Excerpt from someone who worked in a nursing home before roe v wade
> 
> *Before Roe v Wade:
> I worked in nursing homes for a good while. Let me tell you some of the stories these 70, 80 and 90+ women told me.
> ...


Your reply is the definition of reaching lol


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> I'm not disputing--and never have disputed--that many folks are for those exceptions. I'm saying it doesn't matter because there are bans that don't have those exceptions. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this? As soon as I brought up the bans you moved the goalpost to "oh well those are just outliers, the majority want exceptions," which was not the point I was making. Yeah, you misread my post and are still going off that initial misreading and other conjecture. Stop.


How did I move the goal post? I never said no one was doing it.
I made the first comments, you commented later

YOU moved the goal post by trying to say that I was saying no one is trying to push that. Even though those words were never in any of my posts.
You moved the goal post not me.

Never claimed no one did it. Just the majority (even before you posted) were for exceptions


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> So if a women steals a fetues from another women and puts it inside her body she now has sole custody?


Tell me in any world where that is possible




> The fact is there are times when both people have rights at odds with one another.
> In those cases the one who forced the other I'm the situation should lose their rights
> 
> The child did nothing. The women took steps she knew would force someone else to be dependent on her. The one forced should not lose their rights


Over something that could have been a broken condom. People are allowed to fuck for pleasure. Why does this person have "face the consequenses" for an accidental preganancy and the other half doesnt? What is the other half responsible for since it cant carry the pregnancy exactly? They forced life too. Do they lose their bodily autonomy as well? How? Why would you give the state almost an indiscriminately broad amount of power to take away ones autonomy for 40 weeks?





> Breathing is not proof of life. Plenty of born humans need help breathing and would die without help still very much alive.



Youre right... breathing isnt proof of life. They look for brain function. Which there is none for about 22 weeks. Thats how they pronounce people dead too.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> I belive we should work on systems to better support the child. The awnser shouldn't be "kill them they are better off dead"
> 
> Youre assuming their life will be miserable and not worth living
> 
> ...


I think it is pretty telling that you choose to answer my question about real implications your opinion on sex have on married couples with virtue signaling over value of a life.


----------



## KingofKings1524 (Aug 27, 2007)

Catalanotto said:


> Those same individuals would be telling their raped daughters to abort the monster’s baby.


“I never said do as I do. I said do as I say” about sums it up.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Excerpt from someone who worked in a nursing home before roe v wade
> 
> *Before Roe v Wade:
> I worked in nursing homes for a good while. Let me tell you some of the stories these 70, 80 and 90+ women told me.
> ...



Those people obviously are sick or have dementia at their old age and are completely misrembering, or just fucking with you.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> I think it is pretty telling that you choose to answer my question about real implications your opinion on sex have on married couples with virtue signaling over value of a life.


Sex isn't more important then anyone's life.
You can get all you need for sexual satisfaction without intercourse.
Even if you couldn't people getting their rocks off doesn't and should never out weigh someone's right to live.

Life is more important then a marriage.


----------



## KingofKings1524 (Aug 27, 2007)

Oh, and I also vote to ban anyone from this thread that doesn’t know the difference between the words “woman” and “women”. I figure that would cut this thread in half.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Sex isn't more important then anyone's life.
> You can get all you need for sexual satisfaction without intercourse.
> Even if you couldn't people getting their rocks off doesn't and should never out weigh someone's right to live.
> 
> Life is more important then a marriage.


You realize the sex part need to happen before the life part?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Those people obviously are sick or have dementia at their old age and are completely misrembering, or just fucking with you.


_broadly gestures to the Jane collective_



kentl said:


> Sex isn't more important then anyone's life.


So now youre going to regulate what 2 consenting adults are able to do in their own bedroom.

Why are you allowing yourself to cede so much power to the state?


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Those people obviously are sick or have dementia at their old age and are completely misrembering, or just fucking with you.


Those are very real stories when people have nowhere to go.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Tell me in any world where that is possible
> 
> 
> 
> ...











Two more womb swap babies due in weeks


The expectant mums will be the first to carry children using the very uterus that carried them as unborn infants and will follow Vincent, the world's first, pictured.




www.dailymail.co.uk





Technology is advanced very fast we are fast approaching where babies can be moved around we have several times various stages of development are taken from one person and put in another. It's not science fiction it's not "impossible " can be done and will be come easier with time so what happens when someone does it without consent?

Plenty of living things have no Brians. Plenty of people can be born with minimal brain function can't feel, speak etc if I stab them I go to jail for murder
Development of brain is not required for life.

Allowed to fuck? Yes allowed to kill people after they fuck? I don't agree.
Sex brings life. Life is more important then sex or marriage


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile, for those of you saying, “Serves the Rona vaxxers right”…this ruling is a direct assault on not just bodily autonomy but also a reasonable right to privacy. The same forces that say a woman has no say in her own medical decisions can turn around and say you can be forced to undergo procedures and take vaccines. Cuts both ways.


I agree that they'll push even harder for the vaccines this fall (and that's also because these criminals are now jabbing children under 5), but many people already felt basically forced to take the vaccine. And the hypocritical ''my body, my choice'' crowd on the left were screaming for vaccine mandates the most. They were all about ''my body, my choice'' until big pharma came out with the ''safe and effective'' vaccines.

These hypocrites even have the nerve to lash out at the ''anti-vaxxers'' for being so quiet on this Roe v. Wade issue, after mocking them for 2 years.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> _broadly gestures to the Jane collective_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If it's murder after sex? Yes
I don't have an issue with the sex part they can have it. It's the killing part that is the issue

Just like if they had sex and then made a bomb. Or shot drugs up etc the other acts after the fact sre the issue not the sex.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Two more womb swap babies due in weeks
> 
> 
> The expectant mums will be the first to carry children using the very uterus that carried them as unborn infants and will follow Vincent, the world's first, pictured.
> ...






> Plenty of living things have no Brians. Plenty of people can be born with minimal brain function can't feel, speak etc if I stab them I go to jail for murder
> Development of brain is not required for life.


This isnt "little" function. Its no function

They pronounce you legally dead when your brain ceases to function.



> Allowed to fuck? Yes allowed to kill people after they fuck? I don't agree.
> Sex brings life. Life is more important then sex or marriage


Why. Do. You. Want. Our. Government. To. Regulate. What. We. Do. In. Our. Bedrooms?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> This isnt "little" function. Its no function
> 
> They pronounce you legally dead when your brain ceases to function.
> 
> ...


I dont want them to. I want them to regulate murder and the right to live. you're legally dead at that time cause you stop living then. All your cells die. The fetues cells don't die..they keep growing meaning it is alive

If they were not "alive" the cells couldn't mutilply, it couldn't keep growing. Science definition of life is very clear if it has dna and grows its alive.

Dead things don't grow. If it had dna that grows and cells that spread its alive.

Required different things to keep living doesn't negate them as living

Once your born you do need your Brian to keep growing. And living 

But you don't require ot at thay stage nor is a brain a requirement for life.
Different stage of life have different requirements to keep on living


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

kentl said:


> If it's murder after sex? Yes
> I don't have an issue with the sex part they can have it. It's the killing part that is the issue
> 
> Just like if they had sex and then made a bomb. Or shot drugs up etc the other acts after the fact sre the issue not the sex.


If someone else told you what to do with yourself, would you be accepting of that? You have no say, you just have to do what they tell you to.

This doesn’t need a huge explanation, just a simple yes or no.

People get up in arms about the thought of guns being banned because it infringes on their rights, but, when it comes to the body of a female, a lot of those gun huggers don’t speak out about those rights.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> If someone else told you what to do with yourself, would you be accepting of that? You have no say, you just have to do what they tell you to.
> 
> This doesn’t need a huge explanation, just a simple yes or no.
> 
> People get up in arms about the thought of guns being banned because it infringes on their rights, but, when it comes to the body of a female, a lot of those gun huggers don’t speak out about those rights.


If it was just me involved yes. It's not in this case more then one person is involved 

What about the body of the baby? Those cells are the same cells that make up the women's body. It's not "different " it's a human just less developed
Doesn't make it not alive.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> If it was just me involved yes. It's not in this case more then one person is involved
> 
> What about the body of the baby? Those cells are the same cells that make up the women's body. It's not "different " it's a human just less developed
> Doesn't make it not alive.


So is it murder if the woman doesnt know that shes pregnant. Fucks off, does tons of cocaine... and miscarries in the first trimester.

Are you going to charge her with manslaughter? How much time in prison should she get?

Half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are you going to look at all miscarriages and see if anything malicious was done. How many women will you prosecute for loss of pregnancy?


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

kentl said:


> If it was just me involved yes. It's not in this case more then one person is involved
> 
> What about the body of the baby? Those cells are the same cells that make up the women's body. It's not "different " it's a human just less developed
> Doesn't make it not alive.


What if you were told you needed to cut your balls off to ensure every woman you have sex with your entire life couldn’t get pregnant?


Lets pretend you have a sister, if you don’t. She gets pregnant, her baby is going to have massive issues and will need 24/7 care, which she can’t afford, won’t live a good life whatsoever, and, she also has a possibility of dying if she has the baby. You would do what now?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> So is it murder if the woman doesnt know that shes pregnant. Fucks off, does tons of cocaine... and miscarries in the first trimester.
> 
> Are you going to charge her with manslaughter? How much time in prison should she get?
> 
> Half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are you going to look at all miscarriages and see if anything malicious was done. How many women will you prosecute for loss of pregnancy?


If a women doesn't know and didn't actively take steps to kill the child it's not murder.

Miscarriages happen. And they all the time tell how they die and why. 

If the women didn't know she didn't know she's not always to blame for the death. But if she actively knows it's there and choices to kill it? Not even close to the same.

Back up your claim 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw23I0PaTKbYgPZ_lgTcj5HO[/URL]
This says your wrong about the %
The HIGHEST possible amount is 50% while. Lst others are 1% and around 10-13%


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Miscarriage


WebMD explains the symptoms and possible causes of miscarriage.




www.webmd.com




.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Miscarriage
> 
> 
> WebMD explains the symptoms and possible causes of miscarriage.
> ...


Yup again I showed you the actual statistic it's up to 50% all the way from 13% meaning their using the absolute highest estimate possible.

They say it's in a range from 13% to 50% they then take the highest number 
Cause the majority of them are unknown so we can't get a set number.
That's like pollijg people and saying it could be anywhere from 500 to 5000000 people and then use exclusive the 50000000 pepeile number


----------



## SolarPowerBat (Nov 24, 2014)

Catalanotto said:


> What if you were told you needed to cut your balls off to ensure every woman you have sex with your entire life couldn’t get pregnant?
> 
> 
> Lets pretend you have a sister, if you don’t. She gets pregnant, her baby is going to have massive issues and will need 24/7 care, which she can’t afford, won’t live a good life whatsoever, and, she also has a possibility of dying if she has the baby. You would do what now?


I like this plan! lol


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> I agree that they'll push even harder for the vaccines this fall (and that's also because these criminals are now jabbing children under 5), but many people already felt basically forced to take the vaccine. And the hypocritical ''my body, my choice'' crowd on the left were screaming for vaccine mandates the most. They were all about ''my body, my choice'' until big pharma came out with the ''safe and effective'' vaccines.
> 
> These hypocrites even have the nerve to lash out at the ''anti-vaxxers'' for being so quiet on this Roe v. Wade issue, after mocking them for 2 years.


Sorry, that ship has sailed now. Roe v Wade was originally considered valid under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause which embraced the idea of a reasonable right to privacy. This ruling is just one of a handful the SCOTUS has done to cut into civil rights in favor of big government. Like the one that limits Miranda rights protection.









Supreme Court Ruling Rejects the Promise of Miranda Rights | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union


While the decision in Vega v. Tekoh doesn’t reduce the obligation of police to issue Miranda warnings, it eliminates a critical avenue for justice.



www.aclu.org





And then there’s the ruling that says private schools are now entitled to public funds. It won’t go the way you think. Wait until the public decides they want the schools to open the books. The financial ones. They have a reasonable expectation to want to know where the money goes. And then it gets even more fun when the state wants a say in the curriculum of the school. They are helping pay for the groceries, they will want a say in the meal prep which is why they originally didn’t want public money to start with.

Congratulations. 🎈🎉 You got your way. It’s not ending the way you wanted. A government that can tell a woman to carry a baby to term can tell you that you have to take a vaccine. Welcome to unintended consequences.

P.S. About the Rona…hope you have a better plan seeing as how “Let ‘er rip” has been an absolute failure. 😁🤣


----------



## Adapting (Jun 21, 2020)

SolarPowerBat said:


> I like this plan! lol
> View attachment 126159


----------



## stew mack (Apr 24, 2013)

Razgriz said:


> Ffs the vaccine wasnt experimental..can... can we stop with this narriative because its not true.
> 
> The technology is as old as previous SARS.
> 
> ...


then why take away peoples ability to sue if it causes any health issues?


----------



## stew mack (Apr 24, 2013)

Catalanotto said:


> You should honestly just stop discussing this matter because the uneducation is real.



wouldnt you like that?


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540449083470610432
🤣


----------



## Irish Jet (Nov 15, 2011)

Backward shithole.


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

BruiserKC said:


> A government that can tell a woman to carry a baby to term can tell you that you have to take a vaccine. Welcome to unintended consequences.


The government has already been telling us that we have to take the vaccine. They made threats, excluded you from all sorts of stuff, used coercion and so on. So nothing changes, except that they'll push even harder.


----------



## HBK Styles Ospreay (Jan 15, 2020)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> So we agree that it's still possible and not banned. There's no need to exaggerate and fan the flames here. We're dealing with enough theater as it is.
> 
> And maybe people, so not just women, should behave more responsibly. Choices have consequences, that's what folks have told the unvaxxed over and over again.


How is someone that was raped or about to give birth to a genetically defective quote unquote human that probably doesn't want to be born, make that woman irresponsible.

Also what makes you think you have the right to tell people to 'behave more responsibly' you egotistical fool???



Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Justifying violence because some states may not allow women who cant keep their legs closed to murder this own child, because "they dont want children" is the height of insanity, btw I'm sure the fbi will look closer at forums like this when violence is justified.


Did I justify violence with my words???

Absolutely not, I was simply explaining why it is likely to happen because I'm not an idiot... If you wish to attempt to twist my words have fun but you ain't going to get me upset today you schmuck.

Honestly surprised I'm even bothering to reply to you because you obviously have the IQ of a 5 year old and I really want to tell you what I really think of you but I'm being a good girl today so 😘 goodbye



Mr. King Of Kings said:


> Stop being transphobic. Men can get pregnant too.


Yes transgenered men can get pregnant, I didn't mention trans people you fool, welcome to my ignore list... Im done arguing with idiots.


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> How is someone that was raped or about to give birth to a genetically defective quote unquote human that probably doesn't want to be born, make that woman irresponsible.
> 
> Also what makes you think you have the right to tell people to 'behave more responsibly' you egotistical fool???


Calm down. Anyone with a working brain knows what I'm referring to.


----------



## HBK Styles Ospreay (Jan 15, 2020)

kentl said:


> Wasn't aware appearance decide what is and isn't human. Didn't we do that with skin pigmentation?
> You look different so you're not human.
> Dna cells are what make them different
> An albino black person is still a black person even if they don't look it. Someone who gets horfficly disfigured is still a human
> ...


Barely understand the English language and you're going to attempt to discuss science? Please go sit in the corner like a good little child and read a book and attempt to educate yourself, cuz you have no business discussing real topics with adults


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> Barely understand the English language and you're going to attempt to discuss science? Please go sit in the corner like a good little child and read a book and attempt to educate yourself, cuz you have no business discussing real topics with adults


I'll make it nice and slow for you

What something looks like doesn't say what it is.
A human who is deformed is still a human
An albino black person is still black

Appercnce does not say what something is or isn't they used that to say black people were not "real people "

Understand? Should I use smaller words?


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> The government has already been telling us that we have to take the vaccine. They made threats, excluded you from all sorts of stuff, used coercion and so on. So nothing changes, except that they'll push even harder.


No, you have had the choice to take it or not. If your employer made it a job requirement, you had the choice of accepting it or finding another job. If the government was to require it and that’s it, they would find a way to force you to take it. And you would have no recourse.

These decisions will lead to big government being in your life. Don’t look at me, I warned you all.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

stew mack said:


> then why take away peoples ability to sue if it causes any health issues?



I mean.... you cant sue them for any vaccine anyway. There isnt a special clause for the COVID vaccine specifically. 

Was sort of the agreement to insure the costs stay low against liability. As liability increases so does the ability to manufacture it.





kentl said:


> I'll make it nice and slow for you
> 
> What something looks like doesn't say what it is.
> A human who is deformed is still a human
> An albino black person is still black


Okay im tired of this logical fallacy this is a ton of false equivalence. This is a bad argument and youve bent over backward so far you can kiss your own ass with your own arguments. 

When talking about deformed we are talking not just an appearance. We are talking unable to live outside the host. Severe mental damage that it would require around the clock attendance for it to live. 

Im sorry but not all life is sacred. Not when it would be far crueler to let something live that will forever suffer. 




> Appercnce does not say what something is or isn't they used that to say black people were not "real people "
> 
> Understand? Should I use smaller words?


Again another shitty false equivalence. The systematic oppression of an entire culture and people does not equate to an embryo


----------



## Mr. King Of Kings (May 16, 2006)

BruiserKC said:


> No, you have had the choice to take it or not. If your employer made it a job requirement, you had the choice of accepting it or finding another job. If the government was to require it and that’s it, they would find a way to force you to take it. And you would have no recourse.
> 
> These decisions will lead to big government being in your life. Don’t look at me, I warned you all.


"We will take everything away from you and make your life a living hell if you don't go along, but you have a choice."


----------



## PG Punk (12 mo ago)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


You're not American, so your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> If a women doesn't know and didn't actively take steps to kill the child it's not murder.
> 
> Miscarriages happen. And they all the time tell how they die and why.
> 
> ...



Okay so Im going to revise this.

What if the woman is a severe alcoholic. Knows shes pregnant and still drinks.

Are you going to prosecute this woman for fetal alcohol syndrome? 

The woman has HIV and has a kid and passes HIV onto the kid. 

Will you prosecute?

Does a ton cocaine and gets the kid addicted while she carries.

If at any point they die in their development. Do you charge for murder?



Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


Thats like telling someone who lives in like mungalla to just up and move into sydney..


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Mr. King Of Kings said:


> "We will take everything away from you and make your life a living hell if you don't go along, but you have a choice."


You still had a choice. That business that you wanted to go to or your employer had a choice. You made your choice. They had theirs.
That’s life.

And this won’t end well either.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

BruiserKC said:


> You still had a choice. That business that you wanted to go to or your employer had a choice. You made your choice. They had theirs.
> That’s life.
> 
> And this won’t end well either.



_broadly gestures at_









Roe v. Wade reversal could hinder data privacy rights | TechTarget


If Roe v. Wade is overturned, experts say it could result in the loss of data privacy rights for women.




www.techtarget.com


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Okay so Im going to revise this.
> 
> What if the woman is a severe alcoholic. Knows shes pregnant and still drinks.
> 
> ...


If they know they did then yea
In fact if a child is born addicted to drugs they can do charge the mother all the time. What's so confusing about this?


----------



## Sin City Saint (Feb 4, 2006)

Terrible day in U.S. history. The perverted minds of conservatives wanting to control women’s bodies will eventually be declared a mental illness. I feel like conservative men don’t realize that while they want to have sex with women - this decision will affect the possibility of that. Can almost guarantee more liberal men will have a higher chance of having sex with women than conservatives going forward in the U.S. and that’s one of the main things conservative men want (between this, trying to limit gay rights, etc…). I guess they can feel themselves going forward…


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> If they know they did then yea
> In fact if a child is born addicted to drugs they can do charge the mother all the time. What's so confusing about this?


A cursory look shows that most charges get dropped.

Youre also looking at an increased number of these in banned states. Most of these instances have a higher relation to societal impacts. 

Its likely all three are in bad positions and cant have a kid. The alcoholism and drug abuse is largely most common in poorer areas. Youre then requiring someone to carry something that they dont want. 

Making it a crime is not a deterrent. (See: the jane collective).

Banning it doesnt ban abortion. It bans safe abortion. 

So you basically make more people criminals. Which gives more control to the state.


----------



## The Golden Shovel (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't think banning abortion would fly in any other western democracy. Maybe don't rely on an outdated constitution to rule your lives and stop telling women how to live theirs.


----------



## DammitChrist (Apr 3, 2016)

Yea, I was just thinking about that earlier yesterday. 

Doesn’t this tragic ruling reduces the chances of many women wanting to have sex with men?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

My social media is on fire right now with many basically saying that theyre done.

Also had a sex worker friend (dominatrix) say shes increasing her rates.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> A cursory look shows that most charges get dropped.
> 
> Youre also looking at an increased number of these in banned states. Most of these instances have a higher relation to societal impacts.
> 
> ...











US Legislators Take a Scattered Approach to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome | Bill of Health


By J. Alexander Short Pennsylvania is the latest state to enact legislation in reaction to the growing impact the opioid epidemic has on infants. Governor Tom Wolf signed H.B. 1232 in June, effectively requiring hospital officials to notify child protective services when children are born...




blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu





Banning guns doesn't stop people form killing others with guns but it lets us stop then

It is child endangerment at best to make a child addicted to the drugs you take they didn't and couldn't consent to those drugs.

It absolutely is a deterrent in the same way banning guns is a deterrent.

Murder may not stop. Doesn't mean we just allow it.
Drug use may not stop doesn't mean we just allow it


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

This guy and I mutually follow each other on Twitter. He’s got a really good take if you read his thread. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540792597605646336


----------



## The Boy Wonder (Mar 29, 2008)

BruiserKC said:


> This guy and I mutually follow each other on Twitter. He’s got a really good take if you read his thread.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540792597605646336


He makes a few good points, but I disagree with this take:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540792599048400896
Wasn't the main issue in the Virginia gubernatorial race abortion? Youngkin ended up winning.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

The Boy Wonder said:


> He makes a few good points, but I disagree with this take:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540792599048400896
> Wasn't the main issue in the Virginia gubernatorial race abortion? Youngkin ended up winning.


The main issues in Virginia were focused on parents’ choice in the schools, including the protection of transgender students, COVID restrictions and CRT (which is not being taught in schools). No sooner then Youngkin was sworn in he immediately undid those policies. 

As for abortion, many evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 for one reason…the Supreme Court. They hoped he would get justices on the High Court with the intention of overturning Roe. I know a handful who only voted for him for that reason.

And in a purple state like Virginia, this decision (plus Youngkin’s willingness to push for an abortion ban) could rally voters to vote Dem on Election Day.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> How did I move the goal post? I never said no one was doing it.
> I made the first comments, you commented later
> 
> YOU moved the goal post by trying to say that I was saying no one is trying to push that. Even though those words were never in any of my posts.
> ...


*"So so many of people always say rape, incest, and child pregnancy are exceptions to the rules." *That's what I bolded from the first time you quoted me. You seemed to think there weren't any places in the US that weren't allowing these exceptions. I found places where these exceptions are not in place--I said people are genuinely (it's worth repeating that this word doesn't mean the same thing as generally, if it did it would change the entire fucking sentence) okay with forcing victims of rape and incest to carry to term. You then proceeded to misread my post and go on an unrelated tirade about what you think rights are, when life begins, etc. I'm sorry I don't let baseless moralism guide my politics. I'm not interested in bad faith arguments.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> US Legislators Take a Scattered Approach to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome | Bill of Health
> 
> 
> By J. Alexander Short Pennsylvania is the latest state to enact legislation in reaction to the growing impact the opioid epidemic has on infants. Governor Tom Wolf signed H.B. 1232 in June, effectively requiring hospital officials to notify child protective services when children are born...
> ...


Child endangerment =/= manslaughter or murder. 

Widely gestures toward the jane collective again. Youve now opened the door for those who reproduce to go ahead and do things far more unsafely. Something like 11 to 15% women died attempting to abort a kid. Where is your compassion for these women youre taking their autonomy away from exactly? In the name of life youvd lost your humanity.

You never answered.

What happens to the father in this situation? Are you going to slap a chastity device on the other person who contibuted to life? You seem pretty damn keen on taking the autonomy away from the person bearing the child. Whats the other persons contribution? How are you going to enforce it?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> *"So so many of people always say rape, incest, and child pregnancy are exceptions to the rules." *That's what I bolded from the first time you quoted me. You seemed to think there weren't any places in the US that weren't allowing these exceptions. I found places where these exceptions are not in place--I said people are genuinely (it's worth repeating that this word doesn't mean the same thing as generally, if it did it would change the entire fucking sentence) okay with forcing victims of rape and incest to carry to term. You then proceeded to misread my post and go on an unrelated tirade about what you think rights are, when life begins, etc. I'm sorry I don't let baseless moralism guide my politics. I'm not interested in bad faith arguments.


Where in that sentence did I say no where in America? No where.

So so many people like wwe doesn't not mean I'm saying no one hates wwe.
You misread me first.
Never claimed at all no one was is against just that the majority are for itm that's it.
Nothing else to be added, nothing else to say

Yes or no are the majority of people for exceptions? That's all my comment said you read in to it what wasn't there
Mine was a misreading of one word
Yours was a complete failure to understand stand a sentence.



Razgriz said:


> Child endangerment =/= manslaughter or murder.
> 
> Widely gestures toward the jane collective again. Youve now opened the door for those who reproduce to go ahead and do things far more unsafely. Something like 11 to 15% women died attempting to abort a kid. Where is your compassion for these women youre taking their autonomy away from exactly? In the name of life youvd lost your humanity.
> 
> ...


But it shows that what happens to the kid even before its "born" matters by law. A child not born yet has rights and the parents can be charged for many reasons before they are born.

And how many more life's are lost cause the women keep killing the babies?
Again the issue is in your argument the feuts are not life so their deaths don't matter, in mine they are and they absolutely eclipse the women's deaths.

The farther has no way to legally kill the kid. So what happens to him doenst matter. He has a finically responsibility to care for the kid

Making a kid isn't something you can just shy away from it it happens you are responsible for the kid (both parents) and just killing it shouldn't be am option 

Sex is not more important then life. It's not an excuse to have sex and "discard" the result


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Imagine saying a fetus eclipses a woman’s death.

Put your mother or a sister in that position and tell me you’d be just fine with them dying.

Tell them when they get raped it was their responsibility to make sure that didn’t happen.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Youre not saving a life. 

If a child is neglected, unwanted. Theres a high chance that theyre not making it out of childhood.

The kids not just going to "have a rough life"

They might just get sold to the pedo down the street for drug money.

Increased child trafficking. Increased child abuse.

But fucking congrats you saved a life or something


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Youre not saving a life.
> 
> If a child is neglected, unwanted. Theres a high chance that theyre not making it out of childhood.
> 
> ...


There isn't a high chance


Almost evrey kid in Africa has it worse then almost any kid in America
Million of kids are unwanted, neglected they keep on living 

You NEVER bet life on an assumption the kid you killed for all you know would've ended up the most lucky kid.
Went in to forster care immediately got adopted by a billionair and wants for nothing 

Killing people based off a CHANCE is wrong.

For evrey negative you say might happen o can list an equally unlikely good scenario


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> This guy and I mutually follow each other on Twitter. He’s got a really good take if you read his thread.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540792597605646336


This is wishful thinking. The messaging will be adapted from overturning Roe to a push for a federal ban on all abortions or to protect an abortion ban. Look at how responsible gun ownership laws have been relaxed over the past few decades in red states and yet "they are coming for your guns" narrative is still a reliable vote and donation tool.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

"Every kid in africa" is not a defense.

Your survivor bias is showing.

Kids have it better here because those who reproduce have a right to choose. They have the choice to bring a child into the world that is ready for them and the systems built around them are there to support them.

Levitts research is pretty damn correct. The level of crime in the country dropped drastically in the 90s because people who were forced to have kids... arent having them


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Yeah and if we wiped out races of humans we didn't count as "human" crime would probably go down to..doesn't make it right. 
The right to live is more important then the fact some of those people may commit crimes and some may suffer.

You can't know who will and won't suffer.
It is a defense cause everyone is saying "America is unberable" humans have suffered way worse for many years all over the world. It's not a valid excuse to end life.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Seafort said:


> It’s actually more verses in the Old Testament that would give credence to a pro-life position, such as in Jeremiah:
> 
> "Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations."
> 
> ...


Ah okay I see, thank you for explaining that to me

Are you a Christian who believes you have to follow everything in the bible, or the new testament, or do you think it's possible to somewhat pick and choose what to follow? Like is this pro-life stuff essential to being moral?

For me it's both. I think almost all studies show that children born into poverty (which would be most that are forced), can fuck a child up from the beginning and give them a very low quality of life. Then it's gonna be far worse if their parents don't want them and they end up either growing up with parents that abuse them, or adopted in which case the child will again suffer. I think all studies show these situations that I just mentioned lead to them having a far higher chance to end up mentally unwell. Some even show that these children have lower I.Q because of all the stress they live through which impacts them and screws up their development. And we all know how adults are severely impacted by their childhood meaning even as an adult their life will be low quality.

I just don't see any benefits to this for anyone? The country needs to tax more to pay for these children, the children themselves are likely to have a low quality existence, and the parents may have to give up time and/or money that they don't have


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

I can know statistically who will suffer.

Because redlining was a thing. And systematic racism is a thing. Poorer neighborhoods will get poorer as the wealth gap will widen.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> I can know statistically who will suffer.
> 
> Because redlining was a thing. And systematic racism is a thing. Poorer neighborhoods will get poorer as the wealth gap will widen.


Yup except there are poor people who I've happy life's.

Your issue is assuming not having first word comfort is unacceptable 
Your 2nd is that provity is worse then death


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Where in that sentence did I say no where in America? No where.
> 
> So so many people like wwe doesn't not mean I'm saying no one hates wwe.
> You misread me first.
> ...


Understand stand a sentence? Sure. Again, because you're being thick, I never disputed that most are for exceptions. Most Americans support access to abortion.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

FriedTofu said:


> This is wishful thinking. The messaging will be adapted from overturning Roe to a push for a federal ban on all abortions or to protect an abortion ban. Look at how responsible gun ownership laws have been relaxed over the past few decades in red states and yet "they are coming for your guns" narrative is still a reliable vote and donation tool.


There are folks already pushing for it. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540365601260142592
The truth is, in the ruling while Roe was unconstitutional in their eyes, it’s not necessarily back to the states exclusively. It’s up to either the states or Congress to pass legislation codifying the decision. 

For some, the fight is over because they think it’s up to the states now. They will stay on the sidelines. For some, the fight has begun.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Understand stand a sentence? Sure. Again, because you're being thick, I never disputed that most are for exceptions. Most Americans support access to abortion.


But you claimed I said no one was trying to do this

Where did I say that?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> There are folks already pushing for it.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540365601260142592
> ...


Don't be fooled that the fight is over as nobody is only voting on this issue because of states rights. States rights is a politically correct term for people who are embarrassed to be seen as supporting something so they use it as a shield to argue over the merits of states rights instead of the merits of whatever issue is at hand.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> But you claimed I said no one was trying to do this
> 
> Where did I say that?


You didn't, but you did ask where it was happening.

"Care to actually back this up? The pro choice side loves to say this over and over but I constantly see people saying that is an exception their fine with

Got any polls or research that back up your claim?"

That's what you pushed back against me with and I backed up my initial claim by showing states where there aren't exceptions in their bans.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> You didn't, but you did ask where it was happening.
> 
> "Care to actually back this up? The pro choice side loves to say this over and over but I constantly see people saying that is an exception their fine with
> 
> ...


Where did I ask that?
The back this up was about the generally thing since you bolded my so many people are for exceptions.

Again why bold that part? What did you think I was saying there? Before the genuine and generally issue came up you honed in on that part now why?
Constantly see doesn't mean there is no one who does
Again the whole time I was saying the majority are for exceptions

Never once did I claim it never happens.


----------



## Seafort (Jun 5, 2014)

Seth Grimes said:


> Ah okay I see, thank you for explaining that to me
> 
> Are you a Christian who believes you have to follow everything in the bible, or the new testament, or do you think it's possible to somewhat pick and choose what to follow? Like is this pro-life stuff essential to being moral?
> 
> ...


My mother was adopted, and had a good quality of life. She had two brothers and a sister who were similarly adopted. I can’t say if she was an outlier or not.
I agree with you on social services needing to be expanded.


----------



## Seth Grimes (Jul 31, 2015)

Seafort said:


> My mother was adopted, and had a good quality of life. She had two brothers and a sister who were similarly adopted. I can’t say if she was an outlier or not.
> I agree with you on social services needing to be expanded.


She is an outlier, though


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

kentl said:


> If it's murder after sex? Yes
> I don't have an issue with the sex part they can have it. It's the killing part that is the issue
> 
> Just like if they had sex and then made a bomb. Or shot drugs up etc the other acts after the fact sre the issue not the sex.


Just out of curiosity - I’ve ”murdered” a fetus (or technically my ex did, but I was very much in on the decision), what kind of punishment do you think I should have?


----------



## Dickhead1990 (Aug 31, 2016)

Does this mean that Americans will ban guns now? Or do they only care about life when their holy book and politics tells them to?

Behold, the Chrislamic State!


----------



## Gwi1890 (Nov 7, 2019)

Dickhead1990 said:


> Does this mean that Americans will ban guns now? Or do they only care about life when their holy book and politics tells them to?
> 
> Behold, the Chrislamic State!


100% they are the first to complain “it’s our right” when it comes to banning guns doesn’t matter about the actual children that get murdered by gun violence, land of the free my ass.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

Crona said:


> It's good that all the pro-fetus people are coming mask off and can't pretend to care about the children anymore. If they did, they wouldn't make abortion the fulcrum of their entire movement. Care enough about the fetus to force rape and incest victims to carry to term, but not enough about children to address things like... social services for single mothers, for low-income families, better school programs for kids. Nope, let's degrade bodily autonomy in the name of fake morality.


That a false hearing and it is prolife, and bot profetus because that fetus is a child as birth starts at conception, and I dont care how damn unpopular it is to say it around the soyboys on this forum.

Not every prolife person is someone ok only concerned about the baby being born then to hell with them, I'm all for holding the deadbeat father accountable with legal action and making them pay monthly for the kid, I'm for drop off centers for young mothers who are truly in a crisis and can o way raise the child, I'm for tax credits, write off, deductions plus forming a culture of acceptance for adoption of children, there are many people who would live to have kids but cant, there are many kids who dont have parents, but want parents, let's make it happen. I'm all for extended paid for and protected job security maternity leave for mothers, I'm all for increasing headstart for preschoolers, and child tax credits, and child care tax credits, I dont like much of Biden policies, he seem like carter 2.0 except senile and running a gerontocracy, yet his child tax credit is a good one of his very few good ideas ,infact most the prolifers to a certain degree support ideas like these , they were only tied to the libertarian orientated GOP members as they actually took up their cause , while the Democrats became the party of sexual revolution, "hands off my body", hating God, hating "flyover country " while partying it up with coastal elites. 

And if you want to talk about hypocrisy it comes in spades from the "kill the male, save the whale" crowd who cheers on the woman right to kill her own child but cry when someone hunts and kills a rare animal in Africa a and threaten him with voicemail death threats, and the same crowd who go on about Jan 6, while attempting to murder a sc judge, looted and riot in the poor communties over alleged "injustice", and who almost killed a sitting member of congress, making him wheel chair bound for life, you folks claiming to represent the down trodden, while taking big tech and woke corporations money for campaigns, while claiming to being against "corporate america" so please spare me the cries of hypocrisy, when your side hasn't looked in the mirror and and act like your shit dont stink.


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

Dickhead1990 said:


> Does this mean that Americans will ban guns now? Or do they only care about life when their holy book and politics tells them to?
> 
> Behold, the Chrislamic State!


For the record, It isn't just Christian groups that are pro life. If you look at polling, Catholics are pretty much 50/50 on the issue and non religious are almost 25% pro life. It's a morality and human rights issue l, not just religious. The debate a lot of times comes down to the question of when does an unborn baby get basic human rights and protection? Some believe they don't deserve human rights until they exit the womb, some believe they deserve human rights and protection and see them as a vulnerable human that needs protecting. 

Personally, I think it does more harm than good to ban abortion. Allowing it in the first trimester seemed like a pretty good compromise to me but neither party ever wants to just stick to the compromise. I'd love it if there was never a other abortion ever again but the goal should be stopping the unplanned pregnancy, not trapping women who make a mistake


----------



## Dickhead1990 (Aug 31, 2016)

P Thriller said:


> For the record, It isn't just Christian groups that are pro life. If you look at polling, Catholics are pretty much 50/50 on the issue and non religious are almost 25% pro life. It's a morality and human rights issue l, not just religious. The debate a lot of times comes down to the question of when does an unborn baby get basic human rights and protection? Some believe they don't deserve human rights until they exit the womb, some believe they deserve human rights and protection and see them as a vulnerable human that needs protecting.
> 
> Personally, I think it does more harm than good to ban abortion. Allowing it in the first trimester seemed like a pretty good compromise to me but neither party ever wants to just stick to the compromise. I'd love it if there was never a other abortion ever again but the goal should be stopping the unplanned pregnancy, not trapping women who make a mistake


I think that's a pretty common sense-based outlook on it to be honest. I just don't buy that these people actually care about the life of a foetus, when they don't care about the lives of anyone else, post-birth.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

P Thriller said:


> For the record, *It isn't just Christian groups that are pro life. If you look at polling, Catholics are pretty much 50/50 on the issue* and non religious are almost 25% pro life. It's a morality and human rights issue l, not just religious. The debate a lot of times comes down to the question of when does an unborn baby get basic human rights and protection? Some believe they don't deserve human rights until they exit the womb, some believe they deserve human rights and protection and see them as a vulnerable human that needs protecting.
> 
> Personally, I think it does more harm than good to ban abortion. Allowing it in the first trimester seemed like a pretty good compromise to me but neither party ever wants to just stick to the compromise. I'd love it if there was never a other abortion ever again but the goal should be stopping the unplanned pregnancy, not trapping women who make a mistake


Is this an American thing? Catholics are Christian, at least they are where I live. Actually, I had an American partner once who was Catholic and that person was absolutely Christian. 

Anyway, before I go, fuck anyone in here celebrating a state wanting to tell me, or any woman, what to do with an occupied uterus. Also, when you get what you wish for, sometimes it turns ugly fast. Remember that old poem _First they came for...Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.?_ Now that precedent doesn't matter much in the US, all sorts of presumed rights are not so easy to presume any more.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

GothicBohemian said:


> Is this an American thing? Catholics are Christian, at least they are where I live. Actually, I had an American partner once who was Catholic and that person was absolutely Christian.
> 
> Anyway, before I go, fuck anyone in here celebrating a state wanting to tell me, or any woman, what to do with an occupied uterus. Also, when you get what you wish for, sometimes it turns ugly fast. Remember that old poem _First they came for...Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.?_ Now that precedent doesn't matter much in the US, all sorts of presumed rights are not so easy to presume any more.


I think it is just an American way of saying Protestants and Catholics.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

-Slick- said:


> Just out of curiosity - I’ve ”murdered” a fetus (or technically my ex did, but I was very much in on the decision), what kind of punishment do you think I should have?


I see it the same way as slavery 

We didn't charge everyone who ever owned a slave
We didn't charge everyone who treated women like 2nd class citizens 
We didn't charge everyone who hated LGBT and refused to work with them

We need enact human rights for them but "punishment" for what we did before hand? Should follow all other human right cases.

If we make it illegal and you do it you would be an accomplished


----------



## HBK Styles Ospreay (Jan 15, 2020)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> That a false hearing and it is prolife, and bot profetus because that fetus is a child as birth starts at conception, and I dont care how damn unpopular it is to say it around the soyboys on this forum.
> 
> Not every prolife person is someone ok only concerned about the baby being born then to hell with them, I'm all for holding the deadbeat father accountable with legal action and making them pay monthly for the kid, I'm for drop off centers for young mothers who are truly in a crisis and can o way raise the child, I'm for tax credits, write off, deductions plus forming a culture of acceptance for adoption of children, there are many people who would live to have kids but cant, there are many kids who dont have parents, but want parents, let's make it happen. I'm all for extended paid for and protected job security maternity leave for mothers, I'm all for increasing headstart for preschoolers, and child tax credits, and child care tax credits, I dont like much of Biden policies, he seem like carter 2.0 except senile and running a gerontocracy, yet his child tax credit is a good one of his very few good ideas ,infact most the prolifers to a certain degree support ideas like these , they were only tied to the libertarian orientated GOP members as they actually took up their cause , while the Democrats became the party of sexual revolution, "hands off my body", hating God, hating "flyover country " while partying it up with coastal elites.
> 
> And if you want to talk about hypocrisy it comes in spades from the "kill the male, save the whale" crowd who cheers on the woman right to kill her own child but cry when someone hunts and kills a rare animal in Africa a and threaten him with voicemail death threats, and the same crowd who go on about Jan 6, while attempting to murder a sc judge, looted and riot in the poor communties over alleged "injustice", and who almost killed a sitting member of congress, making him wheel chair bound for life, you folks claiming to represent the down trodden, while taking big tech and woke corporations money for campaigns, while claiming to being against "corporate america" so please spare me the cries of hypocrisy, when your side hasn't looked in the mirror and and act like your shit dont stink.


Umm anyone that goes to Africa and murders a 'rare' animal deserves a fucking hell of a lot more than just a "threat" over the phone...

And by the way it's not a child till it's actually born at full term; before that its simply a parasitic fetus that's not actually a separate living entity...



GothicBohemian said:


> Is this an American thing? Catholics are Christian, at least they are where I live. Actually, I had an American partner once who was Catholic and that person was absolutely Christian.
> 
> Anyway, before I go, fuck anyone in here celebrating a state wanting to tell me, or any woman, what to do with an occupied uterus. Also, when you get what you wish for, sometimes it turns ugly fast. Remember that old poem _First they came for...Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.?_ Now that precedent doesn't matter much in the US, all sorts of presumed rights are not so easy to presume any more.


For some reason most silly Protestants in America like to label themselves as "Christians" and think that they're somehow separate and better than the "ultra-strict" Catholics


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

kentl said:


> I see it the same way as slavery
> 
> We didn't charge everyone who ever owned a slave
> We didn't charge everyone who treated women like 2nd class citizens
> ...


Yeah, that’s fair. But if it were illegal? Charge like any other murder?


----------



## Gwi1890 (Nov 7, 2019)

P Thriller said:


> For the record, It isn't just Christian groups that are pro life. If you look at polling, Catholics are pretty much 50/50 on the issue and non religious are almost 25% pro life. It's a morality and human rights issue l, not just religious. The debate a lot of times comes down to the question of when does an unborn baby get basic human rights and protection? Some believe they don't deserve human rights until they exit the womb, some believe they deserve human rights and protection and see them as a vulnerable human that needs protecting.
> 
> Personally, I think it does more harm than good to ban abortion. Allowing it in the first trimester seemed like a pretty good compromise to me but neither party ever wants to just stick to the compromise. I'd love it if there was never a other abortion ever again *but the goal should be stopping the unplanned pregnancy, not trapping women who make a mistake*


Some women don’t have a choice, I mean some twat sexually assaults a woman it’s hardly her fault.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

-Slick- said:


> Yeah, that’s fair. But if it were illegal? Charge like any other murder?


If you actually took part and helped you'd get the charge of assisting someone to murder someone (I forgot what it's called)
If you are the get away driver for a bank robery and rhey kill someonenyou are charged for helping
If you don't know, or didn't actually help then no.

Like any other murder


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

Yeah, us Catholics are most certainly Christians, protestations by some evangelicals/protestants not withstanding . But I think the typical intent when using that expression is basically to say something along the lines of “Catholics and other Christian groups” as opposed to saying that Catholics are not Christians.

With regards to the court decision I think it is worth highlighting what the decision actually said since there seems to be a bit of confusion and even misinformation in some circles about it. The conclusion was thus...

_*Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.*_​
So basically there is no basis for an alleged "right to abortion" in the Constitution. This does not mean that the decision is saying that abortion itself is moral or immoral but rather that the court, guided by the Constitution, remains neutral on the matter, indeed as Kavanaugh writes in the same decision…

_*The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. […] On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre- sentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress.*_​
So the decision itself does not make abortion illegal but rather leaves it to the individual states to regulate on the matter. When it comes to this decision it is also worth noting that former jurist Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who was herself in favor of abortion) felt that the justifications for Roe were shaky to say the least and didn't think it was a good case for establishing abortion as a constitutional right. The court basically came to that same conclusion.

As for another matter, some have brought up situations where the life of the mother is in danger in particular the case of an ectopic pregnancy. It is worth noting that the procedure to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is not really an abortion by definition and so in the states where abortion is currently illegal like Texas (due to trigger laws right after the overturning of Roe, for example) this procedure is allowed and does not fall within the confines of the ban for abortion.

On a final note, and not that it is truly germane to the issue, most people in the pro life movement are women. So it is fundamentally mistaken to push a narrative that this is about men wanting to “oppress” women.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

kentl said:


> If you actually took part and helped you'd get the charge of assisting someone to murder someone (I forgot what it's called)
> If you are the get away driver for a bank robery and rhey kill someonenyou are charged for helping
> If you don't know, or didn't actually help then no.
> 
> Like any other murder


Ok, got it. Totally crazy opinion imo when like in our case it was like week 6, but I’ll just leave it at that. Just asked out of curiosity.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

-Slick- said:


> Ok, got it. Totally crazy opinion imo when like in our case it was like week 6, but I’ll just leave it at that. Just asked out of curiosity.


The abortion = murder people tend to peddle in crazy.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

America proving to the world yet again, that they are far from being the land of the free.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

the_flock said:


> America proving to the world yet again, that they are far from being the land of the free.



Lol what. It's simply given back to the states like anything else. There's a lot of laws in my state I don't like. That's just living in America. Dont be mad at the Supreme Court, be mad at your state legislature and vote them out.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> The abortion = murder people tend to peddle in crazy.


People drawing am imaginaryine on what is and isn't a human life tend to be crazy to

Blacks are not human
Women are not 
Etc
Same for fetues.
Life changes constantly, life doesn't have to have x, you and z
A tadpole and a frog have different requirements requirements live
.their still the same thing and both are alive
A catipller is alive even in its Capcom to turn in to a butterfly 

A fetues turning on to a "humam" is still a human just like all of them

Development doesn't dictate life or not


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

-Slick- said:


> Ok, got it. Totally crazy opinion imo when like in our case it was like week 6, but I’ll just leave it at that. Just asked out of curiosity.


You didn’t do anything wrong, don’t listen to backwards bullshit. You don’t have to share your reasoning for anyone, it was a choice you both felt was right. You’re not murderers.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> You didn’t do anything wrong, don’t listen to backwards bullshit. You don’t have to share your reasoning for anyone, it was a choice you both felt was right. You’re not murderers.


How are they not?
Is a tadpole not alive cause it doesn't live the same way a frog does?

Life isn't based on having the same living requirements 

What makes the fetues not alive.
It grows, it has the same cells and dna it would have as a "child" what about that I'd not living? You'll find no requirement for life to be able to be self sufficient 

At best your belief is human life should be x
Not scientific proven at all.
Evrey other life form can go through changes and stages but humans have to have everything built before their "alive" don't buy it


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

You know what happens to have new dna and is the same amount of life as an embyo?

Tapeworms.

If you believe that all life is sacred. Especially since its different DNA. Then you must let that tapeworm live as well.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You know what happens to have new dna and is the same amount of life as an embyo?
> 
> Tapeworms.
> 
> If you believe that all life is sacred. Especially since its different DNA. Then you must let that tapeworm live as well.


The difference is we can see that the DNA in the fetues is human dna 

We don't count other life's as important as humans by law.

If a dog attacks a kid we put it down even if the kid was to blame

The DNA is human and the DNA the fetue would have later in life is the same. It's the same DNA meaning their BOTH the same thing.

Something can't have the se dna as something without being it.

I.e my dna decise what I am. The dma says human so it is human 

I never said all life was scared. I said all human life is.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Catalanotto said:


> You didn’t do anything wrong, don’t listen to backwards bullshit. You don’t have to share your reasoning for anyone, it was a choice you both felt was right. You’re not murderers.


Oh no, I want to clear on that. I don’t give af what kentl or anyone else thinks about me or our choice. His opinion isn’t important to me, so by all means see me as a child murderer. I was just curious if he wanted to charge people who makes abortions with murder because he started calling it murder in his posts. And I have no problems at all sharing our reasons or anything. I know we didn’t do anything wrong, it was totally the right choice for us.

But still, thanks for the support


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> The difference is we can see that the DNA in the fetues is human dna
> 
> We don't count other life's as important as humans by law.
> 
> ...


You share 50 percent of DNA with a Banana... "human DNA" is an entire gross misunderstanding of genomics. Theres nothing unique or miraculous about embyros..

Its how we end up with conspiracy theories that the mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy"


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

@kentl 

Have you ever killed a bug before? 


YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL!!!


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> @kentl
> 
> Have you ever killed a bug before?
> 
> ...


Did you just miss what I said?
It's HUMAN life. Not any other life
The fetus isn't a special new type of life form
It's a human. Dna stays the same, same cells. Nothing changes to make it a "human" at any point or time.

Now if you want to say all life is sacred I don't agree with that view but you're welcome to have it. But even then that still means the fetus is also sacred cause it's a life after all



Razgriz said:


> You share 50 percent of DNA with a Banana... "human DNA" is an entire gross misunderstanding of genomics. Theres nothing unique or miraculous about embyros..
> 
> Its how we end up with conspiracy theories that the mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy"


Wrong. We share it but the other part is what makes us uniquely human.

Dna testing will always be able to tell which fetues is human or not regardless of how they look cause the DNA is human.

The DNA the embryo has os the same DNA you have now embryos in of them self are not. Humans are.
We protect all other stages of human development but then act like this one isn't "really human" for no logical reason


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

kentl said:


> Did you just miss what I said?
> It's HUMAN life. Not any other life
> The fetus isn't a special new type of life form
> It's a human. Dna stays the same, same cells. Nothing changes to make it a "human" at any point or time.
> ...


So a bug’s life doesn’t matter, got it.

You only care about human life, but, went ahead and used a tadpole for your argument.

i am all for people having different opinions, but, damn, yours are just awful.

It is absolutely none of yours, or anyone else’s, business why people get abortions. They don’t owe you anything and you should not have a say.

Again, this doesn’t ban abortions, they are still going to happen, the difference is now many women will be doing it unsafely.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> So a bug’s life doesn’t matter, got it.
> 
> You only care about human life, but, went ahead and used a tadpole for your argument.
> 
> i am all for people having different opinions, but, damn, yours are just awful.


I'm using a tadpol to show that living things can be drastically different form other stage of development of it self (like a frog" doesn't mean it's not a live or the same thing

Don't you get it?
The tad pol has almost none of the features of a frog

A fetues has almost none if the features of a fully developed human

Both are alive, both are the same thing (tadpol is a developing frog, human fetues is a developing human)
Do you think catipllers die when they go on to the cocoon? The butterfly that comes out later isn't the same creature?
Why are we assuming a stage of human development doesn't count as a human?


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

You’re free to think you should have some kind of command over someone else’s body and decision. It’s just asinine thinking. I’m sure you would have a problem if men were told you were all required to get your balls chopped off.

You also never responded to my other questions about if your mother, or a sister, if you don’t have one, pretend you do, were in a position where they needed, or even wanted, an abortion, you would expect what now from them?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> You’re free to think you should have some kind of command over someone else’s body and decision. It’s just asinine thinking. I’m sure you would have a problem if men were told you were all required to get your balls chopped off.
> 
> You also never responded to my other questions about if your mother, or a sister, if you don’t have one, pretend you do, were in a position where they needed, or even wanted, an abortion, you would expect what now from them?


The issue again is you're discounting the child's body and rights cause you don't think they have it


The women's rights don't overwrite the child's rights since the child is blameless in this action
And it's simple, I've had this same scenario. It's wrong and it is murder.

With my balls getting choped off no other life is involved just I keep my body autonomy. Having sex with your partner is not more important then ANY human life. Even a new life.

The child didn't ask for it
The women forced the child in this situation.
The women doesn't have command over another person's body including her baby.

Someone i know personally doesn't change what I think of murder if my mom kills a man she's wrong
If she kills a developing babu she's wrong 

Plenty of people have times where they want another person dead. Them.being family if mine doesn't change what is right and what is wrong

Really look at your self if you think being family changes what is right and what is wrong

Do you think if your mother was to kill someone it's fine? Would you support your sister in killing x boyfriend?
No? No why would that change for someone who just isn't as old as other people are?

The issue is your always gonna look at it as if the mother is the "only body" here
I'm gonna look at it as two people are there with rights to live and body autonomy 
And one was forced in to the situation and one wasn't


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Your mother is going to die if she carries to term, her only option is abortion to live.

Your sister got raped,she certainly doesn’t want to carry the child of the man who violated her.

Abortion is no longer available to them where they are, so, they need to find another way to do it. Perhaps a hanger in the bath tub.

We are all eagerly awaiting your thoughts.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> Your mother is going to die if she carries to term, her only option is abortion to live.
> 
> Your sister got raped,she certainly doesn’t want to carry the child of the man who violated her.
> 
> ...


As I have said several times there are exceptions medical emergency are in EVREY state 

And I belive evreu state should have exceptions for rape/incest 

Most states have these exceptions in places and many states with these trigger laws are pushing new laws in

Rape and medical emergency do not mean all abortions should be legal. Sometimes one person has to die to safe another, sometimes only one can be saved the women is not more important evrey single time


Being more developed doesn't make you better, it doesn't make you "more" a child who is born early is not less human then a child born on time

Nor is an embryo less. 

Extream circumstances exist where it should be allowed. It shouldn't be used to kill them cause "I don't want it" "life may suck for them"

If a mother can't kill a new born if she wants she shouldn't be able to kill an embryo just cause she wants

It's the same life form the whole way through same DNA, same cells, rights are not based on development. A person born with defects had the right to consent to sex or not. If they cant express it doesn't mean they have no rights. Same for embryos


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

But it’s still “murder”.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> But it’s still “murder”.


Yeah. And I'm smart enough to know sometimes it's impossible to save everyone and you have to pick one or the other 

Regular abortins (the majority of abortins preformed) do not fall in to this category 

Shooting Hitler dead is murder to.
The child has done nothing worthy of being murder just cause the mother wants

Why do you think human development is the only life form where stages of development stop someone from being human? You keep avoiding this.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

I am not avoiding anything, I’m repeatedly telling you that you, nor anyone else, should have any right to say what a woman can do in these situations, they owe you no explanation, women in the united states just had a right taken away from them, and banning abortions doesn’t make abortions stop, it makes them more dangerous because women have nowhere to go so they’ll be doing it themselves, causing bodily harm, or death. Not every woman has the means to go to a place where it’s legal. They shouldn’t have to find a place, they should have the right to safely get an abortion and not have men, or religious people, tell them what rights they should or shouldn’t have.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> I am not avoiding anything, I’m repeatedly telling you that you, nor anyone else, should have any right to say what a woman can do in these situations, they owe you no explanation, women in the united states just had a right taken away from them, and banning abortions doesn’t make abortions stop, it makes them more dangerous because women have nowhere to go so they’ll be doing it themselves, causing bodily harm, or death. Not every woman has the means to go to a place where it’s legal. They shouldn’t have to find a place, they should have the right to safely get an abortion and not have men, or religious people, tell them what rights they should or shouldn’t have.


So why doesn't the child have any rights? We only give people rights if they can stand for them selfs?
Human rights are NOT circumstantial
All humans have them

So if women have body autonomy why don't they?
The women forced then in to their body by having sex. How is thos fair?

Are you saying anyone who forces people in to being dependent on their body now has a right to kill them?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Do me a favor and look at these faces. Every last one of them and tell me that their lives are equivalent to something that doesnt even have brain activity.

Can you Tell me theyre the same? Should someone be punished similarly? You keep calling it murder. What murder is it?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Do me a favor and look at these faces. Every last one of them and tell me that their lives are equivalent to something that doesnt even have brain activity.
> 
> Can you Tell me theyre the same? Should someone be punished similarly? You keep calling it murder. What murder is it?
> 
> ...


Yes I can. You know why? I've had family members born with defects where they don't have "every thing" a human should have
Doesn't make them less.

Brain activity is NOT the point of life. Plenty of living things don't have brains 
jelly fish don't have brains ever.

It's a different stage of development of a human just cause it doesn't have evreuthing we have doesn't make it not one of us.

Brain development is part of human growth.

If one of those kids was born without an arm is now less then the others?
If one of them is born paralyzed is it less? They can't feel!
Life doesn't require any of the things you list.

Their EQUAL
Just cause rhey don't look like us or don't have everything we have doesn'tean their not one of us

Males and females don't have the same stuff still both humans 
Some humans are born "conjoined" and can even have multiple sets of organs, are they no longer humans? They don't have all we do

If a child is born without a lung is it not human?
Looks and not having everything we have doesn't eliminate them from being one of us.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Grats. Now know youre just a troll. And arent arguing in any good faith.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Grats. Now know youre just a troll. And arent arguing in any good faith.


What trolling about this? You list Brian's as a requirement for human life.
Where is that said?
I've said multiple times that plenty of living things don't have brains

Life changes and grows, why are humans the only living thing that are not the same entity they started as?
Do you think a tadpol isn't "alive" in till it becomes a toad?
Is any animal that undergoes a metamorphosis in its life not really alive till it in final stage?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Is the person who aborts 

just as a murderer

As the person who mudered those kids?

Yes or no?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Razgriz said:


> Grats. Now know youre just a troll. And arent arguing in any good faith.


Much of the conversation with kentl has been them diverting away from actual policies being enacted in the wake of Roe v Wade being overturned to weird pseudo-philosophical takes on what life is, what it means to be human, feelings about murder as a legal term etc.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Much of the conversation with kentl has been them diverting away from actual policies being enacted in the wake of Roe v Wade being overturned to weird pseudo-philosophical takes on what life is, what it means to be human, feelings about murder as a legal term etc.


Yeah, which is what happens with slavery. LGBT, and women rights
It's always the same one side claims x isn't human cause y

Human rights is always about philosophical opinions 
What about your opinion that life needs to be able to live on their own is any more different then life needs to have the right pigment in their skin?

You're side is the one that kept saying 
Fetues are not human, I ask how is that an awnser and you give reasons that can easily be debunked by other life forms and many people who are born with defects that make them not have said thing.



Razgriz said:


> Is the person who aborts
> 
> just as a murderer
> 
> ...


Yes. Killing a life, no matter how developed for reasons of "I don't want it" is just as bad as killing more developed kids. 

Assuming a kid will have a rough upbringing and Klinger them is wrong. Even if they did have a rough state thay doesn't mean the whole life is pointless.

I can't go kill a kid who is deformed and doesn't have arms, I can't kill a premature baby who needs outside help to stay alive. So why would the embryo be an exception to this rule and only counts when kt can live on its own?

Why does level of development dictate what is human? What other life form do we do that with?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

So you think that anyone who aborted should be doing life in jail or be dead.

See this is how I know youre not arguing in good faith and trolling.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> So you think that anyone who aborted should be doing life in jail or be dead.
> 
> See this is how I know youre not arguing in good faith and trolling.


As I have said before, no. We did not jail everyone who enslaved blacks
We did not jail all those who kept women as 2nd class citizens
We did not jail all those who discriminated against LGBT 

It's human rights, we need to set it as a human right and go from there.

I've said it multiple times in this thead,, you once again "assumed" something and were wrong. Wonder what else you're wrong about


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

There still will be abortions in many states where it is legal. People will still get abortions. Youre still honestly saying that youre willing to charge every one of them should they move to a state where its illegal.

Youre still saying that you want to charge these new cases like murder. Thats still several million people.

Also several laws say that theyre charging the people who aid and abet too.

Do you not know how fascist you sound?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> There still will be abortions in many states where it is legal. People will still get abortions. Youre still honestly saying that youre willing to charge every one of them should they move to a state where its illegal.
> 
> Youre still saying that you want to charge these new cases like murder. Thats still several million people.
> 
> ...


There will be murders in all those states to..just cause something keeps happening doesn't mean we make it legal. Murder is wrong

How fascist I sound? Do yoy see how much your dehumanizing them?
Their not really like us, I mean look at us, look at them, their DIFFERENT.
Then show what you concive as a "real human" despite the fact that you once were exactly what they are.

Life doesn't grow and then become a different entity. They stay the same being the entire time they are growing 

A chicken in an egg is the same entity ad when it's an adult
A fetues is the same person ot grows up to be its just development of it.

Do you think people who think black people sre not human cam go around killing and we shouldn't make it illegal case they'll keep doing it?

What about a fetues makes it not human. Why can't humans go through metamorphosis like many other animals do and remainn the same life the entire time?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> There will be murders in all those states to..just cause something keeps happening doesn't mean we make it legal. Murder is wrong
> 
> How fascist I sound? Do yoy see how much your dehumanizing them?
> Their not really like us, I mean look at us, look at them, their DIFFERENT.
> Then show what you concive as a "real human" despite the fact that you once were exactly what they are.


Murder is wrong, except for when you decide it isn't? Nice consistency. If you were consistent, you wouldn't support abortion in any case, yet you claim to be okay with abortion in cases of rape or incest. But isn't abortion murder? And isn't murder wrong? Or is it conditionally wrong? If it is conditional, who decides? If it's that a fetus is a human life that is the fulcrum for you, how is a human life made by rape or incest any different? Shouldn't those women be forced to give birth to their rape babies? That's the logical endpoint of your pontificating and pseudo-philosophizing about abortion and it's disgusting.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Given how much you replace your cells throughout your lifetime youre not you from when you were a kid. 

Chicken in egg. Not the same. Its grown and replaced its entire self. 

You are entirely different. You are a different person. 

Embyos are not a baby. There is potential for a life. But its not human.

Much like if went to a bake sale and sold cake batter. Its not a cake. 

Im not even dehumanizing it. Because when its finally grown and ready to be birthed. Everything that was inside that person has already been replaced... or has been gone. Its why you dont have a tail.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Given how much you replace your cells throughout your lifetime youre not you from when you were a kid.
> 
> Chicken in egg. Not the same. Its grown and replaced its entire self.
> 
> ...


The cells are unique to you. The embryo cells are the same cells multiplying in you. The original ones are dead yes but you're not a different person from when you were five you have all new cells like the embyo 

Still same lerson

Why would cells diying and multiplying only matter in till your out of the womb?

What to you is the definition of a life?

Some humans are born with a tail, women grow breast long after birth, doesn't make them a different person.
You changing doesn't negate who you are after birth why would it negate who you are before birth?

I can't kill you when you have whole new cells at any point so why would the womb being different cells (same type with same markers) matter?

As for the egg Embryonic Development, Day by Day

It's very similar to us. No one says the embyo is not a live. No one claims the embryo is ot a chicken



Crona said:


> Murder is wrong, except for when you decide it isn't? Nice consistency. If you were consistent, you wouldn't support abortion in any case, yet you claim to be okay with abortion in cases of rape or incest. But isn't abortion murder? And isn't murder wrong? Or is it conditionally wrong? If it is conditional, who decides? If it's that a fetus is a human life that is the fulcrum for you, how is a human life made by rape or incest any different? Shouldn't those women be forced to give birth to their rape babies? That's the logical endpoint of your pontificating and pseudo-philosophizing about abortion and it's disgusting.


Abortin is murder, the issue is both have rights to body autonomy so one has to lose their rights. Under normal circumstances the women willingly had sex, it's a part of sex so her actions "forced the child" since the child was the only one who didn't force anything they maintain their body autonomy.

With rape it's different the women has hers since she isn't the one that forced the child there.

It's an imperfect world, someone's right will fail in this scenario 

A women not wanting a kid is not a strong enough reason for the child to lose its rights.

Again you're assuming that it's impossible to ever have a situation where someone's rights are in direct deficient of another person's rights and what happens then

Some times it's impossible to enforce both rights. I don't agree that when it's impossible to do so the mother ALWAYS wins simply case she's more developed 

Human rights are not based on development 

Sometimes you have to murder someone, one of them had to die.
If I shot Hitler dead it's still murder. 


Again it's an imperfect world, impossible to make everything "perfect" which is why I don't belive it's right to kill a child cause life "sucks" it will meter be perfect to have a kid and any kid can have a rough child hood. Doesn't invalidate their right to live.


A baby has the same human rights as an adult does
An embryo had the same rights cause it is a human. Just in an earlier stage of development


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Dolorian said:


> As for another matter, some have brought up situations where the life of the mother is in danger in particular the case of an ectopic pregnancy. It is worth noting that the procedure to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is not really an abortion by definition and so in the states where abortion is currently illegal like Texas (due to trigger laws right after the overturning of Roe, for example) this procedure is allowed and does not fall within the confines of the ban for abortion.


New abortion laws have already complicated treatments for miscarriages in Texas before the overturning of Roe.









In Texas, abortion laws inhibit care for miscarriages


Medical professionals face tough quandaries when treating patients who have a miscarriage, a scenario that could soon play out around the country if abortion restrictions tighten.




www.npr.org







> But interpretation of the laws is still causing challenges to care. At least several OB-GYNs in the Austin area received a letter from a pharmacy in late 2021 saying it would no longer fill the drug methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy, citing the recent Texas laws, said Dr. Charlie Brown, an Austin-based obstetrician-gynecologist who provided a copy to KHN. Methotrexate also is listed in the Texas law passed last year.


I do not trust religious zealots who push for said laws to be rational in deciding what falls within the confines of the ban.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> Umm anyone that goes to Africa and murders a 'rare' animal deserves a fucking hell of a lot more than just a "threat" over the phone...
> 
> And by the way it's not a child till it's actually born at full term; before that its simply a parasitic fetus that's not actually a separate living entity...
> 
> ...


Parasitic fetus wow very darwinistic and nazi of you, that little baby a parasite, while simba a poor victim your priorities are a little fucked up.



Gwi1890 said:


> Some women don’t have a choice, I mean some twat sexually assaults a woman it’s hardly her fault.


So the child should suffer death from the errors of his twat father? How about use strict law enforcement and publicly execute the test they do in pro-life middle eastern, african and third world countries all the time, and it solves a lot of problems with rapist scum, yet the racist democractic darwinist want to impose abortion on the third world and developing world to harvest their babies organ for research.



Razgriz said:


> My social media is on fire right now with many basically saying that theyre done.
> 
> Also had a sex worker friend (dominatrix) say shes increasing her rates.


Umm their is birth control and condoms, so raising rates because of "roe v wade" seems like a scam to RIP off more horny John's.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Umm their is birth control and condoms, so raising rates because of "roe v wade" seems like a scam to RIP off more horny John's.


She doesnt have intercourse with her clients.



Flairwhoo84123 said:


> So the child should suffer death from the errors of his twat father? How about use strict law enforcement and publicly execute the test they do in pro-life middle eastern, african and third world countries all the time, and it solves a lot of problems with rapist scum, yet the racist democractic darwinist want to impose abortion on the third world and developing world to harvest their babies organ for research.


Its truly amazing to see people lap up the whole fox news narriative. Not an ounce of critical thought here.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

Razgriz said:


> Its truly amazing to see people lap up the whole fox news narriative. Not an ounce of critical thought here.


So kill the child, which is one crime that horrible because father committed a horrible crime, gotcha libtard logic in progress, dead beat rapists/dads roam free while more babies die from Klan parenthood, I mean planned parenthood, i mean these services are planted always in the lower class communties and margret danger was a apologists for Hitler, and Klan Parenthood was caught taking money from those who want it to go to killing Black babies wooooo! Btw many of your favorite old school wrestlers were conservative or atleast libertarian, even Aj Styles a christian wooo!



Razgriz said:


> She doesnt have intercourse with her clients.


Sex worker? So when does a sex worker doesnt work it?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Abortin is murder, the issue is both have rights to body autonomy so one has to lose their rights. Under normal circumstances the women willingly had sex, it's a part of sex so her actions "forced the child" since the child was the only one who didn't force anything they maintain their body autonom


It still takes 2 to tango. Especially in consensual intercourse. The one with the penis just as "forced" life as much as the one who is forced to raise the spawn.

Its really telling that you see this as a consequence of having sex. You really have no regard for women and those who also can reproduce. 

Especially since you want to incarcerate millions


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

Ugh


Razgriz said:


> It still takes 2 to tango. Especially in consensual intercourse. The one with the penis just as "forced" life as much as the one who is forced to raise the spawn.
> 
> Its really telling that you see this as a consequence of having sex. You really have no regard for women and those who also can reproduce.
> 
> Especially since you want to incarcerate millions


So how about bountys on the dead beat scumbag dad and forcing him to pay (once proven with who the father style proof), and being forced to help raise the child, isnt the end result of the sexual revolution is this scumbag doesnt owe anything to the woman he humped and dumped? The problem is the mindset of the sexual revolution that this guy can fuck anything he wants without consequences on his part.


And not just going after dead beat loser fathers how about expanded, protected and paid for maternity leave, child care tax credits, child tax credits, expanding the s-chip health care for sick children, increasing head start for preschool children, and making it a capital offense for rapists or is that too extreme for your side of the isle?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> It still takes 2 to tango. Especially in consensual intercourse. The one with the penis just as "forced" life as much as the one who is forced to raise the spawn.
> 
> Its really telling that you see this as a consequence of having sex. You really have no regard for women and those who also can reproduce.
> 
> Especially since you want to incarcerate millions


The man should absolutely also be responsible.
The man doesn't get away free he and the women both have a responsible sex is not just a "pleasure thing" for two people to do.
They both forced the child in to this er go the child's rights remain if their rights collide.

The reason I don't mention the man is cause right now no one is letting the man decide if the child dies or not
If they were able to decide it they would be wrong as well.

Where did I say incarcerated millions?
Do you think a parent who doesn't care for their child after birth should not be in jail? If a million parents just left their new born alone what would you do?

People didn't think someone who killed a black men kn the past should be jailed either

Human rights don't start only at birth 
A human is a human in all stages of development as long as the DNA and cells are unique it is its own human and an embryo is all of those. Nothing else is required to be human


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

kentl said:


> There will be murders in all those states to..just cause something keeps happening doesn't mean we make it legal. Murder is wrong
> 
> How fascist I sound? Do yoy see how much your dehumanizing them?
> Their not really like us, I mean look at us, look at them, their DIFFERENT.
> ...


Hope you never had a wank. You mass murderer!



Flairwhoo84123 said:


> and making it a capital offense for rapists or is that too extreme for your side of the isle?


So you’re clearly not on the ”all life is sacred” side of things then.


----------



## Flairwhoo84123 (Jan 3, 2022)

-Slick- said:


> Hope you never had a wank. You mass murderer!
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re clearly not on the ”all life is sacred” side of things then.


Ok fair call, so is castration ok with you or is it still "my pussy my choice " "kill the male, save the whale"


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

I wonder how many abortions Brett kavenaugh is going to have? Handsome powerful guy like that you know his got his gavel inside a few young legal aids. He is pro life until he is given the bill Clinton treatment


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

-Slick- said:


> Hope you never had a wank. You mass murderer!
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re clearly not on the ”all life is sacred” side of things then.


The difference is if I do wank that's not unique dna that is human

If it was we could never use dna to catch people who secually assault others

It's my dna, and can always be pointed to me. 

The difference is the fetues grows and changes and the whole time it has the same unique dna meaning it is another human.

Ita like a cake, in till you mix them they are not a cake.
A cake being baked is still a cake, just cause it's not at its final stage of development doesn't make it not a cake.
If we accidently take ot out before it's ready is it magicly a cake? It can only be a cake once fully formed? No.
A child isn't a consider not a child if it's born with a defect. If a child is born still born no one says "it's not a child"


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> New abortion laws have already complicated treatments for miscarriages in Texas before the overturning of Roe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks more like a case of misunderstanding what the law actually says as a person quoted in the article notes. Like in the case of that pharmacy not filling for methotrexate when the law itself doesn’t prevents its use for treating the exceptional cases allowed by it. The law profesor from the article basically affirms this and goes on to recommend that physicians closely document the reasons for medical care be it to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.


----------



## Twilight Sky (Feb 19, 2019)

Mr316 said:


> Bunch of fucking crybabies. Don’t like it? Move to a blue state like NY or California.


Err doesn't really have to be a blue state. Georgia is blue from the election but was red for like 20+yrs and abortions are allowed afaik.


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!! (Apr 13, 2011)

kentl said:


> The difference is if I do wank that's not unique dna that is human
> 
> If it was we could never use dna to catch people who secually assault others
> 
> ...


Do you eat unbaked cakes? No. Because it's not a cake; you could die from the raw ingredients. You can't remove a cake from the oven, uncooked, and call it a cake. You can't force a baker to cook a cake in their oven.

It's sad this isn't the dumbest analogy I've read.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

All Petite Wrestling said:


> Do you eat unbaked cakes? No. Because it's not a cake; you could die from the raw ingredients. You can't remove a cake from the oven, uncooked, and call it a cake. You can't force a baker to cook a cake in their oven.
> 
> It's sad this isn't the dumbest analogy I've read.


Yes actually 








2 Ingredient No Bake Chocolate Cake (No Flour, Eggs or Oil)


This no bake chocolate cake tastes like a flourless chocolate cake, but you don’t need to do any baking. It is easy to make and doesn’t require flour, eggs, or oil. The cake comes out rich and chocolatey.




kirbiecravings.com




No bake cake is a thing.

People eat eggs all the time. People eat flour all the time (usually by accident but still)
The issue is the chemical reaction that makes cake "cake' already happened same for a fetues 
Once the egg and sperm mix its made and can't be undone.
It not being fully done doesn't make it not a cake.

If I make a steak and I undercooked it it's still a steak even if it's Raw.

The fetues is a human
The embryo is a human
Once the "mix" happens it becomes human

You absolutely can pull a cake from the oven not fully cooked. Plenty of people prefer a "gooy" cake which requires it to not be cooked all the way through


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!! (Apr 13, 2011)

kentl said:


> Yes actually
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stop making baking cakes your analogy to belittle removing human rights from someone. That's insulting. And you're pulling a lot of exceptions up to support your analogy. Discuss the actual conception.

You think it happens when sperm meets egg? Life is formed then? I don't care when you think it happens. But, if that's your take, discuss it and stop using cakes as analogy

If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, are they a murderer because they aren't helping to reduce, more likely increase, the spread of COVID?

I care you're ok with taking awaking a woman's right to force a baby to grow in her.
That's not your choice or right to force a baby to grow in a lady. That's up to the individual lady, regardless of the "life" of the baby because it's her responsibility to grow it. That's scary to meet someone who is immediately ready to progress backwards in human history and take away rights from humans. The idea of "killing an unborn" baby isn't even a factor to me because it's the individual woman's decision.

Feel free to convince them, give them all your analogies you want. It's that person's choice. I'll convince anyone who doesn't want to get vaccinated the science says it's safer to be, but I won't force them.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

All Petite Wrestling said:


> Stop making baking cakes your analogy to belittle removing human rights from someone. That's insulting. And you're pulling a lot of exceptions up to support your analogy. Discuss the actual conception.
> 
> You think it happens when sperm meets egg? Life is formed then? I don't care when you think it happens. But, if that's your take, discuss it and stop using cakes as analogy
> 
> ...


I don't just think it








Life Begins at Fertilization: 96% of Liberal, Pro-Choice and Non-Religious Biologists Agree


A new study has found that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization. Steve Jacobs began the study as a part of his dissertation for his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development.




dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com




Science also agrees.

The covid vaccine Stop using that analogy it doesn't apply here.
The issue here is the women's body is NOT the only one affected here. Another one with unique dna that makes them a completely different human is involved.
The vaccine is only your body

What I feel on it doesn't matter cause there isn't two people involved in the choice 

If a mad scientist takes steps to put someone in to them selfs can they then kill the person since it's on their body. Doesn't matter it was his actions that caused the person to be in this situation and before you say it's impossible 




__





404 Not Found | History of Yesterday







historyofyesterday.com




Had he done it to two humans or did one on him self would he retain the right to kill the other person?


----------



## TeamFlareZakk (Jul 15, 2020)

I dont have a opinion on this subject because Im seeing it here on a wrestling forum but its not about wrestling.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Dolorian said:


> Looks more like a case of misunderstanding what the law actually says as a person quoted in the article notes. Like in the case of that pharmacy not filling for methotrexate when the law itself doesn’t prevents its use for treating the exceptional cases allowed by it. The law profesor from the article basically affirms this and goes on to recommend that physicians closely document the reasons for medical care be it to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.


Physicians can do all the documentation they want, but the quality of healthcare is lowered if the medication isn't readily available as before. The doctor in the article is reflecting what they see happening.

Are you willing to risk frivolous lawsuits or a felony over a mistake in record keeping? Seems like pharmacies in Texas decided it isn't worth the hassle.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

FriedTofu said:


> Physicians can do all the documentation they want, but the quality of healthcare is lowered if the medication isn't readily available as before. The doctor in the article is reflecting what they see happening.
> 
> Are you willing to risk frivolous lawsuits or a felony over a mistake in record keeping? Seems like pharmacies in Texas decided it isn't worth the hassle.


It's really telling that a lot of folks don't know that the aftercare for abortion is much the same as aftercare for miscarriages and that the medicines used have different purposes in each scenario. There is already gold-standard evidence in the form of randomized control trials that demonstrate misoprostol and mifepristone, also used for abortion, are the most effective medicines to treat miscarriages and their associated complications. It's honestly infuriating that people don't care to see, or simply don't care about, the ripple effects this ruling is having on folks' healthcare.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Crona said:


> It's really telling that a lot of folks don't know that the aftercare for abortion is much the same as aftercare for miscarriages and that the medicines used have different purposes in each scenario. There is already gold-standard evidence in the form of randomized control trials that demonstrate misoprostol and mifepristone, also used for abortion, are the most effective medicines to treat miscarriages and their associated complications. It's honestly infuriating that people don't care to see, or simply don't care about, the ripple effects this ruling is having on folks' healthcare.


I mean...many of them either believe in ivermectin as a covid treatment or are willing to pander to people who believe that nonsense. They just follow what their feelings tell them.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Lorromire said:


> Calling for violence isn't the answer, so despite this being a disgusting ruling, I'd rather that people avoided that line of talking. It does nothing but causes further harm to the actual cause at hand.


Violence is absolutely an answer. Violence is consistently one of the most effective measures to get major changes when it comes to the political world.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Firefromthegods said:


> I wonder how many abortions Brett kavenaugh is going to have? Handsome powerful guy like that you know his got his gavel inside a few young legal aids. He is pro life until he is given the bill Clinton treatment



Do you find him handsome? Never really saw it myself but I'm kinda open to it


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Do you find him handsome? Never really saw it myself but I'm kinda open to it


Not me personally. But a few 40 somethings I know find him attractive. Strong jaw, fluffy hair looks good in a suit.

One of them even wants a pig on spit with him and tucker. You can use your imagination on what that is


----------



## Lorromire (Jun 17, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> Violence is absolutely an answer. Violence is consistently one of the most effective measures to get major changes when it comes to the political world.


There's a difference between violence and calling for mass executions, which is what was being implied earlier.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Firefromthegods said:


> Not me personally. But a few 40 somethings I know find him attractive. Strong jaw, fluffy hair looks good in a suit.
> 
> One of them even wants a pig on spit with him and tucker. You can use your imagination on what that is




Pig..on spit?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Firefromthegods said:


> Not me personally. But a few 40 somethings I know find him attractive. Strong jaw, fluffy hair looks good in a suit.
> 
> *One of them even wants a pig on spit with him and tucker.* You can use your imagination on what that is


 Well that's just about enough Internet.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

> Where did I say incarcerated ?



You keep calling abortion murder. You prosecute murderers. There still will be abortions.

You want to put thousands if not millions in jail


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You keep calling abortion murder. You prosecute murderers. There still will be abortions.
> 
> You want to put thousands if not millions in jail


Slavery was wrong 
We didn't jail all the slave owners 
Men treating women as 2nd class citizens was wrong 
We didn't jail all them

It's a human right issue. Enforce the right and move on is what I want.

If someone does it after? Yes. Right now? No.
That's like saying there will still be slaves. Yes. Sex slaves are illegal. Still happen. Shouldn't be legal.


----------



## Randy Lahey (Apr 14, 2014)

The will of the people should determine whether taking a life is a crime or not.

The fact the same people clamoring to prevent criminals from getting the death penalty while also supporting BABIES being killed is asinine.



Razgriz said:


> You keep calling abortion murder. You prosecute murderers. There still will be abortions.
> 
> You want to put thousands if not millions in jail


Doctors who perform abortions will be prosecuted. There’s not millions of doctors performing abortions.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Randy Lahey said:


> The will of the people should determine whether taking a life is a crime or not.


The will of the people largely suppport reproductive rights and the right to choose


----------



## Randy Lahey (Apr 14, 2014)

Razgriz said:


> The will of the people largely suppport reproductive rights and the right to choose


In some states, sure. But in other states, absolutely not.

States determine whether they have the death penalty. They can also determine whether they will prosecute abortion doctors


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You keep calling abortion murder. You prosecute murderers. There still will be abortions.
> 
> You want to put thousands if not millions in jail



If doctors are telling the women it's simply a "medical procedure" and "healthcare", then the women bare really no legal responsibility for anything.


----------



## One Shed (Jan 7, 2014)

Firefromthegods said:


> Not me personally. But a few 40 somethings I know find him attractive. Strong jaw, fluffy hair looks good in a suit.
> 
> One of them even wants a pig on spit with him and tucker. You can use your imagination on what that is


How in 19 pages of horrible posts on the topic of abortion do you win the worst visual post prize?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

It's a real shame and an erosion of rights for women. Don't want abortions? Don't get one. The government should stay out of it.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> It's a real shame and an erosion of rights for women. Don't want abortions? Don't get one. The government should stay out of it.



That's literally what the Supreme Court just did lol. Gave power back to the people of each state to decide.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RainmakerV2 said:


> That's literally what the Supreme Court just did lol. Gave power back to the people of each state to decide.


Giving the insane red states a licence to ban it immediately, with more to follow. 'Power back to the people' what a load of crap. This is about personal choice and the government should have no say no matter what.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> Giving the insane red states a licence to ban it immediately, with more to follow. 'Power back to the people' what a load of crap. This is about personal choice and the government should have no say no matter what.



I mean that's just how America works. There's lots of laws in my state I'm not a fan of, but I mean, thats just how it is. It goes both ways. There are liberals who have to live in red states who are miserable and conservatives in blue states who are the same.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

I haven't been following this news story, but just at face value... a woman who gets pregnant (non-rape) can just give the baby to a family who wants to adopt, right?

Is that point talked about much in this debate?


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

RainmakerV2 said:


> Pig..on spit?


3 way involving her and the two of them. She's a freak and not in the fun way. She's very similar to the Michigan republican nominee for secretary of state karoma. 

You meet a lot of weirdos when your old boss joins the one nation Australian party


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

IronMan8 said:


> I haven't been following this news story, but just at face value... a woman who gets pregnant (non-rape) can just give the baby to a family who wants to adopt, right?
> 
> Is that point talked about much in this debate?


Yes, the pro life side who stands against abortion says that adoption is an option.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

Dolorian said:


> Yes, the pro life side who stands against abortion says that adoption is an option.


That seems like the most logical outcome for non-rape cases from an atheist perspective.

High potential of life (99% potential at least, unlike sperm) is obviously a higher priority thing to value than having extra freedom of body for about 3-6 months

But it's the rape cases and especially the incentive to lie about rape that makes this whole thing a problem, it's pretty straightforward until the rape complications enter the picture. Not sure how to solve that part


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

-Slick- said:


> Hope you never had a wank. You mass murderer!


Sperm doesn't have a high potential for life, in fact it has a zero percent potential for life in most cases - and like it or not, it's constantly being created _and destroyed_ by the body whether you wank or not.

Bam!

Single-handedly ended the debate on wanking! Not that this debate needed a hand...


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

Razgriz said:


> So you think that anyone who aborted should be doing life in jail or be dead.
> 
> See this is how I know youre not arguing in good faith and trolling.


I haven't read of his posts, but I saw him ask some valid questions 2 pages back and then you replied with the above.

To answer your question:

1. No, because it was legal at the time 
2. No, because there would still be degrees of wrong-doing and it would definitely be less bad to abort a 6-week-old foetus than to murder a fully-formed human.

It's all about degrees, you shouldn't oversimplify it by trying to equate all murder as equal as if all cases are a dichotomous good or bad thing 

It was therefore hypocritical for you to argue that that other poster was arguing in "bad faith" (is that an anti-religious term because if so I like it!)


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

IronMan8 said:


> I haven't been following this news story, but just at face value... a woman who gets pregnant (non-rape) can just give the baby to a family who wants to adopt, right?
> 
> Is that point talked about much in this debate?


That is what used to happen before contraceptives and safer abortions in developed economies. This is what is still happening in many poorer countries without safe access to contraceptives and abortions. Unlucky babies that has nobody to adopt are either left for dead or sold by families that cannot afford to raise another child. The question is why go backwards when the solutions are already available and proven to work?



IronMan8 said:


> That seems like the most logical outcome for non-rape cases from an atheist perspective.
> 
> High potential of life (99% potential at least, unlike sperm) is obviously a higher priority thing to value than having extra freedom of body for about 3-6 months
> 
> But it's the rape cases and especially the incentive to lie about rape that makes this whole thing a problem, it's pretty straightforward until the rape complications enter the picture. Not sure how to solve that part


Pre natal and post natal care is not free nor risk free. Forcing women to give birth is not just 'extra' freedom. The most logical outcome from an atheist perspective is the fetus doesn't have the same value as the woman carrying it. _shrugs_


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Randy Lahey said:


> In some states, sure. But in other states, absolutely not.
> 
> States determine whether they have the death penalty. They can also determine whether they will prosecute abortion doctors


Those states are gerrymandered so youre reallly not getting the will of the people.

Putting this in the hands of states is about as bad as putting civil rights in the states hands as well. 

As is why the next 3 "due process" precedents are also worrisome

gay marriage
The ability to buy contraceptives
And the ability for states to outlaw forms of consensual sex


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Flairwhoo84123 said:


> Ok fair call, so is castration ok with you or is it still "my pussy my choice " "kill the male, save the whale"


Castrate rapists? Go for it. But remember, that’s coming from a child murderer. As far as those expressions goes, I’m not american and not familiar with them so don’t really know what you mean.



kentl said:


> The difference is if I do wank that's not unique dna that is human
> 
> If it was we could never use dna to catch people who secually assault others
> 
> ...


Yeah you have written essentially the same thing a hundred times now. You have your view on what’s sacred. I do not share that view.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

IronMan8 said:


> Sperm doesn't have a high potential for life, in fact it has a zero percent potential for life in most cases - and like it or not, it's constantly being created _and destroyed_ by the body whether you wank or not.
> 
> Bam!
> 
> Single-handedly ended the debate on wanking! Not that this debate needed a hand...


Yes it was a ridicolous post, it was on purpose. It’s also ridicolous imo that kentl thinks that a 1mm embryo have the same rights as a fully grown person and that he ”can’t choose” between the two if he had to. But that’s just the way it is. We have so different views on this that we will never find a common ground.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

-Slick- said:


> Yes it was a ridicolous post, it was on purpose. It’s also ridicolous imo that kentl thinks that a 1mm embryo have the same rights as a fully grown person and that he ”can’t choose” between the two if he had to. But that’s just the way it is. We have so different views on this that we will never find a common ground.


I agree there's less value in a foetus than a fully formed human.

Given there's about a 99% potential for life from ~12 weeks, what do you think is a higher priority:

99% potential for life

vs

loss of freedom of body for 3-6 months due to your own decision-making (so, excluding rape)

When one of the above rights must be waived in favour of the other, which right do you think is the higher priority?

note: I'm an atheist arguing from a purely logical, atheist perspective, so you don't have to worry about my argument coming from a crazy, irrational, religious point of view lol



FriedTofu said:


> Pre natal and post natal care is not free nor risk free. Forcing women to give birth is not just 'extra' freedom. The most logical outcome from an atheist perspective is the fetus doesn't have the same value as the woman carrying it. _shrugs_


Explain your logic, please. I'm anti-religion btw, so don't worry about my argument being in bad faith lol. I only care about logic.

You have not justified your position that the life of something with a 99% potential for life should have a lower priority than the right to have 3-6 months of less hassle.

I will change my mind if you give me a reason to - my argument is not rooted in religion... I have no reason to cling to my views like a child clinging to a blanket. Give me a reason to change my mind and I will.



FriedTofu said:


> That is what used to happen before contraceptives and safer abortions in developed economies. This is what is still happening in many poorer countries without safe access to contraceptives and abortions. Unlucky babies that has nobody to adopt are either left for dead or sold by families that cannot afford to raise another child. The question is why go backwards when the solutions are already available and proven to work?


So, you're arguing that the potential existence of someone horrible enough to kill their baby instead of putting it up for adoption means all 99% potential for life beings should have their lives ended quickly because the technology allows a faster death?

You're ignoring the option to simply give birth and put the baby up for adoption, which is a much better outcome for all lives and comes at the cost of a person being inconvenienced for a few months.

Remember, we're comparing short-term inconvenience with a 99% potential for life. The default view should favour life unless there's a great argument otherwise. What's your great argument otherwise?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

IronMan8 said:


> Explain your logic, please. I'm anti-religion btw, so don't worry about my argument being in bad faith lol. I only care about logic.
> 
> You have not justified your position that the life of something with a 99% potential for life should have a lower priority than the right to have 3-6 months of less hassle.
> 
> I will change my mind if you give me a reason to - my argument is not rooted in religion... I have no reason to cling to my views like a child clinging to a blanket. Give me a reason to change my mind and I will.


Why are you asking me to explain my logic when you just quoted my logic? The key word is potential. You are valuing potential for life over the rights and health of a current existing human life. Imposing the risks of forced birth isn't just 3-6 months of less hassle. 




> So, you're arguing that the potential existence of someone horrible enough to kill their baby instead of putting it up for adoption means all 99% potential for life beings should have their lives ended quickly because the technology allows a faster death?
> 
> You're ignoring the option to simply give birth and put the baby up for adoption, which is a much better outcome for all lives and comes at the cost of a person being inconvenienced for a few months.
> 
> Remember, we're comparing short-term inconvenience with a 99% potential for life. The default view should favour life unless there's a great argument otherwise. What's your great argument otherwise?


I am arguing the means of better family planning is available so we do not need to burden couples with having to find arrangements after an unwanted baby is born.

I did not ignore adoption. Re-read what I typed. I am saying there is less of a need to rely on adoption to solve for unwanted pregnancy.

We are arguing the rights of potential for life versus the rights of a current human life. The default view should favor the current living human being. I would call an egg and egg. I wouldn't call an egg a potential chicken.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

IronMan8 said:


> I haven't been following this news story, but just at face value... a woman who gets pregnant (non-rape) can just give the baby to a family who wants to adopt, right?
> 
> Is that point talked about much in this debate?



If the woman doesn’t want to carry, she shouldn’t have to. There are a lot of things that come with being pregnant, it’s not just get fat and have a kid. She shouldn’t have to explain to everyone for 9 months that she’s pregnant by accident, doesn’t want a baby, but, is going to have it, anyway and give it away. She shouldn’t have to go to doctor’s appointments, unless you’re offering to pay for every visit, and anything else she might need, for every woman who has to go through this because you think she should just carry and give it away. What happens if no one wants to take the child? Now it’s in the system, left on the streets, etc.


People need to think more about the situation, starting with “it’s not my business and I don’t like when people tell me what to do with my body, so, I won’t support taking away women’s rights”.


----------



## InexorableJourney (Sep 10, 2016)

There is also Maternal Mortality to consider, or should be.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Anyone who thinks pregnancy is a "minor inconvenience" clearly has no idea what happens to the body during pregnancy.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Anyone who thinks pregnancy is a "minor inconvenience" clearly has no idea what happens to the body during pregnancy.


Anyone who thinks death and not being allowed to live isn't worse then being pregnant have no idea on scale of things.

The only women who can match it are women who actually die during pregnancy and as said they should be saved.

"Poteintial" life is not a real thing here. 

Life by all definition fetues an embryo 

Nothing about life needs to be viable on its own. Nothing about life has to be developed to a certain point to "really count"


Catalanotto said:


> .
> 
> 
> People need to think more about the situation, starting with “it’s not my business and I don’t like when people tell me what to do with my body, so, I won’t support taking away women’s rights”.


The difference here is just cause you ignore and deny someone is a human and has their own rights doesn't mean they don't (slavery, religious persecution, LGBT, women rights etc)

Nor would you be okay with anyone else blocking someone else's human rights just cause rhey Don't recognize them.as a person.

I don't support taking away women's rights. I also don't support taking away anyone's rights. 

But when one has to lose their rights the one who caused the conflict should lose their rights not the one who did nothing.



-Slick- said:


> Castrate rapists? Go for it. But remember, that’s coming from a child murderer. As far as those expressions goes, I’m not american and not familiar with them so don’t really know what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you have written essentially the same thing a hundred times now. You have your view on what’s sacred. I do not share that view.


I get you don't. If someone didn't share your view that black people are humans would you sit by and "agree to disagree" and let them do what they want to those people? Of course not

We both think human rights are being violated and no one does or should just let human right violations happen.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

kentl said:


> Anyone who thinks death and not being allowed to live isn't worse then being pregnant have no idea on scale of things.
> 
> The only women who can match it are women who actually die during pregnancy and as said they should be saved.
> 
> ...


Your positions boil down to 'murder is wrong, except when I say its not' and 'I don't support taking away anyone's rights, but we have to.'


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Crona said:


> Your positions boil down to 'murder is wrong, except when I say its not' and 'I don't support taking away anyone's rights, but we have to.'


It's true. Sometimes we have to





__





404 Not Found | History of Yesterday







historyofyesterday.com




If this man did it on humans instead against their will does the one whose just the head lose all their rights and the one with the body get to decide if they live or die.

Murder isn't always wrong. As I said before, if I shot Hitler dead I'd murder him.

The issue is I don't think "I don't want to raise them" or "I can't afford them" is a valid reason to kill any kid
It's not that murder is always wrong. It's that anortin for a non medical/rape/incest is not one of the reasons murder is acceptable 

And I don't think human rights are based on development. Someone less developed is still human ergo the embyo is still human and has all human rights.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Abortions Can Resume In Louisiana—At Least For Now—As Trigger Bans Blocked In State Court


Abortion providers argued the state’s trigger laws are unlawfully vague.




www.forbes.com





At least there is some sanity.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

I don't understand how anyone can just come to the conclusion of "Its just a pregnancy, get over it" and then say that they think they support "life".

Like it's not just "thing grows inside person and then in 40 weeks a person pops out" and if that is your understanding of pregnancy... maybe learn a bit more about biology. Ultimately that is also how some people completely think they understand pregnancy.

We can also examine a bit more. Look at every state that has also banned abortion and then look at every state that basically take money from the government. Look at those states welfare programs. It's absolutely great that you think that medical leave should be a thing. Or free healthcare to actually have the kid. Etc. But in the reality. Take a hard look at what those states are and then ask yourself if they're suddenly going to support any government assistance. And if you suddenly think that is going to change. I have a bridge to sell you.

Hell... Among all developed countries. The united states already have the highest amount of kids living in poverty at 11 million.

It's far more humane to terminate pregnancy to something that doesn't even know it's not fucking alive yet. Regardless of potential. We can't even serve the fucking kids who are already living and suddenly you want to bring even more because of ideology?

This argument that we've "used the idea that certain classes of people are not people to discriminate them" is so damn obtuse it's not even funny.

We know what development looks like. And yes mental function totally plays into it. Lets stop getting distracted by "Jellyfish" A jellyfish too is not a human person. its a goddamn jellyfish. We also pull the cord on people who were living with little to no brain activity because it's too cruel to let them live. (see Terri Schivo)

It's not just "they're going to live in poverty". Kids in poverty here also don't know where their next meal is coming from. Many live on the street or live in cars. Many who are poor do live happy lives. But thats some survivor bias horseshit. Far more end up dead, or addicted to drugs and then dead. Or in gangs. Have... have you seen the poor parts of Detroit? Or Cleveland? Place looks like a third world country. But you want to protect because of the sanctity of some ideology.

------------

A number of these triggered laws have no exception for rape no exception or medical procedure. So women with Ectopic pregnancies... good fucking luck living through that.

It's also not pre- Roe V. Wade standards because the amount of data that exists these days are astronomical. Everything from period tracking apps. to search data to whatever. That data can get sold to law enforcement which in turn can then be used against someone who they might have charged with terminating a pregnancy.

THe more and more you lean in to this ideology the more power you are ceding to the state.

-----------------------

This decision also affects again everything going forward. Consensual Sex, Contraception, Gay Marriage. All of these were built by that precedent. And Thomas has indicated that he wants to review those as well.

Need I remind you. That some of these courts are going to just up and go "fuck it" and say that they do apply to those decisions as well going forward.

Can anyone not see the amount of fascist horseshit we're going to wade through in the next couple of years?

-----------------

I don't fucking care about your god. If you want to think that life starts at conception. Good. It in itself is a philosophical question. What is life? What is a person?

But don't fucking press that shit on me. You don't get to press that shit on anyone. Let that be the driver toward better healthcare. Better education. Freeer access to contraception to prevent pregnancy. Better protections for people who DO want to carry out pregnancy. You'll do more to prevent abortions and teen pregnancy (as has been shown by Colorado) if you focus on giving greater access to women's health. As the data from Steve Levitt still does show.

There's already states at war with each other on extradition should a state that has it banned want to prosecute.

This isn't just an argument about life. This is everything the people who have been stockpiling their guns have been waiting for. A tyrannical authoritarian government looking to control their people. Need I remind you that they have threatened to make a nationwide ban should they "get back into power"....


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

IronMan8 said:


> I agree there's less value in a foetus than a fully formed human.
> 
> Given there's about a 99% potential for life from ~12 weeks, what do you think is a higher priority:
> 
> ...


Do you have a kid(s)? To say the consequences are 'loss of freedom of body for 3-6 months' is insane and totally judgemental. If nothing else, if I lived in the shitty poverty stricken parts of America then you'd better believe I'd seriously consider aborting. Guess what? It's no one else's business.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Once more with feeling:



> In early 1960, Fran Avallone had a miscarriage at six months. She was bleeding on an examination table with the dead fetus already extracted and had to sit and wait while covered in blood and her legs open. Because it was 1960. They needed to investigate and prove she had a miscarriage and had not committed manslaughter. During the unbelievably tragic event of losing a wanted child far into pregnancy – she had to sit in her own blood before evidence could be turned over to the police.
> 
> In 1973, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and abortion became legal with restrictions.
> 
> ...


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> I don't understand how anyone can just come to the conclusion of "Its just a pregnancy, get over it" and then say that they think they support "life".


We support life cause life isn't about how good it is. A child who doesn't know their alive has as much right to live as a child who has defects and doesn't know.



Razgriz said:


> We can also examine a bit more. Look at every state that has also banned abortion and then look at every state that basically take money from the government. Look at those states welfare programs. It's absolutely great that you think that medical leave should be a thing. Or free healthcare to actually have the kid. Etc. But in the reality. Take a hard look at what those states are and then ask yourself if they're suddenly going to support any government assistance. And if you suddenly think that is going to change. I have a bridge to sell you.


I must've missed where life only matters if it has support. A child abbadeomd with no help isn't less valuable then others.



Razgriz said:


> Hell... Among all developed countries. The united states already have the highest amount of kids living in poverty at 11 million.


Yeah, and how many countries live in what America would consider provity?
The issue is you keep trying to say life is only worth it if we have x. Do not agree will never agree. Almost all humans ever didn't have the conditions you would consider "acceptable " acceptable life isn't based on trch and doesn't change. If children in a 3rd world country are worth having then children in America are worth it.



Razgriz said:


> It's far more humane to terminate pregnancy to something that doesn't even know it's not fucking alive yet. Regardless of potential. We can't even serve the fucking kids who are already living and suddenly you want to bring even more because of ideology?


Baby's don't know their alive in till around 5 months. First sign of conscious thoughts.
Can we kill them? A lot of kids can be born with conditions where they don't interact with the world The way we dom some of then don't know their alive for years. Doesn't invalidate their lifes doesn't invalidate an embyo.



Razgriz said:


> This argument that we've "used the idea that certain classes of people are not people to discriminate them" is so damn obtuse it's not even funny.


If I said a new born is not human cause it doesn't have conscious thought you would absolutely say it was exactly the same. The fact it doesn't match your precise view of humanity doesn't matter.



Razgriz said:


> We know what development looks like. And yes mental function totally plays into it. Lets stop getting distracted by "Jellyfish" A jellyfish too is not a human person. its a goddamn jellyfish. We also pull the cord on people who were living with little to no brain activity because it's too cruel to let them live. (see Terri Schivo).


The point is human life is not special. Nothing about being human is special that requires special requirements.
So eveey other animal can be alive without a brain, without x but if a human don't have it it's not alive? 
Plenty of life forms go through entire body changes and metamorphosis at no point do they "stop" living 



Razgriz said:


> It's not just "they're going to live in poverty". Kids in poverty here also don't know where their next meal is coming from. Many live on the street or live in cars. Many who are poor do live happy lives. But thats some survivor bias horseshit. Far more end up dead, or addicted to drugs and then dead. Or in gangs. Have... have you seen the poor parts of Detroit? Or Cleveland? Place looks like a third world country. But you want to protect because of the sanctity of some ideology.


And this happens all the time when kids are born
A new born doesn't know its living in provity. We can easily end thero life where they don't ever know they die. We still don't let mothers kill new born to "save" them from an assumed fatem




Razgriz said:


> A number of these triggered laws have no exception for rape no exception or medical procedure. So women with Ectopic pregnancies... good fucking luck living through that.


And more and more are being stopped, reworked, and fought against. If they remain they are wrong. So far additions have been added, trigger laws have been blocked.




Razgriz said:


> It's also not pre- Roe V. Wade standards because the amount of data that exists these days are astronomical. Everything from period tracking apps. to search data to whatever. That data can get sold to law enforcement which in turn can then be used against someone who they might have charged with terminating a pregnancy.


If this ever happens it is absolutely wrong. 


Razgriz said:


> THe more and more you lean in to this ideology the more power you are ceding to the state.


So giving the state the power to say who is and isn't human because they are not fully developed osmt giving to much power?




Razgriz said:


> This decision also affects again everything going forward. Consensual Sex, Contraception, Gay Marriage. All of these were built by that precedent. And Thomas has indicated that he wants to review those as well.


As they should be fought for. 



Razgriz said:


> Need I remind you. That some of these courts are going to just up and go "fuck it" and say that they do apply to those decisions as well going forward.


And if a court said fuck slavery laws we wouldn't sit by. The fact you happen to not agree with someone being human doesn't change their rights or that people always need to fight for human rights



Razgriz said:


> Can anyone not see the amount of fascist horseshit we're going to wade through in the next couple of years?.


Pretty fascist to say someone is not human.

It's always an issue. The point is no matter what to fight for human rights. Doesn't matter if the majority think black people are not human, doesn't matter if people claim only "citizens" get human rights





Razgriz said:


> I don't fucking care about your god. If you want to think that life starts at conception. Good. It in itself is a philosophical question. What is life? What is a person?


Nothing to do with God
People instantly assume thinking aborin is wrong comes from God. Alnost all society's have rules against killing a defenseless person
Also science says what is life and when it bbegins.




Razgriz said:


> But don't fucking press that shit on me. You don't get to press that shit on anyone. Let that be the driver toward better healthcare. Better education. Freeer access to contraception to prevent pregnancy. Better protections for people who DO want to carry out pregnancy. You'll do more to prevent abortions and teen pregnancy (as has been shown by Colorado) if you focus on giving greater access to women's health. As the data from Steve Levitt still does show.


Yoy absolutely get to press human rights on people 


There's already states at war with each other on extradition should a state that has it banned want to prosecute.



Razgriz said:


> This isn't just an argument about life. This is everything the people who have been stockpiling their guns have been waiting for. A tyrannical authoritarian government looking to control their people. Need I remind you that they have threatened to make a nationwide ban should they "get back into power"....


1. It's not a nation wide ban of abortin 
2. Human rights are not just about America laws. Slavery is wrong everywhere, not allowing guns isn't.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Also science says what is life and when it bbegins.


There's no consensus actually. Some scientists will say it's a person when there is brain function. Some will say something else. When the thing becomes a person is a philosophical debate at best. And you want to impose your definition of personhood on everybody. How's that for bodily autonomy.




kentl said:


> We support life cause life isn't about how good it is. A child who doesn't know their alive has as much right to live as a child who has defects and doesn't know.


It's not a child. To me. And no amount of you believing it to be one is going to make it one. If you want to talk to your girlfriend to carry out pregnancy. That's on you.[/quote]



> I must've missed where life only matters if it has support. A child abbadeomd with no help isn't less valuable then others.


Humanity matters.


[/quote]Yeah, and how many countries live in what America would consider provity?
The issue is you keep trying to say life is only worth it if we have x. Do not agree will never agree. Almost all humans ever didn't have the conditions you would consider "acceptable " acceptable life isn't based on trch and doesn't change. If children in a 3rd world country are worth having then children in America are worth it.[/quote]

The children in 3rd world africa exist because the women over in those parts of africa don't have bodily autonomy. Or there isn't access to the ability to terminate a pregnancy. Or their beliefs don't allow themselves to terminate. Imagine what those parts of africa would look like if they had the same resources more developed countries do. 



> Baby's don't know their alive in till around 5 months. First sign of conscious thoughts.
> Can we kill them? A lot of kids can be born with conditions where they don't interact with the world The way we dom some of then don't know their alive for years. Doesn't invalidate their lifes doesn't invalidate an embyo.


Another bad faith argument and being obtuse. Fetal Heartbeat isn't even a heart. Again, if you want to believe it's a child. The next time someone terminates their pregnancy take it home and give it a pacifier. I'm certain it'll thank you for saving its life.



> If I said a new born is not human cause it doesn't have conscious thought you would absolutely say it was exactly the same. The fact it doesn't match your precise view of humanity doesn't matter.


Bad faith. Terrible argument.




> The point is human life is not special. Nothing about being human is special that requires special requirements.
> So eveey other animal can be alive without a brain, without x but if a human don't have it it's not alive?
> Plenty of life forms go through entire body changes and metamorphosis at no point do they "stop" living


We also treat animals differently than we do treat humans. It's why I was able to eat a steak last night and not be horrified.




> And this happens all the time when kids are born
> A new born doesn't know its living in provity. We can easily end thero life where they don't ever know they die. We still don't let mothers kill new born to "save" them from an assumed fatem


Or, we could just. Terminate the pregnancy before it ever reaches this stage. Then they don't have to worry about attempting to raise something they weren't ready for. And likely they didn't want in the first place.



> And more and more are being stopped, reworked, and fought against. If they remain they are wrong. So far additions have been added, trigger laws have been blocked.


Blocked for so long.



> If this ever happens it is absolutely wrong.


Already happening.



> So giving the state the power to say who is and isn't human because they are not fully developed osmt giving to much power?


The state shouldn't be defining when a person is a person. It's an overreach of their job. Let the individual who is carrying to define how they feel about what is growing inside them. That's what bodily autonomy is.



> As they should be fought for.


Much more difficult now given precedence



> And if a court said fuck slavery laws we wouldn't sit by. The fact you happen to not agree with someone being human doesn't change their rights or that people always need to fight for human rights


You're right. Women need to have their rights protected. So they're not just seen as incubators. Or Objects.



> Pretty fascist to say someone is not human.
> 
> It's always an issue. The point is no matter what to fight for human rights. Doesn't matter if the majority think black people are not human, doesn't matter if people claim only "citizens" get human rights


As why reproductive rights need to be protected.




> Nothing to do with God
> People instantly assume thinking aborin is wrong comes from God. Alnost all society's have rules against killing a defenseless person
> Also science says what is life and when it bbegins.


The belief that life begins at conception is a narrative being pushed by hardcore Christians. And if they want to believe that. All power to them. It's their right. It is not their right to also impose that belief on other people. Even if you want to believe that life begins at conception. THe idea of personhood and where that comes into play is still a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Go right ahead and believe it. 



> Yoy absolutely get to press human rights on people


Reproductive rights are human rights. 

There's already states at war with each other on extradition should a state that has it banned want to prosecute.




> 1. It's not a nation wide ban of abortin
> 2. Human rights are not just about America laws. Slavery is wrong everywhere, not allowing guns isn't.


Should the republicans gain control. It will be. And might be some form of christofacist horseshit in the process.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> There's no consensus actually. Some scientists will say it's a person when there is brain function. Some will say something else. When the thing becomes a person is a philosophical debate at best. And you want to impose your definition of personhood on everybody. How's that for bodily autonomy.











Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'


Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The



papers.ssrn.com





Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

95% is a consensus as good as you'll ever get.

Both sides enforce their view of personhood on the other. By allowing abortins you force others to accept your view if when life starts
It's impossible to not force someone to someone's view of it.




Razgriz said:


> It's not a child. To me. And no amount of you believing it to be one is going to make it one. If you want to talk to your girlfriend to carry out pregnancy. That's on you.


So if I don't see Jews as humans or a real life I'm free to do as I will?
No, you never let other people decide what is and is not a human. This shouldn't be a "its your own choice" thing
Life is life. Human is human.
When a white men didn't think a slave was human he was wrong.



Humanity matters.





Razgriz said:


> The children in 3rd world africa exist because the women over in those parts of africa don't have bodily autonomy. Or there isn't access to the ability to terminate a pregnancy. Or their beliefs don't allow themselves to terminate. Imagine what those parts of africa would look like if they had the same resources more developed countries do.


The children in the mother exists. The embyo has the same DNA as you. Same cells. Nothing about the embyo is "not human"




Razgriz said:


> Another bad faith argument and being obtuse. Fetal Heartbeat isn't even a heart. Again, if you want to believe it's a child. The next time someone terminates their pregnancy take it home and give it a pacifier. I'm certain it'll thank you for saving its life.


It's not. No definition of life requires a heart. Plenty of living things go through stages where they don't have "crucial" things needed to live later in life. A tadpol can't live on land. It's just as alive as the frog it becomes 

No other animal has this weird obsession of what it needs to live in one stage of life.
Life isn't based on what you need to sruvie at certain points. It's about surviving and growing 

A parasite is just as alive as you or I. Even if it requires a host it's whole life.

The embyo has human dna, human cells, that makes it nothing else but a human





Razgriz said:


> Bad faith. Terrible argument.


Not at all. It's a different level of development same for the embyo 

The point is NO other point of human development limits it being human so why should the embyo?






Razgriz said:


> We also treat animals differently than we do treat humans. It's why I was able to eat a steak last night and not be horrified.


Yup. Good thing evreything in science tells us the embyo is already human. Nothing about the embyo makes it "another kind of life "

It isn't an animals, it isn't a cow, it isn't a dog so what is it?






Razgriz said:


> Or, we could just. Terminate the pregnancy before it ever reaches this stage. Then they don't have to worry about attempting to raise something they weren't ready for. And likely they didn't want in the first place.


Why can't we then get rid of any kid we have at any stage? We didn't want them.




Razgriz said:


> Blocked for so long..


Remains to be seen. Bet you'll be surprised by how many will block and over rule and these trigger laws won't last. We probably won't get rid of all of them and we do need to fight the ones that are not. Exceptions need to be made. Almost everyone agrees with that.




Razgriz said:


> Already happening.


No it isn't.





Razgriz said:


> The state shouldn't be defining when a person is a person. It's an overreach of their job. Let the individual who is carrying to define how they feel about what is growing inside them. That's what bodily autonomy is.


So why did they define what is a human when it comes to slaves, when it comes to other human rights? It's always laws to enforce them. Even I'd you allow aboritn by law it's forcing others to what they define as human. Be it a different race, faith, sex, or development stage





Razgriz said:


> Much more difficult now given precedence.


Not difficult at all. It's been less then like a month and we already have two states that have radicaly edited their trigger laws or blocked them and their STILL working 

Not a signle state is sitting on its ass just letting this happen.





Razgriz said:


> You're right. Women need to have their rights protected. So they're not just seen as incubators. Or Objects.


And an embyo is not seen as an object with no rights?





Razgriz said:


> As why reproductive rights need to be protected.


You're right toreproduce doesn't over rule anyone's right to live. You're not allowed to kill anyone for it.





Razgriz said:


> The belief that life begins at conception is a narrative being pushed by hardcore Christians. And if they want to believe that. All power to them. It's their right. It is not their right to also impose that belief on other people. Even if you want to believe that life begins at conception. THe idea of personhood and where that comes into play is still a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Go right ahead and believe it. .


Look at the research paper I linked. 95% of biolgist who are atheist agree life begins at conception. Faith plays no part in their statement.

The same logic saying personhood is a philosophical one can be used to say a black person isn't human. You won't tell people to go ahead and do it and act on their belief. You would intervene. 





Razgriz said:


> Reproductive rights are human rights.


Yup. I still can't kill a husband so I can sleep with his wife. My rights don't over rule anyone else's. 



Razgriz said:


> There's already states at war with each other on extradition should a state that has it banned want to prosecute.





Should the republicans gain control. It will be. And might be some form of christofacist horseshit in the process.
[/QUOTE] provide proof.
In no other case can someone who goes to a state that allows something be extradition for crimes
Smoking weed in a legal state there is no case to charge them
Laws only apply IN the state
It's why it was possible to outlaw slaves in some states and not others.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

I'm not going to go through all this shit again. You're just making the same bad faith arguments over and over and over.


Also about your research paper:



> The brief, coordinated by a University of Chicago graduate student in comparative human development, Steven Andrew Jacobs, is based on a problematic piece of research Jacobs conducted. He now seeks to enter it into the public record to influence U.S. law.
> 
> First, Jacobs carried out a survey, supposedly representative of all Americans, by seeking potential participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing marketplace and accepting all 2,979 respondents who agreed to participate. He found that most of these respondents trust biologists over others – including religious leaders, voters, philosophers and Supreme Court justices – to determine when human life begins.
> 
> ...


not all science papers are worth the same...









Defining when human life begins is not a question science can answer – it's a question of politics and ethical values


Some people seeking to influence public opinion about abortion rights claim the science is clear. It’s not, and that means abortion remains a political question – not a biological one.




theconversation.com





If you're going to continue to choose to compare zygotes and embryos and fetuses to slaves. There's no reason to talk further. You're not going to get it.


.... my favorite part...



> In the end, *just 70 of those 60,000-plus biologists supported Jacobs’ legal argument enough to sign the amicus brief*, which makes a companion argument to the main case. That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science.


----------



## Irish Jet (Nov 15, 2011)

kentl said:


> Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'
> 
> 
> Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The
> ...


I imagine you'd probably get a similar consensus on whether a tumour is alive - Which by these same standards it absolutely would be.

I guess we shouldn't remove those either. #Savethetumours


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Irish Jet said:


> I imagine you'd probably get a similar consensus on whether a tumour is alive - Which by these same standards it absolutely would be.
> 
> I guess we shouldn't remove those either. #Savethetumours


Read the article.
They give reasons why an embyo is different then a toumor 

The difference is the embyo has unique dna (not the mothers) and the child that is born has the same DNA and cells. Nothing in a human dna or cells. The building block of life, changes. Er go there is no "change" in to a human.










Are cancers newly evolved species?


Molecular biologist Peter Duesberg’s theory that cancer results from chromosome disruption rather than a few gene mutations has led him to propose that cancers are actually evolving into auto…




news.berkeley.edu





Further more, you can leave a tomour alone for ever, it doesn't grow to be you or I. 
The fact thay embyos grow in to us mean they are us. That's what life is, growing and changing.



Razgriz said:


> I'm not going to go through all this shit again. You're just making the same bad faith arguments over and over and over.
> 
> 
> Also about your research paper:
> ...


It's. It bad faith. You just refuse to answer it.
You are saying something with human dna (same as the slaves, same as you, same as all.humams) is not human and its not the same cause? Cause you say it's not human.

Read your own article 
"While possibly well-intentioned, this appeal to scientific authority and evidence over discussions of people’s values is based on faulty reasoning." It's saying we shouldn't use science to decode when life starts. Despite mine showing over 80% of people saying biolgist are the most qualified to awnser the question.
Showing they want the science 

"In the end, just 70 of those 60,000-plus biologists supported Jacobs’ legal argument enough to sign the amicus brief, which makes a companion argument to the main case. That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science.:
That's saying while they admit life begins at fertilization they don't want it to dictate laws. 

They know life begins then
.they don't think it matters.
Just like plenty knew slaves were humans and they still denied them.

"The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human." Is not true. Life has a start point. Believe plays no part in it. Just like belief plays no part in any other human right.

Nothing changes in the dna or the cells to make something turn in to human after the fact
Cells multiplying, that's what they do. The fact it's less doesn't make it human. It's dna and multiply of those cells prove its alive

Cells don't multiply id their not alive. And the dna marks them as human. 

The reason I'm using slaves so much is its the EXACT same argument. You point out diffinces and say "how can that be human?" 
Trying to diclasy it as a lesser thing. It's 100% the exact same thing


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Humans 500 years from now might look back on this period in history and see the debate thusly:

Side A: A mother should be able to destroy hee unborn child up until it crawls out of the vagina. Crush its skull and suck out its brains with a vacuum. That's fine.

Side B: Once a child is conceived, we shouldn't kill it unless in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother.

The people who think they're the good guys might not actually be the good guys.

I've been pro-abortion my whole adult life by the way.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Strike Force said:


> Humans 500 years from now might look back on this period in history and see the debate thusly:
> 
> Side A: A mother should be able to destroy hee unborn child up until it crawls out of the vagina. Crush its skull and suck out its brains with a vacuum. That's fine.
> 
> ...



You're forgetting about the stat that the only people who really abort in the third trimester are in situations where the unborn is not going to survive outside of the womb. Or stillbirth. Or if it is going to kill the person carrying it.



kentl said:


> Read your own article
> "While possibly well-intentioned, this appeal to scientific authority and evidence over discussions of people’s values is based on faulty reasoning." It's saying we shouldn't use science to decode when life starts. Despite mine showing over 80% of people saying biolgist are the most qualified to awnser the question.
> Showing they want the science





Read my article...

This is absolutely a criticism of your paper you posted. 

let me highlight this again

*That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football*


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Read my article...
> 
> This is absolutely a criticism of your paper you posted.
> 
> ...


Still flawed, First, no one is saying 100% agree.
So that's not fair to say at all.
2nd think yoy don't understand how surveys work.

All surveys sent out to WAY more people then those who awnser. That's nothing new. You'll never find a survey with a 100% awnser rate or even close to a majority.

That's how all surveys are done. People will not reply, people will forget to send, others don't want to bother, etc

When he sent it out over 5000 biologists agreed it begins at conception 

Find me ANY other study that shows that many says it doesn't.
That's how all statics and polls work and it's a proven method. 
You'll never get 100% on board.









Frequently Asked Questions


Why am I never asked to take a poll? You have roughly the same chance of being polled as anyone else living in the United States. This chance, however, is




www.pewresearch.org





Them being biologists makes them the most likely to understand what life is. 
No matter how many times you say it. "What is and isn't life" isn't a philosophical question

People who claimed blacks, non European people, native America's were not "people " were wrong. For a fact.
There is a fact for what is right and wrong here. (I'll even say I COULD be wrong, the point how ever is its not something that everyone can decide on their own) there is one solid awnser just like all other questions of "are they really human" thatan kind has asked through the years


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

5000 of 60 thousand surveys.

That's 1/12th of all surveys sent.

That's hardly a representation.


Also how he came to conclusion that we should be using biologists to look at this is suspect. Biologist is also broad sweeping. 

It's bad methodology built to obfuscate. 

Some might agree "life" starts. but notice there isn't another question of personhood. Because. THe researcher has a pro-life bias too. 


The paper is a farce. And unscientific.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Strike Force said:


> Humans 500 years from now might look back on this period in history and see the debate thusly:
> 
> Side A: A mother should be able to destroy hee unborn child up until it crawls out of the vagina. Crush its skull and suck out its brains with a vacuum. That's fine.
> 
> ...


Side A: A woman gets to decide with her doctor what is best for her healthcare without the state handcuffing doctors with draconian laws.

Side B: Once a child is conceived, the mother has less value and right than before. The unborn child is priceless, the child is not worth after birth.

Why wait 500 years when 50 years from now even more people will look at how stupid forcing birth on women is?


----------



## Hangman (Feb 3, 2017)

Isn't it amazing the 'my body, my choicers' of today were the same ones for the last two years trying to force people to take the Poison Poke 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> 5000 of 60 thousand surveys.
> 
> That's 1/12th of all surveys sent.
> 
> ...


So what do yoy think os an acceptable amount of polls sent out unawnserd? 
You can't force or control who awnaers. There is always gonna be a lot who don't awnser, doesn't mean anything.
We poll people about politics all the time. MILLIONS don't awnser and yet it's still proven to be effective at determining things regardless of a low persnt of people taking part.

Repsebtation doesn't require 50% of all asked to awnser the whole point of polls is to send a fuck ton more then you need so that you do get a high number.
The reason he did biolgist is cause most people he polled agree biolgist would have the best awnser 

People don't agree that "where life begins" is up for interpretation. Even your side doesn't actually agree. You out right DEMAND that life can't possibly count in till its viable. 

Both sides have a stance, both can't be right, this is not a "we all have our opinions"

As for personhood, that's the same thing. What's to stop someone else from claiming personhood doesn't exist in blacks? Or 3rd world country's? Tribes that have been untouched by others are not really "people " a child who doesn't develop social skills isn't really a "person"

When it comes to what is and is not a human there is no "up to each individual" there has to be one and only one awnser.
Again YOU could be right, but we both can't be and it's not possible to "just let each person deciee" cause then that allows racist and others to claim someone isn't a person cause they don't have x.

If a new human type comes form mutation (say something like mutants from x men) then person hood could be used to say they don't really count.

Person hood is just another way to limit who is and isn't "really human" one side had to be wrong no other way around it

Further more what defines a "person" can change.
I.e native Americans were seen as savages and often times counted as wild animals by many European people. Their belief of what counts as personhood has no actual effect and the native Americans were people regardless of what they felt

Very slippery slope using "person hood" to say who is and isn't human

Do children born with no personality count as people? Their body works just fine but the Socail and other need things don't. Do they lose their rights?
A lot of times person hood is lead to viable on own. So if we ever get to a time where a embyo can be removed form the mother and grow qith no issues does it then and only then become murder?


----------



## Lenny Leonard (Dec 17, 2016)

Hangman said:


> Isn't it amazing the 'my body, my choicers' of today were the same ones for the last two years trying to force people to take the Poison Poke 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️


Didn't realize you can catch a virus that could potentially kill you or spread to others by being around pregnant people. Anti vax dumbass


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Side A: A woman gets to decide with her doctor what is best for her healthcare without the state handcuffing doctors with draconian laws.
> 
> Side B: Once a child is conceived, the mother has less value and right than before. The unborn child is priceless, the child is not worth after birth.
> 
> Why wait 500 years when 50 years from now even more people will look at how stupid forcing birth on women is?


While this is also possible it's not for sure

The exact same argument was used for women rights, slaves, and LGBT
Each time it came up they claimed that the future would see their point of view as right.

Your point of view discredits the child's body entirely acting like it doesn't matter. Will that be accepted in 50 years? 500?
It's entirely possible in 500 years we see it as wrong to do many things we do now

Human rights always seem like "obviously we are correct" at the time. No one ever thinks their in the wrong when it comes to their views of human rights.


----------



## Hangman (Feb 3, 2017)

Lenny Leonard said:


> Didn't realize you can catch a virus that could potentially kill you or spread to others by being around pregnant people. Anti vax dumbass


How's the ol' ticker? Need a booster champ? 😆😆😆🤡🤡🤡


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

Hangman said:


> How's the ol' ticker? Need a booster champ? 😆😆😆🤡🤡🤡


You're being extremely rude. Have some respect or be banned from the thread. It's genuinely disgusting you find this funny.

Grow up


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> So what do yoy think os an acceptable amount of polls sent out unawnserd?
> You can't force or control who awnaers. There is always gonna be a lot who don't awnser, doesn't mean anything.
> We poll people about politics all the time. MILLIONS don't awnser and yet it's still proven to be effective at determining things regardless of a low persnt of people taking part.
> 
> ...



This is all very farcical because you make "the unborn" like their very own class of people.. its buzzword-y and makes this issue seem very black and white.

You even do it because youve taken to the idea and characterized the person carrying as like "pssh" dont want it. You do what all pro-lifers do and create this person who is uncaring and dismissive. 

Every person who goes to a clinic has a story to tell. And its not the same story. Theyre all different. Its sensitive, its heartbreaking at times. Its a major decison that really isnt taken lightly.

-----------


Why arent you pushing for mandatory vasecectomies? If you want to take peoples autonomy away for 40 weeks so that they have to carry a child to term? You know what would suddenly prevent life? Everyone with the ability to produce sperm as they reach puberty gets a mandatory vascetomy. Theyre reversible, and when theyre ready to have kids. They can just get the procedure undone.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> This is all very farcical because you make "the unborn" like their very own class of people.. its buzzword-y and makes this issue seem very black and white.
> 
> You even do it because youve taken to the idea and characterized the person carrying as like "pssh" dont want it. You do what all pro-lifers do and create this person who is uncaring and dismissive.
> 
> ...


#1 you make blacks like their own class of people, you make tribal as their class like their own kind of people. The same logic was used to dehumanizing other people all the time.
#2 human rights are black and white. Slavery is and has always been wrong. Denying women the same right as men is and has always been wrong. 
#3 we don't let anyone's story allow them to kill their kid after birth. Even if the life will absolutely suck, even if they can't afford to care for them we say "no they shouldn't be killed" 

#4 because I'm not killing anyone else. If men could get pregnant then they would be the ones unable to just abort. With pregnancy you're NOT the only one with human rights. 

A vasectomy goes against their rights cause no other person is involved. Further more vasectomy are not "reversible always" and even then the longer you wait to reverse the less likely its successful. 

Sex is not more important then a life. You don't have free reign to have sex and kill anyone that comes from it. A man can't go and kill his child a women shouldn't be able to either.

The issue is you're putting a women's "need" to have sex for pleasure and fun as more important then life and others have to take steps so women cam have sex without risk
Not how things work.
If you have sex and a kid comes form ot both parents have made this kid they can't just kill it cause they don't want it.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

You'd rather take someone's autonomy away for 40 weeks. THat will irreversibly change this person's life and body. Because the potential for life is gestating in someone. You give fuckall to the person who has to carry. And you make carrying a kid as some form of "consequence" because sex happened at some point of time. 

If you were so gung ho about not creating unwanted life. The other option is less harmful. In fact there is several versions of birth controls that those who produce sperm can take and prevent them from doing so. They don't even have to go in and snip anything anymore. There's a gel or something that blocks any spurts that just hasn't gotten FDA approval yet. 

---------

As for not irreversible. 

You said it yourself sex is not more important than a life. So why should we care that a guy can't produce sperm anymore? You want to irreversibly fuck up women's bodies. And also make them carry around something for 40 weeks for... ideology. 

-------

There are numerous ways that we can do to prevent "unwanted life". Women's birth control, men's birth control. Better education. ALLL of these things do more to prevent what you want to prevent than banning abortion. 

If your premise here is that you want to prevent in your eyes "life". All of these including mandatory vasectomies would be on the table first. Because you would understand what childbirth does to women.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You'd rather take someone's autonomy away for 40 weeks. THat will irreversibly change this person's life and body. Because the potential for life is gestating in someone. You give fuckall to the person who has to carry. And you make carrying a kid as some form of "consequence" because sex happened at some point of time.


Killing someone also irreversible effects their life...
It's not potential for life. It is life. Life doesn't have to reach a certain level to count
40 weeks is nothing compared to eternity 

Why are the effects on her life more important thenba less developed human? Where else do we allow that distinction? No where, cause it's wrong.

I care about them, just not more then any other life which is what the embyo is 


Razgriz said:


> If you were so gung ho about not creating unwanted life. The other option is less harmful. In fact there is several versions of birth controls that those who produce sperm can take and prevent them from doing so. They don't even have to go in and snip anything anymore. There's a gel or something that blocks any spurts that just hasn't gotten FDA approval yet.


And people are free to use those to try to prevent life from forming. The moment it does it should be put of their hands as the child has as much right as the women and wasn't the one that forced it



Razgriz said:


> As for not irreversible.
> 
> You said it yourself sex is not more important than a life. So why should we care that a guy can't produce sperm anymore? You want to irreversibly fuck up women's bodies. And also make them carry around something for 40 weeks for... ideology.


Same reason we care about the women, body auntomy. The difference here is men have no one else involved in their action. Abortin does.

Sex is not more important, meaning you can't kill anyone just to have sex with out repucusions 
Sex isn't a causal thing, it creates life. No getting around that. If you have sex and it makes life their rights are active.





Razgriz said:


> There are numerous ways that we can do to prevent "unwanted life". Women's birth control, men's birth control. Better education. ALLL of these things do more to prevent what you want to prevent than banning abortion.


No it won't. Pelnty of people "forget" mess, get lost in "passion" people constantly forget 

I'm all for birth control etc to stop the life forming. It's stopping it once it's been made is the issue.




Razgriz said:


> If your premise here is that you want to prevent in your eyes "life". All of these including mandatory vasectomies would be on the table first. Because you would understand what childbirth does to women.


Except ad I've said a million times quality of life has no effevt on life.
A women who never fears the pain of childbirth is not more "alive" then a women who did

Suffering and pain don't discredit life nor should they. We don't allow anyone to kill anyone cause "life sucks" 
I get what it does to them. You know what sex does to humans? It gives life to them. 
A women's pleasure during sex is not more important then the life aex created.

Nor is a man's pleasure


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

you know your argument that because there are poorer kids in africa that it shouldn't matter that people are poor here... is the same argument that people use against women when they fight for women's rights?

Many more women are far more oppressed in other places. So they should just suck it up and stop shooting for equality here. 

It's a bad argument. Poverty is pretty fucking shitty regardless of where it is. 

----------------------------------------

You're out of touch. You don't know what poverty is like. You don't know what goes in the heads of individuals who are confronted with abortion. You think of people as caricatures to fit your narrative. Your understanding of humanity is flawed. 

You bend over backward because of ideology, and are willing to be authoritarian to half of the population to preserve this idea of "life" in your head. 

-------------

Lets also add in that you're willing to make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies. Or in the case of Rape. That means that at some point in time you do place the life of the mother over the idea of life she's carrying. SO it's situational? 

Lets go farther. What if her boyfriend would kill her if she carried out the pregnancy? Are you going to make that exception too? Now you have 2 deaths on your hands according to you. 

How far is your concern for the life of the mother for you 


-------------------------


Also I know what the fuck I'm talking about when I say contraceptives and better education do more to prevent abortion than banning abortion. I live in colorado. The national leader in preventing unintended pregnancy. We'd do more to proliferate contraceptives. And develop male birth control and get it out onto the market to prevent more unintended pregnancy than any type of ban on abortion. 

Because it is seen as a last resort. No one wants to really be put in that position. 

Wait... are you against "plan b" too?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> you know your argument that because there are poorer kids in africa that it shouldn't matter that people are poor here... is the same argument that people use against women when they fight for women's rights?
> 
> Many more women are far more oppressed in other places. So they should just suck it up and stop shooting for equality here.
> 
> It's a bad argument. Poverty is pretty fucking shitty regardless of where it is.


Same logic applies rhe other way.

Regardless of what life they have you agree we shouldn't just murder kids, even I'd their unwanted, unloved. You wouldn't agree that unwanted kids could be shot up and killed

Bad argument cause in no other scenario does it justify killing someone 



Razgriz said:


> You're out of touch. You don't know what poverty is like. You don't know what goes in the heads of individuals who are confronted with abortion. You think of people as caricatures to fit your narrative. Your understanding of humanity is flawed.


Was honeless multiple times as a kid, lived in provity, had to rely on others kindness. Didn't negate my life at any point.
Plenty of life struggles, it never invalidates life.

Just cause these kids didn't get to grow up to say you were wrong doesn't mean you were right.



I do know cause my mom thought about it. The issue is when their thinking about it 

A. It's an assumption. Any parent who thinks their life will have x kind of life is often wrong. Regardless of what they think they can't actually know what type of life so their making a choice for the child on something they can't and don't know
B. Even if life is rough it's still never allowed any other time of human development so why allow it then.



Razgriz said:


> You bend over backward because of ideology, and are willing to be authoritarian to half of the population to preserve this idea of "life" in your head.


News flash, way more embyos and fetues are killed then half the people in America so you're actually the one who is being authoritatin to more then half the population by saying those more develops decides who lives or dies

Your view of life's do the same thing mine does. It forces people to follow something they don't belive in.

You forsake those you do this consider "life" and there is way more of them then there are women in America let alone women that get pregnant, and want an aboritn.




Razgriz said:


> Lets also add in that you're willing to make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies. Or in the case of Rape. That means that at some point in time you do place the life of the mother over the idea of life she's carrying. SO it's situational?


Yes. Just like I don't think shooting someone cause u don't want them around or they'll inconvince my life 
But shooting someone cause their killing your child? 



Razgriz said:


> Lets go farther. What if her boyfriend would kill her if she carried out the pregnancy? Are you going to make that exception too? Now you have 2 deaths on your hands according to you.


What if the boyfriend kills him self cause his child was taken away? Does the death go on the mothers hands? No? Huh, funny how that works.


Razgriz said:


> How far is your concern for the life of the mother for you


She has a right to her body, she does not have the right to kill someone after making them..
Her actions put another body against their will dependent on her. If she was a doctor and surgery attached someone to her the other person doesn't loss rights and she keeps hers. Same applies here

A mother can't kill any other stage of her child development nothing changes dramatically enough to make them "not human" before and after brith.






Razgriz said:


> Also I know what the fuck I'm talking about when I say contraceptives and better education do more to prevent abortion than banning abortion. I live in colorado. The national leader in preventing unintended pregnancy. We'd do more to proliferate contraceptives. And develop male birth control and get it out onto the market to prevent more unintended pregnancy than any type of ban on abortion.


And I have no problem with using birth control before the life is brought in to the world.
My point is all the edcuationnand all the birth control in the world won't stop women for abortin for various reasons 
"I'm not ready"
"I can't afford it"
All of these in no other circumstance makes it okay to kill another human.

Also a lot of those staticis count aboritns as a from of birth control, if yoy take away abortin how successful are the other forms alone?






Razgriz said:


> Wait... are you against "plan b" too?


I am. Once the unique dna and cells are implace they are human, nothing about them makes them "not human" as said a million times development doesnt dictate how human you are


----------



## RWPunk (Oct 16, 2017)

The Democrats screwed this up just as much as the Republicans did. Roe vs. Wade should've been turned into law a long time ago. I don't believe in abortion except for the few exceptions but the Democrats really screwed up on letting this happen. 50 years to have it lawfully be a right and they let it slip. Wasn't this one of the first things Obama was suppose to do when he went into his first term? At this point both parties are only in it for their only greedy interests and not the people.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

My state of Florida made abortions legal here so fuck you Supreme Court.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

> am. Once the unique dna and cells are implace they are human, nothing about them makes them "not human" as said a million times development doesnt dictate how human you are


Now I know you're trolling. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until about the 5th or 6th week. Basically russian roulette. Fuck at your own risk and even if you use contraceptives you still automatically have to surrender your life. Because of a mistake.

Hows that for autonomy. Please do go have sex but if a condom breaks. Or if some fuckface stealths you. (which by the way is not seen as rape in 49 other states). And you get pregnant from it.... You must carry the thing to term. 

Also since the guy isn't the one carrying... gets off scott free.. because controlling him is somehow disrupting their personal autonomy.. 


Get the fuck out of here.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Now I know you're trolling. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until about the 5th or 6th week. Basically russian roulette. Fuck at your own risk and even if you use contraceptives you still automatically have to surrender your life. Because of a mistake.


Yeah having a kid is a mistake
.. so why can't we kill any kids at anytime?
As for being pregnant there are literally women who give BIRTH not knowing they were pregnant. Does that mean the child could've been killed 5 mins before it comes out?
Knowledge of life doesn't dictate life either.
If a women is 24 weeks pregnant (unknown to her) and a man kills her he'll get double murder charges (as he should)


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> While this is also possible it's not for sure
> 
> The exact same argument was used for women rights, slaves, and LGBT
> Each time it came up they claimed that the future would see their point of view as right.
> ...


Except many on your side of the argument is still actively fighting against the rights for women, LGBT and labor. This is such a duplicitous position for you to take in this argument when you are ignoring the rights of women in this very moment. I don't know what your objective is here, but you are making the forced-birth side look worse with every post you make in here.



Buffy The Vampire Slayer said:


> My state of Florida made abortions legal here so fuck you Supreme Court.


Eh it was only one judge. DeSantis is still pushing for Florida's state supreme court to rule in favor of a ban on all abortions after 15 weeks.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Yeah having a kid is a mistake
> .. so why can't we kill any kids at anytime?
> As for being pregnant there are literally women who give BIRTH not knowing they were pregnant. Does that mean the child could've been killed 5 mins before it comes out?
> Knowledge of life doesn't dictate life either.
> If a women is 24 weeks pregnant (unknown to her) and a man kills her he'll get double murder charges (as he should)


See. Still trolling.

We can't kill kids because we see them as people after a certain point of development. We've accepted them as people because they exist post-natal.

The difference between giving birth and the 5th or 6th week is that most don't they are pregnant by the 5th or 6th... there will be no signals. No way to know. As far as their body is concerned they have not a fucking clue. Because it hasn't developed enough to know. No pregnancy test will signal in that time. You've just created an impossible dilemma. For someone who seems to be okay with people willing to have sex. You also leave no margin for error. Where there will always will be. 

Where there should be.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> See. Still trolling.
> 
> We can't kill kids because we see them as people after a certain point of development. We've accepted them as people because they exist post-natal.
> 
> ...


So when people saw slaves as not people they were okay to be killed?
I'm not trolling I just disagree with your view and all the double standards you set.

Whats to stop form someone claiming you have to have conscious thought (something you don't get till 5 months after brith)
Also why would "life begins" be dictated by technology level? A child in America is alive before a child in a third world country? I can't see how circumstances dictate what counts as a life. If a pregnant women goes certain places that means the child went form alive to not? After all no one there can keep a fetues that young alive.

I get they don't know, but as I said we never let not knowing be an excuse for murder.
Women sometimes don't know their pregnant their entire pregnancy so why would them knowing matter?

It's not a Delima, they can use birth control that doesn't target embyos
Basically after sex is to late for birth control cause the child could be in them. Them not knowing doesnt mean the child isn't there.

Yours and others "what is human" doesn't dictate what is and isn't human. If tomorrow a group rises up and takes over America and claims anyone who doesn't have x is human it's the same logic you use.

You use temelogiy that doesn't match, you claim them not knowing means it can't "count" (even though women give birth not knowing)
You claim that life only counts when its viable on its own and not dependent on others (dispite many conjoined twins require one another and both are alive.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

Buffy The Vampire Slayer said:


> My state of Florida made abortions legal here so fuck you Supreme Court.


It seems the judge is appealing to a right to privacy in Florida's constitution and using a reasoning quite similar to that of Roe. As mentioned DeSantis will no doubt push against it. Will be interesting to see how it goes, it may not hold.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, what you are seeing is very much how they said the system would work now, it is left to the states and their representatives.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Except many on your side of the argument is still actively fighting against the rights for women, LGBT and labor. This is such a duplicitous position for you to take in this argument when you are ignoring the rights of women in this very moment. I don't know what your objective is here, but you are making the forced-birth side look worse with every post you make in here.


Many who fought for free slaves hated gays.
Many who fought for women rights thought it should only apply to white women.

History is full of people fighting the right thing while still believing in wrong things.
Think about it in till what early 2000s alnost NO one was actively compain for gay rights in any meanful way

We had huge protest for septate rights at seprate times. 

It's entire possible to have bad views and be right on one view.

When they freed slaves they were right, even if they saw women ad 2nd class citizens 
When they gave black people equal rights they were right even if they thought all gaya should go to he'll.
When we fought for gay rights they were right even if they didn't fight for Trans right (LGBT is newer for a long time gay/less was on its own)

I'm saying right now you're doing the same thing. You're fighting for the rights of what you see as "human" and ignoring what you think is less then human.

History says we've never been right when we claim something isn't human. What makes this any difference?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Many who fought for free slaves hated gays.
> Many who fought for women rights thought it should only apply to white women.
> 
> History is full of people fighting the right thing while still believing in wrong things.
> ...


Seems like a lot of words to excuse to still be fighting against the rights of all the other groups of PEOPLE.

I am not doing the same thing. You are guilty of enabling people doing what you claim I am doing. Such a troll. Yes I think a fetus is less than human because they are. You think a woman is less than human because why? This is different because a fetus is not yet a human. An embryo isn't yet a human. How shameless do you have to be to compare groups of living breathing people to something not yet human?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Seems like a lot of words to excuse to still be fighting against the rights of all the other groups of PEOPLE.
> 
> I am not doing the same thing. You are guilty of enabling people doing what you claim I am doing. Such a troll. Yes I think a fetus is less than human because they are. You think a woman is less than human because why? This is different because a fetus is not yet a human. An embryo isn't yet a human. How shameless do you have to be to compare groups of living breathing people to something not yet human?


How is "I think fstues are leas then humans cause they are" any different then I think "blacks are less then humans cause they are"

You're using your own defiend view of what a "real human" is to say something different then you isn't human. 
That's exactly what evrey human right violation happens. 

I don't think women are not human. I think their rights don't over right a human they forced in to them 
What makes something human? 

Do you think a tadpol and a frog are not the same thing? When they grow up their no longer the same entity?
A tadpol can't breathe air like a frog can, it develop it later. It's just a different part of its life.

Life doesn't require you to have evreything developed before you "count"


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> How is "I think fstues are leas then humans cause they are" any different then I think "blacks are less then humans cause they are"
> 
> You're using your own defiend view of what a "real human" is to say something different then you isn't human.
> 
> ...


Yes a tadpole is not yet a frog. What else you got?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Yes a tadpole is not yet a frog. What else you got?


They are the same entity. It doesn't "die" and "not alive" cause it doesn't have the ability 6o breath air on its own

A tadpol is a baby frog just like a baby is a baby human
Nothing says the baby of something has to be developed to x amount to count
No other animal do we claim isn't alive to its final metamorphosis so why do we do that with humans?









The Frog Life Cycle for Kids - National Geographic Kids


From tiny tadpole to bouncing adult, we're learning all about the transformation that takes frogspawn to frog! Discover the frog life cycle




www.natgeokids.com




Hope this helps you
See where it says frog life cycle?

Kermit the tadpole doesn't "die" for Kermit the frog to come "alive" same creature the entire way. Just a different stage of life.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> They are the same entity. It doesn't "die" and "not alive" cause it doesn't have the ability 6o breath air on its own
> 
> A tadpol is a baby frog just like a baby is a baby human
> Nothing says the baby of something has to be developed to x amount to count
> No other animal do we claim isn't alive to its final metamorphosis so why do we do that with humans?


A tadpole is a tadpole. A baby frog is a baby frog. A fetus is not a baby.

Humans do not undergo metamorphosis as far as I know. But I am open to learning more about biology if I am mistaken.

Try harder.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> A tadpole is a tadpole. A baby frog is a baby frog. A fetus is not a baby.
> 
> Humans do not undergo metamorphosis as far as I know. But I am open to learning more about biology if I am mistaken.
> 
> Try harder.


You do know there are no "baby frogs" right? ... frogs don't start as frogs they go through many stages before reaching frog part of the cycle. They don't have to wait till they get to frog status to count. 

Metamorphosis isn't the correct word, what I mean is an animal undergoing a great change and changes what it needs to live.









Human Life Cycle: Introduction, Life Cycle, FAQs


Human beings are culture-based species that fall under the genus **** and the family Hominidae. In appearance, humans are physically similar to the apes




byjus.com





Human life cycle includes the development stage


Why would something "developing" not count? 
Humans don't stop developing in till way later in life what makes your stop point the right one?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> You do know there are no "baby frogs" right? ... frogs don't start as frogs they go through many stages before reaching frog part of the cycle. They don't have to wait till they get to frog status to count.
> 
> Metamorphosis isn't the correct word, what I mean is an animal undergoing a great change and changes what it needs to live.
> 
> ...


Baby frogs are tiny frogs no?

It doesn't count because they are simply not yet human. How much more clear do I need to make it? My stop point might not be the right one, but I want the individual mother to get to decide which is the right stop point for her.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Baby frogs are tiny frogs no?
> 
> It doesn't count because they are simply not yet human. How much more clear do I need to make it? My stop point might not be the right one, but I want the individual mother to get to decide which is the right stop point for her.


No... baby frogs are literally tadpoles 

Tadpoles develop in to frogs. Tadpoles are a Laveel state of a frog. Much like the embyo is a state of the human

Is Kermit the frog and Kermit the tadpole two different creatures? Does Kermit the Tadpoles "not exist" and doesn't count?

What are the requirements to be human? Who gets to decide? What makes you so sure you're right on your placement?
Do you think a mother 39 weeks pregnant cam decide to kill the child?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> So when people saw slaves as not people they were okay to be killed?
> I'm not trolling I just disagree with your view and all the double standards you set.
> 
> Whats to stop form someone claiming you have to have conscious thought (something you don't get till 5 months after brith)
> ...



You're basically saying that after sex every woman should just assume she has no rights anymore. Hows that for individual freedoms and rights.

You keep saying that people have freedoms and rights. But you're apt to just take away someone's rights for this idea that "life" exists inside someone. Is it really murder? I've eaten a chicken egg that was just fertilized. Still came out scrambled eggs. 

Why is the just fertilized egg more important than the person who is living? I know you keep saying that their lives are equal. But there is no equality here. It's the mother or the fetus. You either choose that the person who just got impregnated has a right to their body and for them to make their own choices. Or you don't. And you believe that this person has to be forced to birth. 

And everytime you come up fetus. You've reduced this person down to an incubator because of this idea of the sanctity of life. 

Why is this sanctity of life more important than the woman who already exists? 

You've agreed several times that if the woman's life is in danger you're okay for pregnancy to be terminated. Why not let them make choices about what they want to do with the possibility of bringing someone else into this world?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

These companies are paying for abortion travel


Bellwethers from finance, technology and retail industries are bankrolling workers who need to access reproductive services.




www.cbsnews.com





It's nice to see some common sense from companies on this; abortion is healthcare and should be covered as such.

@kentl still at it with the gish galloping, hilarious.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You're basically saying that after sex every woman should just assume she has no rights anymore. Hows that for individual freedoms and rights.
> 
> You keep saying that people have freedoms and rights. But you're apt to just take away someone's rights for this idea that "life" exists inside someone. Is it really murder? I've eaten a chicken egg that was just fertilized. Still came out scrambled eggs.


You do kill the chicken inside. (Of their is one) a developing life is still life. To grow and change it has to be alive. But we don't mind killing chickens anyways so it's not a issue.

Plus the way chickens work most eggs don't have babies in them. In fact now days eggs we eat specficly don't have the chick in them









Facts and Myths about Fertilized Eggs | The Chicken Chick®


There are a few common misconceptions about fertilized eggs that I hope to clear up in this article, but first, it is important to understand the differences between fertilized and unfertilized eggs as well as incubated and un-incubated fertilized eggs. UNFERTILIZED EGGS A hen must mate with a ...




the-chicken-chick.com




.

In till the embyo is there it's not alive but even if it was we kill chickens of all ages all the time.



Razgriz said:


> Why is the just fertilized egg more important than the person who is living? I know you keep saying that their lives are equal. But there is no equality here. It's the mother or the fetus. You either choose that the person who just got impregnated has a right to their body and for them to make their own choices. Or you don't. And you believe that this person has to be forced to birth.


Their equal which means who gets to keep their right? You go with the more developed, I go with the one that didn't take a direct action to force it self in this situation. 
They have a right to their own body you're ignoring the other person's rights

If a gorwn man attaches a new born to his body the child imo retiajs their right over the man. Cause the man took actions to make this happen. It doesn't matter that the man is more developed.


Razgriz said:


> And everytime you come up fetus. You've reduced this person down to an incubator because of this idea of the sanctity of life.


Not true at all. Forcing parents to care for child's any other stage of life isn't seen as bad.

If a women is somewhere where she can't get formula or any other type of food we FORCE her to feed the child. Use her body to keep it alive. Just saying "I don't want to use my body to keep it alive" will save them from a murder charge 


Razgriz said:


> Why is this sanctity of life more important than the woman who already exists?


Because you're incorrectly saying "already exists" if they didn't exist there would be no need for abortin 
They clearly exist, when the child comes out all checks will show the exact same building blocks as the embyo and fetues.


Razgriz said:


> You've agreed several times that if the woman's life is in danger you're okay for pregnancy to be terminated. Why not let them make choices about what they want to do with the possibility of bringing someone else into this world?


Same reason I'm okay with someone shooting someone who may kill then and not okay with someone shooting someone they don't like.

If someone may get killed by someone they can kill them.
If a child is just not wanted the mother can not kill them.


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

Crona said:


> These companies are paying for abortion travel
> 
> 
> Bellwethers from finance, technology and retail industries are bankrolling workers who need to access reproductive services.
> ...


Don't be so naive. Travelling to another state for an abortion is cheaper than maternity and/or finding a replacement.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

> Not true at all. Forcing parents to care for child's any other stage of life isn't seen as bad.
> 
> If a women is somewhere where she can't get formula or any other type of food we FORCE her to feed the child. Use her body to keep it alive. Just saying "I don't want to use my body to keep it alive" will save them from a murder charge


Actually.. the people who said that people should just "breast feed their kid" during the shortage had no fucking clue what they were talking about.


Again. You're forcing someone to give birth against their will. You're taking away someone's right to manage themselves


----------



## thatonewwefanguy (Feb 6, 2020)

My opinion on this matter, this was a huge step back for the USA and it's f*cked up politics. Not a very political person, will not be answering if I'm "Right" or "Left",(other than physically going right or left) I don't even know what that means.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> No... baby frogs are literally tadpoles
> 
> Tadpoles develop in to frogs. Tadpoles are a Laveel state of a frog. Much like the embyo is a state of the human
> 
> ...


Yes they are different. Kermit the tadpole exists as a tadpole and not as a frog.

The mother gets to decide. What makes you so sure you're right on yours?

39 weeks pregnancy is such an extreme example that I believe other viable options become available for the mother. Do you think the state get to decide to force a 6 weeks pregnant woman what to do with her body for the next 30+ weeks of her life?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> View attachment 126615


What state is this person in? First off
Almost all states laws have not take effect









Tracking where abortion laws stand in every state


In more than half the states, abortion is now banned or under serious threat




www.theguardian.com




Alabama 
"
In 2019 the Alabama Legislature passed a law that would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison for the provider with no exception made for rape or incest. The only exception would be when the mother’s health is at serious risk." 

Alaska. Legal

Arizona. Won't take effevt for 90 days 








Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich says new state abortion law will go into effect in about 90 days


Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich says a new Arizona law protecting life will go into effect in about 90 days.




www.abc15.com





Arkansas 








The end of Roe v. Wade in Arkansas


The highly anticipated SCOTUS opinion means the end of Roe v. Wade and will effectively make performing abortion a felony in Arkansas.




www.axios.com




Allows exceptions 

California legal
Colorado legal
Connecticut legal
Delaware legal

Florida 








Judge says Florida's 15-week abortion law is unconstitutional | CNN Politics


In a setback for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican lawmakers, a Florida judge has ruled that a new state law banning abortions at 15 weeks is unconstitutional and he intends to block it from taking effect on Friday.




www.cnn.com




"The law would ban abortion at 15 weeks with no exemptions for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, incest or human trafficking. The law would allow for abortions in cases where a pregnancy is "serious risk" to the mother or a if fatal fetal abnormality is detected and two physicians confirm the diagnosis in writing."



Georgia 








What does Georgia's 2019 abortion law HB 481 do?


Abortion is still legal in Georgia up until 20 weeks into a pregnancy, But future court rulings on a 2019 law could drastically limit access.




www.gpb.org




"There are also still exceptions in cases of a medical emergency or when a pregnancy is diagnosed as "medically futile.""

Hawaii legal

Idaho 








Idaho attorney general says abortion ban likely to take effect in late August after SCOTUS decision - Idaho Capital Sun


Idaho passed its trigger law in 2020, and it will take effect in 30 days after the Supreme Court ruling, making abortion a felony.




idahocapitalsun.com




"The law only makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the pregnant person’s life"

Illinois legal

Indiana no current law either way








Indiana poised to limit abortion access after Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade
 

The majority of Republican legislators penned a letter to Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb ahead of the ruling, asking for him to call a special session.



www.indystar.com




They are working on a law but haven't said what will pr won't be added. Either way not currently illegal in this state


Iowa Abortion remains legal in Iowa, but court rulings open the door to more restrictions
Has no trigger law currently
One may go in to affect but is not currently .

Kansas 








Kansans to vote on constitutional amendment regarding abortion rights Aug. 2


On August 2, Kansas voters will decide whether the right to an abortion is protected by the Kansas constitution.




www.kwch.com




Will vote on abortin in Aug
Not currently illegal 

Kentucky 








Kentucky abortion clinics to reopen Friday after judge grants temporary order


An attempt to halt Kentucky's trigger law banning abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. succeeded Thursday.



www.courier-journal.com




"It allows abortions only to save the life of the pregnant patient or to prevent disabling injury."
Even then it's been blocked.

Louisiana 








Louisiana judge blocks abortion ban amid uproar after Roe v Wade ruling


State temporarily blocked from enforcing ban as other US states pass ‘trigger laws’ designed to severely curtail access to abortion




www.theguardian.com




"which contains narrow exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s health"

Maine legal

Maryland legal

Massachusetts legal

Michigan no law currently in place 
In Michigan, abortion could come down to voters in November there is an old one but it's not "active" right now
But even then "such woman,
unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman,"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Nx80yx[/URL]"]Michigan Legislature Error Page
Minasota legal

Mississippi 








Mississippi's only abortion clinic files lawsuit to block trigger law


Shortly after Attorney General Lynn Fitch certified Mississippi's trigger law, the state's only abortion clinic filed a lawsuit to block it.




www.wapt.com




"
The trigger law includes exceptions for some women seeking abortions, including for rape and for the life of the mother"

Missouri 








Missouri AG says state abortion ban does not prohibit Plan B or contraception • Missouri Independent


Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office clarified Wednesday that Plan B and contraception is not prohibited under Missouri law.




missouriindependent.com




"abortions are only permitted in the case of a medical emergency, such as to save the patient’s life.:

Montana Overturn of Roe shifts Montana abortion debates to state courts
Currently allowed. Will be a vote but not illegal now

Nebraska https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/politics/nebraska-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade-cnntv/index.html
They will make a law how ever worth noting a law was put up last month that failed and while they say it's a "total ban" it also allowed medical emergency aboritns "It would have banned abortions without exceptions for rape and incest"








Nebraska GOP governor says he will call a special session to pass total abortion ban if Roe is overturned


Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said Sunday that he will call a special session of his state's legislature to pass a total ban on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this term.




www.cnn.com





Nevada legal

New Hampshire legal

New Jersey legal

New York 

North Carolina When will NC’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks take effect? Legal experts disagree
"North Carolina’s new law said abortions would be illegal after 20 weeks unless there was “substantial risk that the continuance of the pregnancy would threaten the life or gravely impair the health of the woman.”

North Dakota Burgum releases statement on U.S. Supreme Court opinion that returns abortion issue to the states
"The 2007 Legislature passed a law that makes it a Class C felony to perform an abortion in North Dakota except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest."

Ohio Ohio won’t pass abortion ban until after U.S. Supreme Court decision
Not currently illegal but laws are being pushed.

Oklahoma "All abortions are now banned in Oklahoma, except to save a mother’s life, rape or incest. "








Abortion is banned in Oklahoma


Abortion automatically became banned in Oklahoma when Roe v Wade was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.




kfor.com





Oregon legal

Pennsylvania








Abortion is still legal in Pennsylvania—but it’s hanging by a thread | Expert Opinion


A newly proposed constitutional amendment would strip away the right to an abortion in the state, and open the floodgates to criminalizing the procedure.




www.inquirer.com




Currently legal 
Pittsburgh councilman introduces three bills on reproductive rights 
They how ever also have a bill that will protect others who get aboritns form different states.
Remains to be seen but not currently illegal 

Rhoad island legal

South Carolina Federal court rules South Carolina abortion law can go into effect
"If they find a heartbeat, they can only perform an abortion if the woman's life is in danger, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest"


South Dakota Abortion is now illegal in South Dakota. Here's what you need to know.

"unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.""

Tennessee Tennessee 6-week abortion ban can now take effect following court order

"The 2019 law, also known as a trigger ban, includes almost no exceptions in banning abortion in Tennessee. The law places an unusual legal burden on doctors who perform an abortion to save the life of their patients or prevent "irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
Probably one of the stronger ones so far but it's not active yet and just it is not illegal in this state.

Texas https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/abortion-texas
Allows exceptions for the mother and even then currently there is a block that allows abortions 

Utha 
"Utah law says abortions in Utah are only legal if the mother's life is at risk, if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest, or if two physicians who practice "maternal-fetal medicine" both determine that the fetus has a severe defect."








Judge issues restraining order, banning Utah abortion law from taking effect


A Utah judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday, temporarily banning Utah's new abortion law from being enacted. The order is good for 14 days.




www.google.com





Vermont legal 

Virgina no currently law in place. They are working on one but it's Currently legal 


Washington legal

DC legal (they have their own laws)

West virgina
Right now there is no active law, there is an old one but it's dormant
But even then 

"No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable where such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child."








What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean for West Virginia?


The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned Roe v. Wade, removing the federal right to an abortion and leaving the decision up to the states. But how will this change medical care in West…




www.wboy.com





Wisconsin 
There is an old in place but official say they won't enforce it 








AG Kaul says he won't enforce Wisconsin's abortion ban


State's initial ban went into effect in 1849.




spectrumnews1.com




Even then 








Wisconsin's Democratic Attorney General sues to block state's abortion ban


By Todd Richmond, Associated Press MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's Democratic attorney general filed a lawsuit on June 28 challenging the state's 173-year-old abortion ban, arguing that statutes passed ...




pbswisconsin.org




"Wisconsin passed a law in 1849, the year after the territory became a state, banning abortions in every instance except to save the mother's life.

Wyoming








Supreme Court Ruling Means Abortion In Wyoming Will Be Illegal Shortly - Cowboy State Daily


In 35 days or less, Wyoming is slated to outlaw nearly all abortions. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Friday overturning Roe vs. Wade, the clock began ticking on Wyoming’s “trigger law” approved this year banning most abortions.




cowboystatedaily.com




"trigger ban and preexisting statute together would make abortions felonies punishable by up to 14 years in prison except in the case of severe health or death risks, rape and incest"



All 50 errr 51 and nor a single one of their laws are active or say what thos women os claiming happen 

Not saying she wasn't told this. But the fact is it's not illegal and in any state right now she can get aboritn 
(There are a few which haven't set up laws that may change)
But currently her story is impossible except in the case where rhe doctor misunderstood the law.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> View attachment 126630


You'll find no survey. It's all links with actual laws.

Speaking of basis 

Notice how each kept saying "complete ban" of aboritn and yet evrey single one had exceptions? That's a basis.
Also notice how they only wanted to mention what the law DIDNT allow forcing me to track down the actual law?



FriedTofu said:


> Yes they are different. Kermit the tadpole exists as a tadpole and not as a frog.
> 
> The mother gets to decide. What makes you so sure you're right on yours?
> 
> 39 weeks pregnancy is such an extreme example that I believe other viable options become available for the mother. Do you think the state get to decide to force a 6 weeks pregnant woman what to do with her body for the next 30+ weeks of her life?


Does that mean new born friedtofu and current one are not the same person? A lot also changed in you. Nope you're the same. Evreythong about you had changed. Your heart and Brian have since fully developed (provided you're over 25) nothing in your body is what was you when you were born EXCEPT your dna. Which embyos have as well.

Kermit is still Kermit, he just changed significantly. Significant changes don't mean you're not the same person or entity
Going through puberty doesn't make you a new thing, just a new stage of rhe same life. A human life. Same for embyo and fetue
Same logic can be said thay a teenager and a new born are not the same thing and just you're not human in till you're a teen. 

39 weeks is an extremely insane time line but you're whole point is its the women's body and no one else gets to decide. By that logic she can abort at 39 if she wants to
She doesn't need any other reason then she doesn't want to any more. If you say she can't your forcing her to lose control of her body. Even if it's for one more week. She doesn't want to go through birth and she doesn't want any surgery except abortion.

I think the state protects the rights of all humans. Even if multiple people in the state claim someone isn't human




Razgriz said:


> Actually.. the people who said that people should just "breast feed their kid" during the shortage had no fucking clue what they were talking about.
> 
> 
> Again. You're forcing someone to give birth against their will. You're taking away someone's right to manage themselves




You're forcing someone to feed a kid with their body. They don't have another option. It's use her body or the child dies. To young for other food. Formula shortage forced them to pick between her own body and her child's rights to live. Who wins?
Can they just not do it? It's their body after words.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Nothing Finer said:


> Don't be so naive. Travelling to another state for an abortion is cheaper than maternity and/or finding a replacement.


Naïve about what? It's fairly obvious a roughly 20 minute medical procedure is going to cost less than at least one year of maternity leave.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Does that mean new born friedtofu and current one are not the same person? A lot also changed in you. Nope you're the same. Evreythong about you had changed. Your heart and Brian have since fully developed (provided you're over 25) nothing in your body is what was you when you were born EXCEPT your dna. Which embyos have as well.


New born isn't an embryo or fetus.



> Kermit is still Kermit, he just changed significantly. Significant changes don't mean you're not the same person or entity
> Going through puberty doesn't make you a new thing, just a new stage of rhe same life. A human life. Same for embyo and fetue
> Same logic can be said thay a teenager and a new born are not the same thing and just you're not human in till you're a teen.


Kermit the tadpole is still not Kermit the frog.
We don't treat fertilized eggs in fertility clinics as a human life.




> 39 weeks is an extremely insane time line but you're whole point is its the women's body and no one else gets to decide. By that logic she can abort at 39 if she wants to
> She doesn't need any other reason then she doesn't want to any more. If you say she can't your forcing her to lose control of her body. Even if it's for one more week. She doesn't want to go through birth and she doesn't want any surgery except abortion.


Yes it is an extreme example, so if a woman decides to have an early labor and it is medically safe why not? It happens all the time. You are going from this extreme example to another where a woman doesn't want anything but an abortion. After pages after pages of posts, it is clear to anyone reading that you are not serious by bringing up this type of positions.

I am arguing to give the woman options in how to treat her pregnancy. You are indulging in pseudo philosophy to virtue signal about 'value of life' while ignoring the lives of the women carrying these life you claim to care so much about.



> I think the state protects the rights of all humans. Even if multiple people in the state claim someone isn't human


You can believe whatever you want, I disagree with the state getting to criminalize pregnant women instead of protecting their rights.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> New born isn't an embryo or fetus.


And a new born isn't a toddler or an adult.
A different name for a different stage of life that'd all.


FriedTofu said:


> Kermit the tadpole is still not Kermit the frog.
> We don't treat fertilized eggs in fertility clinics as a human life..


And tofu the new born is not tofu the adult

It's just STAGES of life.

We don't treat a lot of things as human life in the past as things we now know are.

Nothing about the new born is magical more human.
Again what is human? At what stage is something "actually human"



FriedTofu said:


> Yes it is an extreme example, so if a woman decides to have an early labor and it is medically safe why not? It happens all the time.


Because she doesn't want to and it's her body?
Women carry to term all the time to. Just cause something "happens all the time" doesn't make it right or force someone to accept that actuib



FriedTofu said:


> You are going from this extreme example to another where a woman doesn't want anything but an abortion. After pages after pages of posts, it is clear to anyone reading that you are not serious by bringing up this type of positions.


I'm very serious. 
You're making made up rules and then getting mad when I bring up possible scenarios in thos rules. 
Just cause a women COULD pick something doesn't mean she will and by evreything you have said she should still have the right to pick.

Unless it ISNT as absolute as you're trying to make it.



FriedTofu said:


> I am arguing to give the woman options in how to treat her pregnancy. You are indulging in pseudo philosophy to virtue signal about 'value of life' while ignoring the lives of the women carrying these life you claim to care so much about.


And so am I claiming it's "crazy" for a women to want to at 39 weeks doesn't mean it's not an option for her.


FriedTofu said:


> You can believe whatever you want, I disagree with the state getting to criminalize pregnant women instead of protecting their rights.


No one has a right to murder someone just cause they dont want them


----------



## thatonewwefanguy (Feb 6, 2020)

kentl said:


> No one has a right to murder someone just cause they dont want them


Even if they were raped into it?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

thatonewwefanguy said:


> Even if they were raped into it?


As said before exceptions for rape should be made.

There is a difference between having sex willingly and saying "I don't want this baby" and being forced in to sex.


A women keeps her rights when her own actions did not lead to the life. But when it does lead to life in no way that k can see is her rights more important then the right of the child.

Just cause a life is "depedent" on you do not invalidate their life

Conjoined twins can't just kill the other one.
A two headed human made by a mad doctor the other human doesn't lose their rights cause someonenelse forced them in to the situation.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Okay so an exception for Rape is made. What is the system or method you're going to use to ensure that this person is just saying that they're raped so that they can terminate the pregnancy vs and actual rape?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Okay so an exception for Rape is made. What is the system or method you're going to use to ensure that this person is just saying that they're raped so that they can terminate the pregnancy vs and actual rape?


The same we make when someone claims they killed in self defense?
The same we make when a women's child dies and their accused of not taking care of it?

In no place in law do we ever just "assume" someone is telling the truth when it comes to killing someone

My idea has and always will be sex should have a contract. They should be signed evreytime before sex. No more assumed consent. As it's nothing but a hassle that can never be "proven"

If need be recorded the damn thing. Just cause it's "inconvince" doesn't make someone's life not worth fighting for and we're better of just letting everyone abort "just incase"


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> The same we make when someone claims they killed in self defense?
> The same we make when a women's child dies and their accused of not taking care of it?
> 
> In no place in law do we ever just "assume" someone is telling the truth when it comes to killing someone
> ...


So basically you're saying that these women are going to have to carry children to term. Because most assaults barely get prosecuted. Also "stealthing" (The act of taking one's condom off while having sex without the other person knowing) is not illegal in most of the country. 


It's amazing how much you want to be in people's bedrooms for someone who believes in bodily autonomy.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

kentl has a dick, which means he shouldn’t be deciding what those with a uterus do in this situation.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Without Roe v. Wade, U.S. Maternal Mortality Rates May Get Even Worse


The U.S. already has a maternal death rate that is much too high




time.com





"fuck those women, we must protect the egg" - some idiot or something..


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> So basically you're saying that these women are going to have to carry children to term. Because most assaults barely get prosecuted. Also "stealthing" (The act of taking one's condom off while having sex without the other person knowing) is not illegal in most of the country.
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much you want to be in people's bedrooms for someone who believes in bodily autonomy.


Many murders don't get prosecuted. Doesn't mean we stop prosecution when they are discovered.
I don't think your body autonomy dictate other people body autonomy 
And since the child didn't force it self in to you they, not you, retain their rights


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/












Less than one-fifth of reported rapes and sexual assaults lead to arrests


Harvey Weinstein’s conviction isn’t the norm for perpetrators of sexual violence.




theconversation.com






"many murders"


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Without Roe v. Wade, U.S. Maternal Mortality Rates May Get Even Worse
> 
> 
> The U.S. already has a maternal death rate that is much too high
> ...


Funny thing is, as said all states allow exceptions for abortins for the mothers life. So any of those could've been aborted.

I'm not saying women's life don't matter. All states allow abortinnto save the mother. So in all of these cases by law they could've aborted.

Plenty of women who abort were in no danger of losing their life. A child shouldn't losse their life cause a mother MAY die
Only if she will.









There’s a nearly 40 percent chance you’ll get away with murder in America


The police’s solve rate is even worse for other crimes.




www.vox.com




40% and that's just the ones they KNOW about how many missing people are dead and murderd and we don't even know they are?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

You missed the point that the mortality rate for pregnant women is already deftly high among developed countries. And not just due to complications with the pregnancy. Because... you know.. have to be healthy yourself to have a pregnancy...

At this point not all states have banned. And there are still laws to be settled. So the current uptick isnt going to be drastic. But it still is going to trend in another direction.


You also missed my point about the rape.. rate. 

My point being that if you wait for conviction... given the 6 week or 10 week or even the 20 week ban you might just be forcing someone to give birth to their rapists baby. 

Lets also add in stuff like stealthing. That also is not going to be seen as a crime. And youre still forcing this person to have a child they dont want. By something they didnt consensually sign up for.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You missed the point that the mortality rate for pregnant women is already deftly high among developed countries. And not just due to complications with the pregnancy. Because... you know.. have to be healthy yourself to have a pregnancy...


I agree it is. No current laws make it impossible for a women to be saved by abortin 

So it doesn't actually affect the rate..their life in danger abort.



Razgriz said:


> At this point not all states have banned. And there are still laws to be settled. So the current uptick isnt going to be drastic. But it still is going to trend in another direction.


I agree it needs to be watched. But currently it is not the issue nor is there any state that has actually put forth a law that forbade aboetin to save the mother. 

When that happens I'll absolutely be right there along side you saying it's wrong.
This is no different then the right who claim the left was "coming for their guns" under Obama.
In till a actual law is put forth and passes that doesn't allow avoritn to save the mother 

Mother death rates do not get affected by this.




Razgriz said:


> You also missed my point about the rape.. rate.


I didn't miss. Name another crime rate where we say "since it happens a lot we can just kill without proof"
Murder is wrong. Doesn't mean we forgo actual trials just cause it may be "to late then"
I agree it's sad, wish there was a better way.


Razgriz said:


> My point being that if you wait for conviction... given the 6 week or 10 week or even the 20 week ban you might just be forcing someone to give birth to their rapists baby.


Most laws that have exceptions for rape don't set a hard line on the abortin time line actually.

Which is why i said we need new systems with sex to help ensure rape doesn't happen. Not just let it keep happening and assume anyone who says it did is telling the truth and killing a kid is the result.





Razgriz said:


> Lets also add in stuff like stealthing. That also is not going to be seen as a crime. And youre still forcing this person to have a child they dont want. By something they didnt consensually sign up for.


I'm all for putting laws in to pace where stelathing is illegal. 

Other people doing things wrong doesn't mean you get to do things wrkng.

Just cause someone may rape you doesn't mean yoy allow women to kill all men a woken acused of it.

Other ways to help reduce rape and issue like this then "nothing we can do but blindly belive a claim of rape"

Again not a perfect world, nothing about that makes it okay to kill a child when you don't want it after willingly having sex.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Buffy The Vampire Slayer said:


> My state of Florida made abortions legal here so fuck you Supreme Court.




The Supreme Court were the ones who gave them the option to make it legal.



So...thanks Supreme Court?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

I guess Im glad youre not writing laws because the amount of control you want to impose is absurd.

What is this obsession of wanting or needing someone go thorough a process that will permenantly change them? That might kill them?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> And a new born isn't a toddler or an adult.
> A different name for a different stage of life that'd all.


Embryo is still not people.



> And tofu the new born is not tofu the adult
> 
> It's just STAGES of life.
> 
> ...


What are examples of things we didn't treat as human life that we know are? Other than your pseudo philosophy here.




> Because she doesn't want to and it's her body?
> Women carry to term all the time to. Just cause something "happens all the time" doesn't make it right or force someone to accept that actuib


Because an "abortion" that late in the pregnancy is very similar to induced labor to get rid of the pregnancy. You are just playing induced labor off as 'abortion' in here. This is just debating for the sake of debating by bringing up a hypothetical that is absurd.




> I'm very serious.
> You're making made up rules and then getting mad when I bring up possible scenarios in thos rules.
> Just cause a women COULD pick something doesn't mean she will and by evreything you have said she should still have the right to pick.
> 
> Unless it ISNT as absolute as you're trying to make it.


So you are arguing against a woman having the right to choose? Yes it is absolute that a woman gets to choose, and no, extreme examples that almost never happen is not being serious. Induced labor is possible to get rid of a pregnancy at the 39th week or later. So your abortion at 39th week is not a serious point to make. Moreover, abortion after the 24th week is illegal in most places unless the mother's health is at risk. Therefore there is no absolutes there either.



> And so am I claiming it's "crazy" for a women to want to at 39 weeks doesn't mean it's not an option for her.


I don't know what you are claiming the woman to be. I know you are not serious in saving lives by making this your arugment.



> No one has a right to murder someone just cause they dont want them


A fetus is not yet a person.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Duder is basically saying women are less 
Valuable than a corpse.

You cant harvest organs from a body unless there is expressed permission. Its why they have you mark to be an organ donor on your ID. If you own a kidney that is an exact match. People cant just take it from you. Even when you are dead.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Duder is basically saying women are less
> Valuable than a corpse.
> 
> You cant harvest organs from a body unless there is expressed permission. Its why they have you mark to be an organ donor on your ID. If you own a kidney that is an exact match. People cant just take it from you. Even when you are dead.


Exactly meaning even people that are not "alive" have control of their body and no one can take it from them. But you don't stretch the same to the embyo 

If dead people have rights then what does it matter if the fetues isn't "developed" to be a human? At that point the organs are just clups of cells same as the embyo.
Women are not less valuable but a women doesn't over rule anyone who isn't "alive" (even if we accept your incorrect view of when life begins



FriedTofu said:


> Embryo is still not people.
> 
> What are examples of things we didn't treat as human life that we know are? Other than your pseudo philosophy here.


Blacks. Women's, guys, any ine who we claimed wasn't what it meant to be "human"




FriedTofu said:


> Because an "abortion" that late in the pregnancy is very similar to induced labor to get rid of the pregnancy. You are just playing induced labor off as 'abortion' in here. This is just debating for the sake of debating by bringing up a hypothetical that is absurd.


And a womb transfer is very similar results to keep the baby alive and not kill its you still would say it's the women's right to pick then but not when it's 39 weeks?





FriedTofu said:


> So you are arguing against a woman having the right to choose? Yes it is absolute that a woman gets to choose, and no, extreme examples that almost never happen is not being serious.


Says the people claiming pepole are being told they cant abort the child due tl bealth concerns when all states allow it.

Youre listing an extream scernwio that almost. Ever happens and legally right now cant happe.


FriedTofu said:


> Induced labor is possible to get rid of a pregnancy at the 39th week or later. So your abortion at 39th week is not a serious point to make.


Its also possible to do womb transfers at very early stages of development so why can tthe same logic be used to say she has to transfer it to someone who wants to keep it living?









Can active pregnancy be transferred to another woman's womb and if it's possible will it be called surrogacy? - ARTbaby Georgia


Since 1980, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as In-vitro fertilization(IVF) and embryo cryopreservation became popular infertile treatment in the USA and Europe and gradually spread these techniques throughout the globe. With the passing of time, innovations are added to the...




www.surrogacycentregeorgia.com







FriedTofu said:


> Moreover, abortion after the 24th week is illegal in most places unless the mother's health is at risk. Therefore there is no absolutes there either.


Yeah and the reason we set it to 24? Cause it just "isn't human" in till then isn't a good enough awnser.
We literally have plenty of examples of there being huge holes in this logic. 

Conjoined twins don't have to be viable of one another to both be consider alive proving a human can be dependent on another to live and still be human. So what makes a 23 week old fetues human and a 22 week old not?
Why when a baby comes out underdeveloped and can't live outside the womb for long do we fight to keep it alive?



FriedTofu said:


> I don't know what you are claiming the woman to be. I know you are not serious in saving lives by making this your arugment.


I'm very serious the very facy you scarf at them being human means nothing. There is a whole lot of mass murders that did the same thing and used the same logic only people like them counted.




FriedTofu said:


> A fetus is not yet a person.


A new born is not a person yet. They don't have conscious thought 

How can yoy be a "person" if you don't have conscious thought? We kill them they'll never know they're dead just like the embyo . Many ways tk kill without any pain.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> Exactly meaning even people that are not "alive" have control of their body and no one can take it from them. But you don't stretch the same to the embyo



I dont because heres the point. Because its her body. She can choose to continue letting it live. Or she can pull the plug. Just like if youre the only one with a kidney that matches. Yiu dont have to give that kidney to anyone


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> I dont because heres the point. Because its her body. She can choose to continue letting it live. Or she can pull the plug. Just like if youre the only one with a kidney that matches. Yiu dont have to give that kidney to anyone


But it's not just her body

Those "cells" the embyo are are the same type of cells the dead person organs are made of.
If those organs are still protected it shows its not about being a "clump of cells" and a persons "clump of cells" is still them even after death and should also be before birth


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

You misinterpret me.

Even if the fetus is someone else. Her body is hers. The fetus needs said body to live. 

So she can choose to continue provide her body to that fetus. Sure.. that fetus is entirely another body.

But she is the one doing the duty to keep it alive while it is in her body.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Blacks. Women's, guys, any ine who we claimed wasn't what it meant to be "human"


They were treated not equal but still regarded as a living person. Not the same.





> And a womb transfer is very similar results to keep the baby alive and not kill its you still would say it's the women's right to pick then but not when it's 39 weeks?


What are you even trying to say here? Why is womb transfer even relevant in this discussion?





> Says the people claiming pepole are being told they cant abort the child due tl bealth concerns when all states allow it.
> 
> Youre listing an extream scernwio that almost. Ever happens and legally right now cant happe.


How are you so ignorant about the impact of said laws and claim it is an extreme example? Go read up on Ireland where doctors were legally forbidden to help a woman suffering from miscarriage because of a fetus heartbeat. Doctors are liable to get sued if some religious zealot claim the woman's life is not in immediate danger. There are probably more of such cases over the years that didn't get highly publicized.




> Its also possible to do womb transfers at very early stages of development so why can tthe same logic be used to say she has to transfer it to someone who wants to keep it living?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is this even relevant? The woman can choose to do this if she wishes. Pro-choice means giving the woman the option to choose. Are you going to pay for all the costs of this?




> Yeah and the reason we set it to 24? Cause it just "isn't human" in till then isn't a good enough awnser.
> We literally have plenty of examples of there being huge holes in this logic.


I don't know why we set it at 24 weeks. Probably because public opinion on late term abortion without restrictions is low.



> Conjoined twins don't have to be viable of one another to both be consider alive proving a human can be dependent on another to live and still be human. So what makes a 23 week old fetues human and a 22 week old not?


Neither are human yet.



> Why when a baby comes out underdeveloped and can't live outside the womb for long do we fight to keep it alive?


Because the parents wants to keep that baby alive.



> I'm very serious the very facy you scarf at them being human means nothing. There is a whole lot of mass murders that did the same thing and used the same logic only people like them counted.


You are using the same logic of mass murderers by disregarding women's agency to choose what they do with their body.




> A new born is not a person yet. They don't have conscious thought
> 
> How can yoy be a "person" if you don't have conscious thought? We kill them they'll never know they're dead just like the embyo . Many ways tk kill without any pain.


You are so mad that you keep making nonsense arguments hoping to bury everything in heaps of nonsense. Constantly having typos too. You are not a serious person in this discussion. 

You are straw-manning pro-choice as being pro-abortion here. Giving the woman the agency to choose is not the same as endorsing abortions. Please kindly go back to your cave.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> They were treated not equal but still regarded as a living person. Not the same.


Not true at all. Plenty of slavery laws literally said they were not people and were property and had no rights.




FriedTofu said:


> What are you even trying to say here? Why is womb transfer even relevant in this discussion?











Can active pregnancy be transferred to another woman's womb and if it's possible will it be called surrogacy? - ARTbaby Georgia


Since 1980, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as In-vitro fertilization(IVF) and embryo cryopreservation became popular infertile treatment in the USA and Europe and gradually spread these techniques throughout the globe. With the passing of time, innovations are added to the...




www.surrogacycentregeorgia.com





Think you're missing what I'm saying. Apparently it's possible to transfer actual wombs. I'm saying taking a fetus from a women who doesn't want to let it develop in to another women who does. Removing it from her body makes it not her body anymore. Just as valid as a women at 39 weeks not being able to abort cause there is "other options"




FriedTofu said:


> How are you so ignorant about the impact of said laws and claim it is an extreme example?
> Go read up on Ireland where doctors were legally forbidden to help a woman suffering from miscarriage because of a fetus heartbeat.



And those are wrong and are not happining here. Agian you claim a "rare situation " ireland women dont make up anywhere a hugh amoint of women and so is classfied as an extream example 




FriedTofu said:


> Doctors are liable to get sued if some religious zealot claim the woman's life is not in immediate danger. There are probably more of such cases over the years that didn't get highly publicized.


Classify that under "rare situation" which you claim means it doesn't have a validity to bring up.



FriedTofu said:


> How is this even relevant? The woman can choose to do this if she wishes. Pro-choice means giving the woman the option to choose. Are you going to pay for all the costs of this?


Except as shown you're willing to make exceptions where the women's choices don't matter. Child develops enough it doesn't matter even though the child is still using her body against her will. 


FriedTofu said:


> I don't know why we set it at 24 weeks. Probably because public opinion on late term abortion without restrictions is low.


So you dony know why it's set but you're 100% sure it's the correct choice and in no way cam be wrong?

You just accept it cause people say it? 



FriedTofu said:


> Neither are human yet.


What makes them not human? You can keep saying their not human yet

I need SPECFICS for why their not human.




FriedTofu said:


> Because the parents wants to keep that baby alive.


Promise you kf the father says let it die the doctors will not just let the child die.
If the mother screams at them to let it die they won't just sit there and let it die.



FriedTofu said:


> You are using the same logic of mass murderers by disregarding women's agency to choose what they do with their body.


No I'm saying setting an abertriy line without reason (which is what they did) is not valid.

You set a line to say it's human and then just claim anything before is not human cause it's not human. Circle logic 



FriedTofu said:


> You are so mad that you keep making nonsense arguments hoping to bury everything in heaps of nonsense. Constantly having typos too. You are not a serious person in this discussion.


It's acutely cause I'm so invested in this.
I'm HIGHLY UPSET that people are claiming pepole are not human it hurts me to my core and it causes me to be highly heated 



FriedTofu said:


> You are straw-manning pro-choice as being pro-abortion here. Giving the woman the agency to choose is not the same as endorsing abortions. Please kindly go back to your cave.


You are straw-manning so many things
And then claim no arugemnt matters cause it's "a rare situation " while using rare situations (where abortin to save a life is not allowed) to defend your points

How about actually make points and don't use circle arugemtn 
Saying a fetues isn't a human cause it's not a human is a circle logic and isn't a real argument



Razgriz said:


> You misinterpret me.
> 
> Even if the fetus is someone else. Her body is hers. The fetus needs said body to live.
> 
> ...


And conjoined twins are two seprate people. You keep avoiding this. Why can't one conjoined twin kill the other one? It's their body keeping the other alive.
Cause being dependent on someone else doesn't automatically mean you can die if they want you to


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Not true at all. Plenty of slavery laws literally said they were not people and were property and had no rights.


They were people and property. They had no rights but still a person.





> Can active pregnancy be transferred to another woman's womb and if it's possible will it be called surrogacy? - ARTbaby Georgia
> 
> 
> Since 1980, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as In-vitro fertilization(IVF) and embryo cryopreservation became popular infertile treatment in the USA and Europe and gradually spread these techniques throughout the globe. With the passing of time, innovations are added to the...
> ...


Thank you for proving why you are not serious in this discussion. You raise another extreme example as a counter-proposal to abortion and thinking it makes any point. Something being possible doesn't make it a feasible alternative. By all means, if it is something a woman/couple can afford, they can choose to do whatever this is.





> And those are wrong and are not happining here. Agian you claim a "rare situation " ireland women dont make up anywhere a hugh amoint of women and so is classfied as an extream example


You initially brought up 39 weeks abortion. Women dying due to miscarriages is not rare.





> Classify that under "rare situation" which you claim means it doesn't have a validity to bring up.


Keep your head in the sand. This is already happening in red states before the overturn of Roe because the Supreme Court delayed and refuse to rule new abortion laws unconstitutional before Roe is overturned.




> Except as shown you're willing to make exceptions where the women's choices don't matter. Child develops enough it doesn't matter even though the child is still using her body against her will.
> 
> So you dony know why it's set but you're 100% sure it's the correct choice and in no way cam be wrong?


What exceptions? I am saying the woman has option to choose. Again, who is paying for this alternative you are suggesting? I am not 100% sure, but I am sure the rights of the living person is more important than any fake concern about when life begins. 



> You just accept it cause people say it?


Yes. I am a sheeple.



> What makes them not human? You can keep saying their not human yet
> 
> I need SPECFICS for why their not human.


Fetus and embryos are not yet humans. A baby is different from what these are. What more do you want? Not up to me to prove a negative.




> Promise you kf the father says let it die the doctors will not just let the child die.
> If the mother screams at them to let it die they won't just sit there and let it die.


Are you so mad you can't type properly now? Why are you going into hypotheticals again?



> No I'm saying setting an abertriy line without reason (which is what they did) is not valid.
> 
> You set a line to say it's human and then just claim anything before is not human cause it's not human. Circle logic


Agreed that there shouldn't be a line without reason. Abortion should therefore have no restrictions within reason so the parents and their doctors can decide what to do without state interference.



> It's acutely cause I'm so invested in this.
> I'm HIGHLY UPSET that people are claiming pepole are not human it hurts me to my core and it causes me to be highly heated


You are making unserious arguments and non-feasible alternatives to handle unwanted pregnancy. You aren't invested in the right kind of things and being unserious in reducing the number of abortions. Facts don't care about you being upset.



> You are straw-manning so many things
> And then claim no arugemnt matters cause it's "a rare situation " while using rare situations (where abortin to save a life is not allowed) to defend your points
> 
> How about actually make points and don't use circle arugemtn
> Saying a fetues isn't a human cause it's not a human is a circle logic and isn't a real argument


That's not even a strawman....
Please show me one example of a 39 weeks pregnant woman choosing abortion over other options. At least my 'rare situation' has one public example that led to a change in abortion law in Irealand.

A fetus isn't human yet is not a circular argument. It just isn't a person yet. A woman on the other hand is a human.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

> And conjoined twins are two seprate people. You keep avoiding this. Why can't one conjoined twin kill the other one? It's their body keeping the other alive.
> Cause being dependent on someone else doesn't automatically mean you can die if they want you to



The conjoined twins that live share a lot of the body parts. enlarged organs etc. In that sense... same body. . 

So by your definition, new cells, different person with their own body. You're wrong about the conjoined twins.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> They were people and property. They had no rights but still a person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It depends on the time. There was a long period of time where slaves were not people at all.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3aXmmAdcreNdkFrszsHwyT[/URL]
"By this time slaves were
seen as commodities being imported into the colony. This was the first clear
statement that Africans in new British colonies were considered ‘things’ or prop￾erty, rather than persons"

Killing them did nothing, no pay nothing about them allowed them to be "people " just cause they were definitel then what others claimed were "human"


So what's the cost of this compared to abortion? 
You're assuming this procedure had to be way more expensive. What is your backing for this?









Why a NY woman came to Colorado for a 32-week abortion


Abortions late in pregnancy — especially those in the third trimester — are rare, expensive and politically charged. Forty-three states place some restrictions on abortions after a cert…




www.denverpost.com





"Fetal abnormalities are just one reason for late-term abortions; about 30% of Hern’s patients listed at least one abnormality in the most recent data he published, and good national research isn’t available."
He doesn't release info but if only 30% are for one ore more abnormality what are the other 70 for?

So then hypotheticals agian if you were told a black person want a person growing up you'd belive them m you don't ask for proof, you admit you don't know why you just accept what you are told.

Accepting things cause others tell you and saying something is cause it is. Is never a good idea. 

Facts don't care that you think something isn't a human cause others tell uou isnt yet here you are. 

It absolutely is a circular argument 
You say their not human, I ask why, you say cause their not
You're using it's own stamens to "prove" its self

How is that not a circular argument?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Here's his paper... self reported 1005 pregnancies.





__





Loading…






obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com





It's important to note that every single one of them was a wanted pregnancy


And now a word from Pete Buttigieg:



> "I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line," Buttigieg replied, "and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own health."
> 
> Wallace wanted to clarify that Buttigieg would be okay with late-term abortion and pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.
> 
> "That's right," responded Buttiegieg, "representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."


You'e despicable.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> It depends on the time. There was a long period of time where slaves were not people at all.
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3aXmmAdcreNdkFrszsHwyT[/URL]
> "By this time slaves were
> seen as commodities being imported into the colony. This was the first clear
> ...


So mad you can't link properly. And yes they were treated as property first, 2nd-class human beings, but still a human being. A persons without rights.



> So what's the cost of this compared to abortion?
> You're assuming this procedure had to be way more expensive. What is your backing for this?


Based on the website you shared that listed surrogacy costs at $80k. And that is for couples trying to have a baby. Not for a woman/couple not wanting the pregnancy. If you think the costs to find a substitute womb for unwanted pregnancy is cheaper than that, you are welcome to correct this.



> Why a NY woman came to Colorado for a 32-week abortion
> 
> 
> Abortions late in pregnancy — especially those in the third trimester — are rare, expensive and politically charged. Forty-three states place some restrictions on abortions after a cert…
> ...


Late term abortions is loosely defined but usually from 22 weeks onwards. Hardly a good representation of 39 weeks pregnancy you mentioned. Even this example is a 32 weeks pregnancy. @Razgriz has kindly found the paper with more details about the paper if you were actually interested and not just skimming headlines to try to win an internet argument with me.



> So then hypotheticals agian if you were told a black person want a person growing up you'd belive them m you don't ask for proof, you admit you don't know why you just accept what you are told.


Please try again when your feelings are less hurt so we can understand what you are trying to say here.



> Accepting things cause others tell you and saying something is cause it is. Is never a good idea.


Better to admit my ignorance than to claim knowing when life begins.



> Facts don't care that you think something isn't a human cause others tell uou isnt yet here you are.


Facts shown an embryo is not yet a person. Facts show miscarriages is not uncommon. Feelings tell you to care for something that doesn't exist at the expense of someone that is alive.



> It absolutely is a circular argument
> You say their not human, I ask why, you say cause their not
> You're using it's own stamens to "prove" its self
> 
> How is that not a circular argument?


It isn't a human because they are different. You ask how they are different? I'll say I wouldn't mistake one for the other. There is nothing else for me to prove. We don't treat fertilized eggs in fertility clinics as human beings.


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

Wherever you stand on abortion, and even if it's done with the best of intentions, we all have to admit that employees traveling to have abortions endorsed and paid for by their corporate employers is a little... dark, shall we say? 

Yes, I know, such a process is only necessary because of the change in the law. I get it. It still sounds like something out of a dystopian future.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Strike Force said:


> Wherever you stand on abortion, and even if it's done with the best of intentions, we all have to admit that employees traveling to have abortions endorsed and paid for by their corporate employers is a little... dark, shall we say?
> 
> Yes, I know, such a process is only necessary because of the change in the law. I get it. It still sounds like something out of a dystopian future.



Its the sick reality we live in. No universal healthcare. Corporate controlled everything.... and its cheaper than maternity leave


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

We all know this comes from the conservative christians, but does the bible really say anything about abortions?


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

The Bible says nothing about abortion. So being anti-choice is a cultural and political decision, not a biblical one


Christian support for legislation prohibiting abortion is a cultural and political stance. It has nothing to do with the Bible.




theconversation.com













They cite the same Bible and evoke the same Jesus. But these two Christians are on opposite sides of the abortion debate | CNN


CNN posed the same questions to two Christians -- an abortion-rights supporter and an anti-abortion Catholic -- to learn how both use scripture to support their beliefs.




www.cnn.com






origin of abortion as a wedge issue:









How abortion became a partisan issue in America


Joe Biden, a Democrat, has a mixed record on abortion. Here’s why that’s increasingly rare.




www.vox.com


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

^ Interesting thanks dude. Strangely this hasn't been brought up much.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

In medieval europe they believed life began at birth not conception and abortion was essentially legal.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make it okay to ritually kill babies.

Lol. Has to be explained. That's 2022 for ya.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Art Vandaley said:


> In medieval europe they believed life began at birth not conception and abortion was essentially legal.




........and?


----------



## Strike Force (Sep 14, 2015)

yeahbaby! said:


> We all know this comes from the conservative christians, but does the bible really say anything about abortions?


Actually, we don't "all know" that. Many Americans are anti-abortion, or at least favor limits there upon, and identify as neither conservative nor Christian. Let's be careful with the gross generalizations.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

Strike Force said:


> Actually, we don't "all know" that. Many Americans are anti-abortion, or at least favor limits there upon, and identify as neither conservative nor Christian. Let's be careful with the gross generalizations.


Indeed, there are groups like Secular Pro Life and PLAGAL who oppose abortion and are not "conservative Christian".

It really seems like the people who bring religion into the discussion are more often than not those in favor of abortion.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Goku said:


> No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make it okay to ritually kill babies.
> 
> Lol. Has to be explained. That's 2022 for ya.


But it is. There’s only 26 countries in the world where it’s illegal to ritually kill babies. Some of the shittiest countries. So, lol back at ya.


----------



## Caesar the Bard (Mar 31, 2020)

Nobody is "killing babies". It's a clump of cells that have no consciousness and cannot survive outside of the mother.

However, it is true that not all people who are pro-life are extreme Christian nuts. This would be an extreme over-simplification. There are also plastic, hypocritical fake libertarians like that moron Glenn Jacobs and his ilk. 

Let's be fair here.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Caesar the Bard said:


> Nobody is "killing babies". It's a clump of cells that have no consciousness and cannot survive outside of the mother.
> 
> However, it is true that not all people who are pro-life are extreme Christian nuts. This would be an extreme over-simplification. There are also plastic, hypocritical fake libertarians like that moron Glenn Jacobs and his ilk.
> 
> Let's be fair here.


Ofc there isn’t. It’s only rhetoric that the anti-abortion people use to try to shame the opposing side.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Strike Force said:


> Actually, we don't "all know" that. Many Americans are anti-abortion, or at least favor limits there upon, and identify as neither conservative nor Christian. Let's be careful with the gross generalizations.


Point taken. At a legislative level most conservative politicians jumping on the bandwagon would be raising their bibles along with it though.

For me, I'm not in favor of abortion, how can anyone be? I count myself lucky I'll never have to make such a horrible choice. Unsurprisingly, most of the decision makers involved won't either because they're men. What I am against is the government telling women they cannot have a choice and will be forced to have a child.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Dolorian said:


> Indeed, there are groups like Secular Pro Life and PLAGAL who oppose abortion and are not "conservative Christian".
> 
> *It really seems like the people who bring religion into the discussion are more often than not those in favor of abortion.*


Are you serious? Name any highly powerful politician forced birther that isn't holding their bible high.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

yeahbaby! said:


> Are you serious? Name any highly powerful politician forced birther that isn't holding their bible high.


I am referring more to the discussion on the subject itself between both camps not so much about the religion professed by those on the pro life side.


----------



## Awareness (Jun 11, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> So you are arguing against a woman having the right to choose?


Nobody is seriously arguing against one's autonomy but it'd probably go over a lot better if the Left would stop seeking out anecdotes and fringe cases and just tackle the central issue and that is personal responsibility. 

The reason why the Left is in dire meltdown over this is because you can't simply parrot a narcissistic slogan like "My body, my choice" and get a few Twitter pats for being an awesome person. They have to actually provide an argument for abortion, they have to for once make compelling cases, the onus is on them to make an actually measured and intelligent retort to push back. If you ask me, the best that can be hoped for is compromise at this point as they have to answer that oh-so-nagging question of "when does the woman's choice become the baby's choice as well?" 

But just like no one would seriously argue against one's sovereignty over their body I would hope there is no serious argument to be made over the denial of life entirely. 

However it has become increasingly obvious throughout the last decade that the Left wears their good intentions as a veneer. A majority of these issues aren't about their strive for goodness and fairness, it's all just one prolonged teenage rebellion against conservative households and religion. The more they "win" the more they just cannot help but to revel in their recent cultural domination and push that envelope of public humiliation of "boomer ideals" further and further.

Roe v Wade is simply one of many pendulums that are coming swinging back now. Because the Left has been so infantile and used to getting their way, this is the first time in quite some years they have faced genuine pushback. They're being asked the question that has been glaring since the very beginning: "when does life begin?" It is a question they scramble and fumble giving a proper answer to and have been for decades now. This is why it has been overturned, as there is no compelling argument from them. Everything they reply with is with pure emotional outcry and deferring to rare circumstances as hail mary gotcha's. 

Sitting around and tweeting how someone that supports the Supreme Court decision is a piece of excrement or linking a picture with a few quirky lines is not going to help any pro-abortionist's cause. If anything, this only reinforces those against abortion because it becomes increasingly obvious that these people don't have anything actually important to say. 

Abortion isn't a right, it's a way out of the ultimate responsibility and that is the nurturing of new life. The Left has made it this way as they have not convinced otherwise. Don't blame your parents, your country, former presidents or religion. Blame yourself for relying on your arrogance and fake tears to carry you unopposed. 

Don't bother quoting/replying to me (or anyone else) because I've said what I wanted on the matter and will go back to talking pro wrestling now.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

That sure is lot of projection. Will it make you feel better if I said it denies the couple the right to choose instead of woman for your 'conservative' households and religion beliefs?

Using fringe cases of late term abortions to deny women access to early abortion.

Narcissistic belief of knowing when life begins and what is best for other people to accuse others of being irresponsible.

Constant wearing the veneer of 'good intentions' of saving lives, yet can't help but reveal it is to protect conservative 'beliefs'.

Accusing others of being infantile and getting away with it, yet there have been infantile protests at abortion clinics for over 4 decades. Infantile arguments and lawsuits made to push cases higher up the courts, until a supreme court made up of friendly theocratic slant disregard precedents to rule in favor of their beliefs.

Making abortion access an issue about personal responsibility but deny women and couples the option to be responsible.

Also hilarious in a post stating nobody is seriously arguing about one's autonomy, you ended with I cannot be quoting/replying to anyone else. Not just to you. Aborting me from the discussion without my consent.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Trimester in regards to giving birth was spawned from Roe v Wade.

No one is answering "where does life begin" because it's a red herring. There's no true answer. It's philosophical. And that's not what Roe v Wade was about.


----------



## r0scoe (Apr 1, 2014)

There are already too many kids in the world anyway but pro-life vs pro-choice is not even my issue with the overturning of Roe Vs Wade. This has officially set a precedent now, so what the fuck is next on the chopping block for the SCOTUS to overturn?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Razgriz said:


> Trimester in regards to giving birth was spawned from Roe v Wade.
> 
> *No one is answering "where does life begin" because it's a red herring.* There's no true answer. It's philosophical. And that's not what Roe v Wade was about.


'
I dunno, these are some of the same people that think when a dude nuts in a woman there's all of a sudden three people in the room.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

r0scoe said:


> There are already too many kids in the world anyway but pro-life vs pro-choice is not even my issue with the overturning of Roe Vs Wade. This has officially set a precedent now, so what the fuck is next on the chopping block for the SCOTUS to overturn?


There has already been rumblings about having another look at legalized same sex marriage.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Catalanotto said:


> There has already been rumblings about having another look at legalized same sex marriage.


That’s even more nuts that abortions. Who the hell is harmed by two people who love each other getting married? No matter what they have in their pants.

Wrong thread I know, sorry…


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

They were all decided by the 14th amendment's due process clause... So The freedom to buy contraceptives and also the ability for a state to ban types of consensual sex is also up for review. (err... it's currently illegal for states to have things like Anti-Sodomy laws on their books)


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

lol


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

r0scoe said:


> There are already too many kids in the world anyway but pro-life vs pro-choice is not even my issue with the overturning of Roe Vs Wade. This has officially set a precedent now, so what the fuck is next on the chopping block for the SCOTUS to overturn?


They have ruled in favor to neuter the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emission by ruling against one of the easiest path to regulate emissions. To be seen if this is the first step in gutting more authority for federal regulatory agencies in the future with Republicans' favor 'states rights' ideology.

They have agreed to hear another 'states rights' case with regards to voting rights and who knows what the heck this activist court will rule in favor of.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

FriedTofu said:


> They have ruled in favor to neuter the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emission by ruling against one of the easiest path to regulate emissions. To be seen if this is the first step in gutting more authority for federal regulatory agencies in the future with Republicans' favor 'states rights' ideology.
> 
> They have agreed to hear another 'states rights' case with regards to voting rights and who knows what the heck this activist court will rule in favor of.


Well you see there's still science on both sides about the effects of emissions and the mere existence of global warming apparently. Plus, I don't remember the Constitution mentioning anything about pollution so there you go.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

yeahbaby! said:


> Well you see there's still science on both sides about the effects of emissions and the mere existence of global warming apparently. Plus, I don't remember the Constitution mentioning anything about pollution so there you go.


I think it is just a simple states rights overrule everything dogma. Wonder how long until it becomes county rights for deep red counties in deep blue states. lol


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Meanwhile, it begins.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545593780614594561
For those unfamiliar, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes are enforced in larger cities especially during morning and evening rush hour. But, if you are going to consider that unborn child a person, then a pregnant woman can drive the HOV lane.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Next, they’re gonna ask to claim the fetus as a dependent.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Catalanotto said:


> Next, they’re gonna ask to claim the fetus as a dependent.


Ask for child support to begin as soon as the bun is in the oven. So many different avenues to go down if they really want to go down this road.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

r0scoe said:


> There are already too many kids in the world anyway but pro-life vs pro-choice is not even my issue with the overturning of Roe Vs Wade. This has officially set a precedent now, so what the fuck is next on the chopping block for the SCOTUS to overturn?



Abortion never should have been left to the SCOTUS to begin with. This is just returning it to the states as it always should have been. Democrats had decades to try to codify it into law, never did. Blame them. They just assumed no court would have the Guts to overturn it. Trump told you he would. He won anyway. And here we are.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> Ask for child support to begin as soon as the bun is in the oven. So many different avenues to go down if they really want to go down this road.


More like somebody will charge women for child abuse for drinking alcohol while pregnant or something...









Texas sues Biden over new abortion guidance as conservative groups mull more challenges


The suit targets a Monday memo in which the the government warned health workers and hospitals that refusing to treat patients who need an abortion could put them in legal jeopardy.




www.politico.com





So much for exceptions in cases where the mother's health is at risk.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> [unfurl="true"]Texas sues Biden over new abortion guidance as conservative groups mull more challenges[/URL]
> be
> 
> 
> ...


Read the law suit. 


https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Texas-Complaint.pdf



Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that Defendants cite as the basis for
their Abortion Mandate does not authorize-and has never authorized-the federal government
to compel healthcare providers to perform abortions. Defendants' Abortion Mandate is unlawful
and must be set aside.

No where do they say they shouldn't preform abortins. Once again your side claiming something that is untrue. It's them claiming that doctors HAVE to give a surgery of any kind. That just isn't true and never will be.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Read the law suit.
> 
> 
> https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Texas-Complaint.pdf
> ...


You didn't even read the lawsuit, just cherry picking the part the talking head tells you why this isn't a stupid lawsuit yet is telling me to read it. Sad troll.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> You didn't even read the lawsuit, just cherry picking the part the talking head tells you why this isn't a stupid lawsuit yet is telling me to read it. Sad troll.


I did read it. I even shared it. At no point does it say deny women the right to be saved in emergency.
Please show me exactly where it says that. You won't be able to find it

Just like how it says a "full ban on aboritn" but as I proved evrey single state either doesn't have a law or they do have exceptions.

Once again this is one side cherry picking and claiming stuff that isn't true.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> I did read it. I even shared it. At no point does it say deny women the right to be saved in emergency.
> Please show me exactly where it says that. You won't be able to find it
> 
> Just like how it says a "full ban on aboritn" but as I proved evrey single state either doesn't have a law or they do have exceptions.
> ...


What exactly is the suit claiming, and what exactly is the guidelines that is in dispute? When did reminding doctors they have an obligation to perform a medical procedure if the patient's life is in danger suddenly mean doctors are operating as walk-in abortion clinics? Hospitals that choose to ignore the guidelines can forfeit federal funding.

The exceptions are there to pacify the gullible and a PR move to make people like you look less of a monster for treating pregnant women less of a person.

Read the lawsuit again and tell me how this isn't yet another virtue signaling exercise?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> What exactly is the suit claiming, and what exactly is the guidelines that is in dispute? When did reminding doctors they have an obligation to perform a medical procedure if the patient's life is in danger suddenly mean doctors are operating as walk-in abortion clinics? Hospitals that choose to ignore the guidelines can forfeit federal funding.
> 
> The exceptions are there to pacify the gullible and a PR move to make people like you look less of a monster for treating pregnant women less of a person.
> 
> Read the lawsuit again and tell me how this isn't yet another virtue signaling exercise?


The suit is saying the rules their saying apply don't.

But the Social Security Act, of which EMTALA is part, contains an important limitation:

“[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to 
exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical 
services are provided . . . or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or 
operation of any such institution, agency, or person [providing health services].”

By saying they have to give they are breaking the very law their trying to use.

. No federal statute confers a right to abortion. EMTALA is no different. It does not 
guarantee access to abortion. On the contrary, EMTALA contemplates that an emergency medical 
condition is one that threatens the life of the unborn child. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i). It 
is obvious that abortion does not preserve the life or health of an unborn child. 

than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition—that state law is preempted.”11 This 
has also never been a part of EMTALA. To the contrary, EMTALA “do[es] not preempt any State 
or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a 
requirement of [EMTALA].” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(f). 
32. EMTALA does not mandate access to abortion or codify a right to an abortion as 
“stabilizing treatment” for an “emergency medical condition.” The Abortion Mandate cites no 
other federal law that would authorize or require an abortion. No federal statute, including 
EMTALA, supersedes or preempts the States’ power to regulate or prohibit abortion. 

All of this is saying the thing they tried to pull doesn't work

The law they pushing doesn't say what they claim it does.

Make a law that protects the mother's and child's life's by all means. Dont use a law and claim it says something it doesn't


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> The suit is saying the rules their saying apply don't.
> 
> But the Social Security Act, of which EMTALA is part, contains an important limitation:
> 
> ...


The new guidelines is to clarify situations whereby an abortion is the optimal treatment but doctors and hospitals would be liable to be sued under the draconian forced-birth laws after Roe is overturned. The law is used to remind hospitals they are obligated to perform abortions in cases of emergencies or transfer the patient to another hospital that can. If an abortion is the treatment to save the pregnant woman's life in the emergency room, hospitals cannot refuse available treatment and not be liable to penalties. It preempt state or local requirement to save lives.

A current law exists to protect the mother's life, yet you want to play a game to claim the law is wrong and say make another law to protect the mother's life. At the end of the day, the exceptions are just to make the draconian laws more palatable to people less extreme on the issue. The people that fully support the forced birth movement wants no part for exceptions, evident in this nonsense lawsuit.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> The new guidelines is to clarify situations whereby an abortion is the optimal treatment but doctors and hospitals would be liable to be sued under the draconian forced-birth laws after Roe is overturned. The law is used to remind hospitals they are obligated to perform abortions in cases of emergencies or transfer the patient to another hospital that can. If an abortion is the treatment to save the pregnant woman's life in the emergency room, hospitals cannot refuse available treatment and not be liable to penalties. It preempt state or local requirement to save lives.
> 
> A current law exists to protect the mother's life, yet you want to play a game to claim the law is wrong and say make another law to protect the mother's life. At the end of the day, the exceptions are just to make the draconian laws more palatable to people less extreme on the issue. The people that fully support the forced birth movement wants no part for exceptions, evident in this nonsense lawsuit.


The law they are saying. Please provide where the actual law. Not someone just saying it does

Says the govement can force hospitals to do things

Here's a hint. You won't find it.

The new "guideline" isn't a guide line. It's them saying a law that has NEVER meant what they are saying now means that. And it doesn't 

They need to make an actual law about it not use fake meanings of laws.
They do want exceptions and you'll find nothing in this lawsuit saying exceptions should not be made

Even then the issue is them saying a doctor HAS to give an abortin.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

-Slick- said:


> But it is. There’s only 26 countries in the world where it’s illegal to ritually kill babies. Some of the shittiest countries. So, lol back at ya.


The world is bigger than you think, Slick.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Goku said:


> The world is bigger than you think, Slick.


Tell me more, Goku.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> The law they are saying. Please provide where the actual law. Not someone just saying it does
> 
> Says the govement can force hospitals to do things
> 
> ...











Following President Biden’s Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, HHS Announces Guidance to Clarify that Emergency Medical Care Includes Abortion Services


Guidance and communication to providers makes clear that federal law preempts state law in emergency situations.




www.hhs.gov













FACT SHEET: President Biden to Sign Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services | The White House


Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated a woman’s Constitutional right to choose. This




www.whitehouse.gov









__





Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS


For Medicare hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals (CAH): Learn about EMTALA and find CMS interpretive guidelines.




www.cms.gov







> In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.











Texas hospitals delaying care over abortion law, letter says


AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state's abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week.




apnews.com





Keep your head in the sands thinking Biden administration is forcing abortions or that people on your side of the argument want any exceptions.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Following President Biden’s Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, HHS Announces Guidance to Clarify that Emergency Medical Care Includes Abortion Services
> 
> 
> Guidance and communication to providers makes clear that federal law preempts state law in emergency situations.
> ...


Once again, show the actual law. Not a president claiming it says that. The law he cites does not say that anywhere.

The law is for ability to pay. Nothing about HAVINGA TO GIVE any such procedure

Nothing more Nothing less.

If they cant pay for it they still have to give it. But you can deny for other reasons still

"when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay."
This is all the law is about. No other requirement or additional to this law exist nor can you just add on to it.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

You keep claiming otherwise... but why is texas suing then? 

If Texas law has in place that they will protect the mother if her life is in danger. Why would they get all pissy and sue the government for something that their law already says?


....unless


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> You keep claiming otherwise... but why is texas suing then?
> 
> If Texas law has in place that they will protect the mother if her life is in danger. Why would they get all pissy and sue the government for something that their law already says?
> 
> ...


Cause the government is claiming a law that is 
ONLY about payment not being a disqualified 

The federal government just said "this law says you have to" the law doesn't actually say that
That's why the lawsuit.





__





Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) | CMS


For Medicare hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals (CAH): Learn about EMTALA and find CMS interpretive guidelines.




www.cms.gov





It's no different then someone claiming the 2nd amendment means something it doesn't or twisting any other law.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Once again, show the actual law. Not a president claiming it says that. The law he cites does not say that anywhere.
> 
> The law is for ability to pay. Nothing about HAVINGA TO GIVE any such procedure
> 
> ...


The law isn't just for ability to pay....it is also for emergency departments to have to provide appropriate screening and necessary treatment within their means if a request is made on behalf of the patient. Failing to do so open up hospitals to complaints and penalties. Hospitals cannot refuse to do abortions if the appropriate treatment is an abortion in cases of emergencies, something you keep repeating is allowed in your 'exceptions'.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> The law isn't just for ability to pay....it is also for emergency departments to have to provide appropriate screening and necessary treatment within their means if a request is made on behalf of the patient. Failing to do so open up hospitals to complaints and penalties. Hospitals cannot refuse to do abortions if the appropriate treatment is an abortion in cases of emergencies, something you keep repeating is allowed in your 'exceptions'.


Incorrect. The only part of the law thay mentions that is during the same sentence that talks about payment.
It never again brings it up and it ONLY applies to those who don't have payment 

"Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay"

They THEN have to provide. And can't deny (once again due to not being able to pay.

It never says anywhere you can't deny for x reason just thay you can't deny for not being able to pay.
That's what the law was for. No other part of the law expanded any other rules

There may be actual laws out there that DO PROTECT the ones they listed do not and are specific protecting those who can't afford the care.

Further more biden also claimed that certain things were "emergencys" that are by no means a set standard

But the Social Security Act, of which EMTALA is part, contains an important limitation:
“[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to 
exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical 
services are provided . . . or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or 
operation of any such institution, agency, or person [providing health services].” 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1395. 
22. EMTALA does not mandate, direct, approve, or even suggest the provision of any specific 
treatment.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Incorrect. The only part of the law thay mentions that is during the same sentence that talks about payment.
> It never again brings it up and it ONLY applies to those who don't have payment
> 
> "Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay"
> ...


The law says hospitals have to oblige the request for treatment for an emergency. The guidelines is to remind hospitals if the appropriate treatment is an abortion, hospital are still allowed to proceed citing this law. Hospitals do not need to wait for a non-viable pregnancy to fall out of the women's tubes or whatever nonsense conditions forced birthers put into laws for their virtue signaling.

The exceptions in laws by forced birthers are a smokescreen to make their horrible arguments look less psychotic. This lawsuit and some Texas hospitals advising doctors not to treat ectopic pregnancies until it ruptures are evident of that.

How do you legally prove a woman's health is at risk after an early detection of an ectopic pregnancy without forcing the woman to incur unnecessary risks?


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Girl, 10, Reportedly Forced To Travel Out Of State For Abortion


The young rape victim was denied the procedure in her home state of Ohio, where abortion is banned after about six weeks.




www.huffpost.com





People claiming that 10-year-old rape victims wouldn't be made to carry to term in their states should... actually read the laws. Thankfully she was able to travel, but the doctor is now being constantly harassed by dumbass GOP members who think that 10-year-old rape victims should be giving birth. 

For example, Jim Jordan, who joked about this on twitter, called the girl a liar.









Rep. Eric Swalwell Accuses Jim Jordan Of Expanding GOP War On Women To 'War On Little Girls'


Jordan and his party are pushing for "government-mandated pregnancies for 10-year-olds, fourth-graders, little girls,” Swalwell said.




www.huffpost.com


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Crona said:


> Girl, 10, Reportedly Forced To Travel Out Of State For Abortion
> 
> 
> The young rape victim was denied the procedure in her home state of Ohio, where abortion is banned after about six weeks.
> ...


People who think this girl (or others like her) should be forced to give birth are such fucking human garbage that can’t think on their own.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

*Anyone* who thinks a woman should be forced to give birth should be forced to do something they don’t want to do so we can all listen to them yell at the top of their lungs it’s their choice what they want to do and other people shouldn’t be able to tell them what to do.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

Sam Seder pretty much summarized my sentiment. While also showing that Tim Pool is a grifter and an idiot...


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

Razgriz said:


> Sam Seder pretty much summarized my sentiment. While also showing that Tim Pool is a grifter and an idiot...


Tim "Where's the rape kit for the 10-year-old?!" Pool is such a human dumpster fire. You don't need a rape kit for a 10-year old precisely because THEY ARE FUCKING 10-YEARS-OLD.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> The law says hospitals have to oblige the request for treatment for an emergency. The guidelines is to remind hospitals if the appropriate treatment is an abortion, hospital are still allowed to proceed citing this law. Hospitals do not need to wait for a non-viable pregnancy to fall out of the women's tubes or whatever nonsense conditions forced birthers put into laws for their virtue signaling.
> 
> The exceptions in laws by forced birthers are a smokescreen to make their horrible arguments look less psychotic. This lawsuit and some Texas hospitals advising doctors not to treat ectopic pregnancies until it ruptures are evident of that.
> 
> How do you legally prove a woman's health is at risk after an early detection of an ectopic pregnancy without forcing the woman to incur unnecessary risks?


For an emergency when they are unable to pay. Again you keep omitting an entire part of the law.

As for being allowed. Sure they can be allowed. The issue is the statement claims it says doctors who to give treatment (not counting its talking about ability to pay for it)
The law doesn't do what their trying to make it do. Wasn't wrien that wag, doesn't give the federal government jurisdiction over state laws and rights.

Actually show me places where their not doing these things. Show me one actual case that can be proven to happen. Noy claims on twiter where they just happen to leave out whichever state their from or we have no way to confirm actually happen. 

As for how do you do that. That's Texas point here. The law doesn't set anything for abortin in this law so for someone to come in and set a standard for abortin them selfs (as biden os doing) requires a law actually be wrote up

Other wise the standard can change from place to place.
We have mo federal law saying what constitution of an emergency or when the child's life being in danger (which is part of this law they talk about) is enforced 

The law doesn't explain enough and doesn't acount for abortin at all.

After all an abortin is a danger to the child's life. So a women being in pain form brith is that unreasonable pain and just cam abort when ever they want? It sets no standard for abortins. Nor is there an actual federal set standard


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

I dont even know what youre saying.... you make no sense. Its just like circles among circles...


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> I dont even know what youre saying.... you make no sense. Its just like circles among circles...


Very plan for you.

The law their talking about was about and ONLY about denial of service due to pay issues. That's it.
Nothing else. The law even says no part of that law Over rule state laws. And even says the life of the mother AND the unborn child.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

What are you arguing? What are you trying to say? What is your point for arguing this technicality?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> For an emergency when they are unable to pay. Again you keep omitting an entire part of the law.


You are the one omitting an entire part of the law which states emergency departments are required to provide treatment if it is within their means. Emergency rooms can't give you a bandaid for your gunshot wounds and say they have met the requirements of the law. 



> As for being allowed. Sure they can be allowed. The issue is the statement claims it says doctors who to give treatment (not counting its talking about ability to pay for it)
> The law doesn't do what their trying to make it do. Wasn't wrien that wag, doesn't give the federal government jurisdiction over state laws and rights.


The claim is abortions must be used in emergency rooms if a woman's life or health is at risk. That is one of the exceptions for abortions by forced birthers. 



> Actually show me places where their not doing these things. Show me one actual case that can be proven to happen. Noy claims on twiter where they just happen to leave out whichever state their from or we have no way to confirm actually happen.











Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care


A sexual assault survivor chooses sterilization so that if she is ever attacked again, she won't be forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby. An obstetrician delays inducing a miscarriage until a woman with severe pregnancy complications seems “sick enough.” A lupus patient must stop taking...




apnews.com







> *Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.
> 
> “We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’*





> As for how do you do that. That's Texas point here. The law doesn't set anything for abortin in this law so for someone to come in and set a standard for abortin them selfs (as biden os doing) requires a law actually be wrote up


What are you referring to here? You can't be serious to have specific laws for each medical procedure for the laws to be cited?



> Other wise the standard can change from place to place.
> We have mo federal law saying what constitution of an emergency or when the child's life being in danger (which is part of this law they talk about) is enforced
> 
> 
> ...


Again, how do you legally prove a woman's health is at risk for ectopic pregnancies without violating 'heartbeat' laws?


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> You are the one omitting an entire part of the law which states emergency departments are required to provide treatment if it is within their means. Emergency rooms can't give you a bandaid for your gunshot wounds and say they have met the requirements of the law.
> 
> The claim is abortions must be used in emergency rooms if a woman's life or health is at risk. That is one of the exceptions for abortions by forced birthers.
> 
> ...


I'm not omriting it. It says that right after talking about not being g able to be paid for cause it's about and ONLY about being paid for.

The law is about paying for medical treatment. That's it
No other part or it sets up anything. UT what doctors have to do when the patient can't afford it.

I'm saying something like abortin needs srt laws cause rhe idea of when a child life is set in stone and "matters" isn't set in stone. More so with the over turn of Roe

You do so by making a detailed description of when a women's life and comfort over rules the embyos right to life as well.

Agia I don't have an issue with a law thay says doctors have to. The issue is they are using a law that DOESN'T say that 

It's about payment, nothing else.

EMTALA does not mandate access to abortion or codify a right to an abortion as
“stabilizing treatment” for an “emergency medical condition.” The Abortion Mandate cites no
other federal law that would authorize or require an abortion. No federal statute, including
EMTALA, supersedes or preempts the States’ power to regulate or prohibit abortion.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> I'm not omriting it. It says that right after talking about not being g able to be paid for cause it's about and ONLY about being paid for.
> 
> The law is about paying for medical treatment. That's it
> No other part or it sets up anything. UT what doctors have to do when the patient can't afford it.
> ...


Again, the emergency department is required to provide examination and treatment within their means. It is in the law.

Again how can hospitals legally prove a woman's health is at risk to treat an ectopic pregnancy? The treatment being an abortion.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

kentl said:


> You do so by making a detailed description of when a women's life and comfort over rules the embyos right to life as well.



Thats not going to stop a fucking thing. And much like everything else youve posted. Youre just talking out your ass attempting to string this along so you have something to argue about. 


Still dont know what your point is.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Again, the emergency department is required to provide examination and treatment within their means. It is in the law.
> 
> Again how can hospitals legally prove a woman's health is at risk to treat an ectopic pregnancy? The treatment being an abortion.


Show. Me. The. Law
The one you list doesn't not say that. Only can't turn away for not being able to pay.

You prove it by having a set standard listed in the law. Which we don't currently have.


In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA). 
Congress enacted EMTALA “to prevent ‘patient dumping,’ which is the practice of refusing to 
treat patients who are unable to pay.” Battle ex rel. Battle v. Mem’l Hosp. at Gulfport, 228 F.3d 544, 
557 (5th Cir. 2000). With the enactment of EMTALA, every Medicare-participating hospital must provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions regardless 
of a patient’s ability to pay. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. 

That's it to the code. It's not about anything else and it doesn't add any more to a y existing laws. It's about payment. That's it


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Razgriz said:


> Thats not going to stop a fucking thing. And much like everything else youve posted. Youre just talking out your ass attempting to string this along so you have something to argue about.
> 
> 
> Still dont know what your point is.


We need am actual law that sets oncr and for all aborin. Not use fake laws that don't say what you claim

There is NOT a requirement to care on that law.
It only says payment can't be the reason to deny care. That's it. Nothing about having to care for someone if the procedure is illegal (i.e we can't give care to someone in a emergency if we force someone else to lose their organs etc)

Make. An. Actual. Law. Stop acting like this law does what you claim. It doesn't


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Show. Me. The. Law
> The one you list doesn't not say that. Only can't turn away for not being able to pay.
> 
> You prove it by having a set standard listed in the law. Which we don't currently have.
> ...


It is about payment AND standard of care in the emergency department.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> It is about payment AND standard of care in the emergency department.


No it is not. It was made for and exclusively about payment the name of the law even says as much.

Even in 1995 they found it did not do this 

Federal appellate courts have confirmed that EMTALA confers no right to any specific 
treatment and does not operate as federal oversight on the practice of medicine. “The statutory 
language of the EMTALA clearly declines to impose on hospitals a national standard of care.” 
Eberhardt v. City of Los Angeles, 62 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 1995)


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> No it is not. It was made for and exclusively about payment the name of the law even says as much.
> 
> Even in 1995 they found it did not do this
> 
> ...


Again, care and treatment is required by the law.

If abortion is the treatment for pregnancies that puts the mother's life or health at risk, hospitals cannot refuse without being liable to face penalties under the law.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> Again, care and treatment is required by the law.
> 
> If abortion is the treatment for pregnancies that puts the mother's life or health at risk, hospitals cannot refuse without being liable to face penalties under the law.


Did you miss where I posted the court case that proves that's NOT what this law says?

It's not required. It's ONLY saying failure to pay is not a valid reason to deny emergency care.

It was called this by the federal government in 1995.
Stop saying it's under the law. It's not. That is false and has been backed up multiple times by many court cases.
The law is ONLY about denial of payment that's it. Read up on the law and the history

You'll find nothing saying denial for any reason is against said law except lack of payment


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

kentl said:


> Did you miss where I posted the court case that proves that's NOT what this law says?
> 
> It's not required. It's ONLY saying failure to pay is not a valid reason to deny emergency care.
> 
> ...


The law says examination and treatment is required within means of the hospital. Hospitals is able to provide abortion for emergency cases, they cannot refuse without facing penalties from the law. The guidelines cite this law to protect hospitals and patients from inaction due to draconian forced birth laws.

Again, how can anyone legally prove a woman's health is at risk to treat ectopic pregnancies without placing women at higher risks due to new forced birth laws? Heck, how can anyone legally prove any of the exceptions for abortions within the period of a pregnancy?

Face it, you are arguing over a guideline that says abortions can be used in cases of emergencies even though you claim to support abortions in cases where the women's health is at risk. Proving how fake and disingenuous you are when you claim to support 'exceptions'.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

FriedTofu said:


> The law says examination and treatment is required within means of the hospital. Hospitals is able to provide abortion for emergency cases, they cannot refuse without facing penalties from the law. The guidelines cite this law to protect hospitals and patients from inaction due to draconian forced birth laws.
> 
> Again, how can anyone legally prove a woman's health is at risk to treat ectopic pregnancies without placing women at higher risks due to new forced birth laws? Heck, how can anyone legally prove any of the exceptions for abortions within the period of a pregnancy?
> 
> Face it, you are arguing over a guideline that says abortions can be used in cases of emergencies even though you claim to support abortions in cases where the women's health is at risk. Proving how fake and disingenuous you are when you claim to support 'exceptions'.


Read the whole law it says it's required when payment is an issue. It doesn't say seprate that it's required for all things always. Never says that.

You're claiming stuff that is false and ignoring the entire law.

As for how can they. Simple by actually making it clear when such steps are needed.
The law doesn't make any claim for any produce or thing from a state hospital.

It's about and ONLY about payment that's it. Full stop nothing else

I'm not against emergency use. I'm against claiming a law says something it doesn't when the law multiple times has been confirmed to NOT do rhat


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)

There's more here than just.. you can't turn people away because they can't pay.


This whole thing is a grift anyway. This was never about "protecting babies" or "protecting life" and if you believe it. You fell for the grift.

THis has always been about imposing Christian fundamentalist ideology into our legal system. So called Christian morality. It's so that they can pass judgement on people. Anything seen as amoral they want to impose on people.

Do you think that they don't know that it's not going to stop abortions? Of course they know. You should be punished if you have a kid out of wedlock. 

As is why texas wants to be able to impose their sodomy laws.

They lied and they lied and they lied specifically because they always felt like they were doing gods work. It's okay to lie as long as it's for a good reason. And imposing Christian theocracy and Christian morality into government was seen as " a good reason"

I mean... look at what the fuck boebert is talking about. They don't believe in seperation of church and state. Never have.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547636347124363265
Forced birthers want no exceptions in their laws....by waving away any exceptions as 'not an abortion'. Just like someone in this thread waving away what a law requires a hospital emergency department to do.


----------



## Crona (Mar 9, 2011)

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547636347124363265
> Forced birthers want no exceptions in their laws....by waving away any exceptions as 'not an abortion'. Just like someone in this thread waving away what a law requires a hospital emergency department to do.


Wow, Catherine Foster is profoundly stupid. I mean, now we no longer have to use a hypothetical scenario where a 10-year-old rape victim was denied abortion access in her state to demonstrate the draconian nature of these bans: it's happening. No more 'imagine what if?' this is the reality for some folks now. What if she wasn't able to get out of state? People are okay with forcing a 10-year-old to carry a pregnancy and give birth. That should be hyperbole, but it's not. The mental gymnasitcs people will go through to be like "no, there are exceptions" are hilarious.


----------



## HBK Styles Ospreay (Jan 15, 2020)

kentl said:


> The difference is we can see that the DNA in the fetues is human dna
> 
> We don't count other life's as important as humans by law.
> 
> ...


THAT'S you're problem right there... a human life is no more important that the life of ant. You live for awhile and then you die, its only other humans who want to collectively think they're better than other species...


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

HBK Styles Ospreay said:


> THAT'S you're problem right there... a human life is no more important that the life of ant. You live for awhile and then you die, its only other humans who want to collectively think they're better than other species...


So you think we should be able to go out and hunt humans like we hunt animals?
Fish for humans as we fish for well fish?
Ise humans as beast of burden? Only thing we pay them is food as we do animals?
No matter how you slice it even uou give special consideration to humans.


----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## Razgriz (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

“Pro-Life” Idaho Republicans Declare Women Should Be Left to Die to Save Fetuses


Abortion is apparently “murder,” but letting pregnant people die is cool.




www.vanityfair.com













No exception for life of mother included in Idaho GOP’s abortion platform language - Idaho Capital Sun


Idaho Republican delegates rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life.




idahocapitalsun.com







> Scott Herndon, a candidate for the Idaho Senate who won the Republican primary over Sen. Jim Woodward, R-Sagle, in May and has no opponent in the general election, proposed adding language to the party platform about abortion. While language already existed in the platform classifying abortion as murder from the moment of fertilization, Herndon’s language added that the party supports the criminalization of all abortions within the state’s jurisdiction and said Idaho’s Constitution should be amended to include a “declaration of the right to life for preborn children.”
> 
> Herndon argued the exception should not be included because over the past nearly 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court made the original Roe v. Wade ruling, exceptions made in the law eroded progress for the anti-abortion movement.
> 
> “For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being,” Herdon told delegates.


States rights eh?


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

'Well save that lump of cells if we need to kill everyone involved!'


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

-Slick- said:


> Tell me more, Goku.


I would love to, but I don't know if you'll truly listen to me.


----------



## -Slick- (Oct 21, 2021)

Goku said:


> I would love to, but I don't know if you'll truly listen to me.


Neither do I. And we probably don’t belive in the same things. But it was actually a sincere question about what you meant.


----------



## RainmakerV2 (Nov 8, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> 'Well save that lump of cells if we need to kill everyone involved!'



You're just cells dude. I've always found that to be such a weird argument lol. Every organism is a lump of cells.


----------



## Art Vandaley (Jan 9, 2006)

RainmakerV2 said:


> You're just cells dude. I've always found that to be such a weird argument lol. Every organism is a lump of cells.


But not every lump of cells is an organism.....

Not rocket science, says a lot that the argument is apparently beyond you.


----------



## AttitudeEraTom (6 mo ago)

Just a bunch of murders advocating for murder. Should throw all of them in jail and throw away the key honestly.


----------



## kentl (Aug 30, 2017)

Art Vandaley said:


> But not every lump of cells is an organism.....
> 
> Not rocket science, says a lot that the argument is apparently beyond you.


Cofrect.. except the only difference in cells for us is just how many we have.

A fetus and an embyo is made up of the exact same cells we are made up of. Same DNA. So what makes them "less" thay they have fewer cells? Is someone whose missing all their limbs not human cause they don't fit the "right amount of cells"

What makes a new born cells any more "organism" then the embyo stage


----------

