Federal judge rules Tennessee abortion law unconstitutional

[Highlanders]

There are already laws against killing infants.

Infantacide is killing a child within a year of birth.

Participation in discussion that involves laws - we should use proper terminology.

No, your wrong, your trying to dilute the fact, the child in the womb, will be at some stage an adult! You wish to use terminology to hide the fact, your killing a child. It's okay to decieve yourself, but please that get out of jail card from RBG is only justification to slaughter! Your actions to abort, are without doubt, makes you a killer! But your excuse your logic makes you a product of your environment. Reach for the sky not the sewer! Regardless what many women say, to commit such an act wears mentally on many women, there whole life. It goes against nature, it goes against womanly instincts!

 

[Fledermaus]

No, your wrong, your trying to dilute the fact, the child in the womb, will be at some stage an adult! You wish to use terminology to hide the fact, your killing a child. It's okay to decieve yourself, but please that get out of jail card from RBG is only justification to slaughter! Your actions to abort, are without doubt, makes you a killer! But your excuse your logic makes you a product of your environment. Reach for the sky not the sewer! Regardless what many women say, to commit such an act wears mentally on many women, there whole life. It goes against nature, it goes against womanly instincts!

Words mean things. Even in Scotland.

You intentionally use incorrect and inflammatory terminology by design.

You still haven't defined the law Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed/ruled on solo......

 

[year2late]

So you would still advocate for abortion even if the mother's bodily autonomy wasn't transgressed?

Transgressed?

To remove the fetus safely, it would take either an surgical (open/cutting) procedure, or they would need to dilate the cervix as wide as possible to fully visualize the fetus to remove it and the placenta safely. Both of those would likely require significant sedation and/or anesthesia and likely downtime where the woman cannot work. I call that transgression.

By the way....who is paying for this abortion replacement? The significant procedure to remove the fetus, the continuing gestation and monitoring of the fetus in the artificial womb.

Not your body, not your choice.

BTW, as an individual I am not for abortion. I am still pro-choice. If people want to decrease abortion rates.....how about improving long term contraceptives as well as making them financially in reach of those that cannot afford it . Current long term contraception costs about 2 plus times the cost of an early abortion. Women who are too "rich" for medicaid and too poor for insurance or self pay cannot afford it.

 

[year2late]

No, your wrong, your trying to dilute the fact, the child in the womb, will be at some stage an adult! You wish to use terminology to hide the fact, your killing a child. It's okay to decieve yourself, but please that get out of jail card from RBG is only justification to slaughter! Your actions to abort, are without doubt, makes you a killer! But your excuse your logic makes you a product of your environment. Reach for the sky not the sewer! Regardless what many women say, to commit such an act wears mentally on many women, there whole life. It goes against nature, it goes against womanly instincts!

Infantacide is the killing of a child within a year of birth.
This is a discussion on abortion law. Is it so hard for you to use proper terminology in a legal discussion.

And for the record "fetus" is not a cuss word.

 

[Highlanders]

Words mean things. Even in Scotland.

You intentionally use incorrect and inflammatory terminology by design.

You still haven't defined the law Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed/ruled on solo......

Aah...RBG...... one of yours!

I don't think her get out of jail card absolves anyone, as that's exactly what abortion actually is.... a crime, but your monopoly with your people in executive decision making management positions, your not going to get independent oversight! Just look at your hatred for American attempting to get justice from 9/11, a typical example of your parochial bias and bigotry, I think Americans should be allowed justice!

 

[Highlanders]

Infantacide is the killing of a child within a year of birth.
This is a discussion on abortion law. Is it so hard for you to use proper terminology in a legal discussion.

And for the record "fetus" is not a cuss word.

But bullshit is!
It's as you correctly stated, a discussion on abortion, and the law that governs abortion.
But more importantly, it's about, the words you want to use to make it more palatable to your clique.
Which could describe as a coven of witches, had we lived in the 1940s. Men would be going around looking for the cauldrons and wooden spoons! Because then, abortion was back street with all that entails, unlike now, genocide of children is a motherly norm!
There must be some way to mitigate murder on the scale we now see, because regardless of RBG get out of jail card, its still is a criminal offence! Yet, you targers demand the right to abort children on a hideous scale which I find abhorrent. But again, you targers find no guilt, no horror in your actions! Life is either sacred or it's not, or are we are breeding people that should never be given life! How would you like it, if I could pass a law, allowing the termination of every woman that has murdered a child in this manner? I find the idea, cynically quite appealing! Some day in the future, another RBG might pass another law, holding you targers to account! Your crimes be dealt with in a similar manner as you deem fit for your own children!

 

[OceanBlues1]

There are already laws against killing infants. Infanticide is killing a child within a year of birth. Participation in discussion that involves laws - we should use proper terminology.

Exactly. And abortion is NOT infanticide, no matter what a prolifer believes.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Regardless what many women say, to commit such an act wears mentally on many women, there whole life. It goes against nature, it goes against womanly instincts!

"It goes against womanly instincts," seriously? Please. There are plenty of women in the world, myself included who never want pregnancy, birth, or motherhood, and it is our right not to reproduce. I believe the figure is 95% of the women who do abort have no regrets whatsoever about their decision. On the other hand, there are many women who seriously regret becoming mothers and wish they'd never had any kids.

 

[Fledermaus]

Aah...RBG...... one of yours!

Ah, Hitler. One of yours...

So, the laws she passed or ruled on?

I don't think her get out of jail card absolves anyone, as that's exactly what abortion actually is.... a crime, but your monopoly with your people in executive decision making management positions, your not going to get independent oversight! Just look at your hatred for American attempting to get justice from 9/11, a typical example of your parochial bias and bigotry, I think Americans should be allowed justice!

Rant ignored.

 

[Fledermaus]

But bullshit is!
It's as you correctly stated, a discussion on abortion, and the law that governs abortion.
But more importantly, it's about, the words you want to use to make it more palatable to your clique.
Which could describe as a coven of witches, had we lived in the 1940s. Men would be going around looking for the cauldrons and wooden spoons! Because then, abortion was back street with all that entails, unlike now, genocide of children is a motherly norm!
There must be some way to mitigate murder on the scale we now see, because regardless of RBG get out of jail card, its still is a criminal offence! Yet, you targers demand the right to abort children on a hideous scale which I find abhorrent. But again, you targers find no guilt, no horror in your actions! Life is either sacred or it's not, or are we are breeding people that should never be given life! How would you like it, if I could pass a law, allowing the termination of every woman that has murdered a child in this manner? I find the idea, cynically quite appealing! Some day in the future, another RBG might pass another law, holding you targers to account! Your crimes be dealt with in a similar manner as you deem fit for your own children!

Another long winded rant that doesn't acknowledge your inability to understand that words matter.

 

[year2late]

But bullshit is!
It's as you correctly stated, a discussion on abortion, and the law that governs abortion.
But more importantly, it's about, the words you want to use to make it more palatable to your clique.
Which could describe as a coven of witches, had we lived in the 1940s. Men would be going around looking for the cauldrons and wooden spoons! Because then, abortion was back street with all that entails, unlike now, genocide of children is a motherly norm!
There must be some way to mitigate murder on the scale we now see, because regardless of RBG get out of jail card, its still is a criminal offence! Yet, you targers demand the right to abort children on a hideous scale which I find abhorrent. But again, you targers find no guilt, no horror in your actions! Life is either sacred or it's not, or are we are breeding people that should never be given life! How would you like it, if I could pass a law, allowing the termination of every woman that has murdered a child in this manner? I find the idea, cynically quite appealing! Some day in the future, another RBG might pass another law, holding you targers to account! Your crimes be dealt with in a similar manner as you deem fit for your own children!

Again here we go with the whole terminology thing. We are in a legal discussion about abortion. So words have specific meanings.

Abortion that is legally performed in the US is not murder.
Abortion that is legally performed in accordance with state and federal laws is not a criminal offense.

Fetus is not a swear word.

 

[weaver2]

...... It (abortion) goes against nature, it goes against womanly instincts!

You are wrong. The natural instinct in females, human and animal, is to preserve the already living. In the wild when the female is highly stressed the natural reaction is for the body to absorb the fetus or abort. This is especially true if the female still has young with her. In human animal the same thing happens. If the environment is highly stressful women choose to abort rather than bring a child into a situation is not conducive to raising a child. Like wild animals abortion is most likely if the women already has a child. About 60% of the women that get abortions already have one child.

 

[Atreus21]

Transgressed?

To remove the fetus safely, it would take either an surgical (open/cutting) procedure, or they would need to dilate the cervix as wide as possible to fully visualize the fetus to remove it and the placenta safely. Both of those would likely require significant sedation and/or anesthesia and likely downtime where the woman cannot work. I call that transgression.

So, again, if (just IF) it were possible to transplant the fetus to an artificial womb with no more expense in time, money, or pain than an abortion, would you then be willing to restrict abortion?

By the way....who is paying for this abortion replacement? The significant procedure to remove the fetus, the continuing gestation and monitoring of the fetus in the artificial womb.

As I said to Lursa, let's assume that I'm paying for this.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Aah...RBG...... one of yours!

I don't think her get out of jail card absolves anyone, as that's exactly what abortion actually is.... a crime, but your monopoly with your people in executive decision making management positions, your not going to get independent oversight! Just look at your hatred for American attempting to get justice from 9/11, a typical example of your parochial bias and bigotry, I think Americans should be allowed justice!

What "get out of jail card"? Abortion is not a crime here in Canada, the US or your country, Scotland.

 

[Lursa]

Suppose for the sake of argument that I am. I'm willing to cover all costs and raise the child in my home, defects and all. Would you then prohibit abortion?

That doesnt work, unless you are saying that for every single removal procedure, there must be a "pre-birth adoptive" family?

If that's the case, pretty sure most people would prefer to skip paying the $$$$ for 9 months and just adopt a kid already born (there are over 100,000 available in the US).​

​

But in any case, people do what you are saying now, but the women remain pregnant as surrogates.​

But back to your question, my answer is as above. For the 800,000 abortions/year, and if every single woman consented? Still no.

Because that's not realistic and since you cant guarantee every single woman would consent, I would never agree to legislature that removed her choice. Many women would object because it's unethical to unnecessarily produce MORE chidden where there are already 100,000 waiting for homes. Dont you think it's wrong to unnecessarily create more kids when so many are already waiting for homes? How do you justify that? Those kids are already aware and hoping, and yet would be harmed by having fewer chances of getting a home.

 

[Highlanders]

What "get out of jail card"? Abortion is not a crime here in Canada, the US or your country, Scotland.

That's where your wrong, in Scotland and England it's still on the statute as an offence in criminal law!

Hence, the RBG reference to get out of jail monopoly card for murderering a child!

 

[Highlanders]

You are wrong. The natural instinct in females, human and animal, is to preserve the already living. In the wild when the female is highly stressed the natural reaction is for the body to absorb the fetus or abort. This is especially true if the female still has young with her. In human animal the same thing happens. If the environment is highly stressful women choose to abort rather than bring a child into a situation is not conducive to raising a child. Like wild animals abortion is most likely if the women already has a child. About 60% of the women that get abortions already have one child.

I have read so many of your posts, and all I can say is relative to the subject, you left your motherly instincts at the door of the abortion clinics!
So hung up to deceive yourselves, you make excuses by even the words you use to justify your actions! Hogwash I'd call it!
And the idea, stressful situation, not being conductive is just *****footing around, it's really just cramping my style! Any excuse will do.
To commit this crime, you gave no motherly instincts, you have no will to share, nor the want of onerious duty to that, your child! But as I said previously your a product of your environment!

 

[Highlanders]

Again here we go with the whole terminology thing. We are in a legal discussion about abortion. So words have specific meanings.

Abortion that is legally performed in the US is not murder.
Abortion that is legally performed in accordance with state and federal laws is not a criminal offense.

Fetus is not a swear word.

Nor is telling the truth, or shooting the messenger, an act is not law, it is an act!

 

[year2late]

If the context of this discussion is a legal one...if you call abortion murder or infantacide....it is a lie.

All you need to say is "I believe it to be..." and not state it as fact.

I will remind you again, fetus is not a swear word.

 

[Highlanders]

If the context of this discussion is a legal one...if you call abortion murder or infantacide....it is a lie.

All you need to say is "I believe it to be..." and not state it as fact.

I will remind you again, fetus is not a swear word.

You want to play word game to mitigate the horrors of the behavior expressed in these women's actions! And I understand both you and them want to hide your face in shame, to mitigate or defend your actions, but I don't bloody care if you feel guilty, because you shouldfell guilt!

 

[Integrityrespec]

The American Taliban will never stop attacking Womens Reproductive Rights.

And if this current SCOTUS nominee is appointed, you better believe there will be a wave, a tidal wave of Theocratic nonsense to come out of every red state that can pass it to attack reproductive rights any way they can.

Theocratic Authoritarianism is alive and well in the United States and will continue to be.

What's more humane, protection of the baby or of the mother?

 

[Fledermaus]

You want to play word game to mitigate the horrors of the behavior expressed in these women's actions! And I understand both you and them want to hide your face in shame, to mitigate or defend your actions, but I don't bloody care if you feel guilty, because you shouldfell guilt!

Accurate definitions =/= word games.

And you have been intentionally wrong in your word usage.

And "shouldfell"?

Is that Scottish for "I don't have an education in English"?

 

[Fledermaus]

Hence, the RBG reference to get out of jail monopoly card for murderering a child!

You STILL haven't answered what law Ruth Bader Ginsberg ruled on solo or passed....

Are you picking on her because she is the only Jew you can think of?

 

[Scrabaholic]

That's where your wrong, in Scotland and England it's still on the statute as an offence in criminal law!

Hence, the RBG reference to get out of jail monopoly card for murderering a child!

I looked it up. It's legal until 24 weeks

 

[Atreus21]

That doesnt work, unless you are saying that for every single removal procedure, there must be a "pre-birth adoptive" family?

If that's the case, pretty sure most people would prefer to skip paying the $$$$ for 9 months and just adopt a kid already born (there are over 100,000 available in the US).​

​

But in any case, people do what you are saying now, but the women remain pregnant as surrogates.​

But back to your question, my answer is as above. For the 800,000 abortions/year, and if every single woman consented? Still no.

Alright, so if we (a) could remove the child safely from the womb with no harm to either party and (b) at zero expense to the mother, that would still not satisfy you. We've mitigated as much as possible all concerns for bodily autonomy and expense, yet that's insufficient.

It's getting hard to think of any case where you'd be satisfied except when the result is a dead baby. We could address all your concerns for the mother, but if the baby remained alive, it seems that simply would not serve.

Because that's not realistic and since you cant guarantee every single woman would consent, I would never agree to legislature that removed her choice. Many women would object because it's unethical to unnecessarily produce MORE chidden where there are already 100,000 waiting for homes. Dont you think it's wrong to unnecessarily create more kids when so many are already waiting for homes? How do you justify that? Those kids are already aware and hoping, and yet would be harmed by having fewer chances of getting a home.

If women wish to use and/or require that their partners use birth control to address their concerns with too many children, i have no objection. If, having created a child, someone seeks to kill him or her to address that concern, that's monstrous.