Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[quip]

Seems like that's what you guys do when you use terms like "Embyro" or "Fetus".

Seems?
You mean like distinguishing an acorn from an oak tree or tadpole from a frog?
It's called: being accurate, offering context, critical discernment, being objective.

Pick one ..or all of them .....but DON'T continue to hide behind sentimental semantics while forcing women who don't expect nor desire a baby, to follow your fancies.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems?
You mean like distinguishing an acorn from an oak tree or tadpole from a frog?
It's called: being accurate, offering context, critical discernment, being objective.

Pick one ..or all of them .....but DON'T continue to hide behind sentimental semantics while forcing women who don't expect nor desire a baby, to follow your fancies.

Actually, it's called "using a euphamism".

I've never heard a woman call her baby a fetus. "Fetus" is one of those terms abortionists use to mollify their consciences about what they are doing. Alcohol probably helps as well.

All that said, I would prefer a change in culture to a change in law.

But I doubt you people will be that lucky.

 

[quip]

Actually, it's called "using a euphamism".

Actually, calling it a 'baby' where only incipient life exists is closer to employing favored term over an unfavorable one. Perhaps, you're projecting.

I've never heard a woman call her baby a fetus. "Fetus" is one of those terms abortionists use to mollify their consciences about what they are doing. Alcohol probably helps as well.

Why would she? She wants 'it' removed or she's 'expecting' to birth a baby.
Is this even an anti-choice argument?

All that said, I would prefer a change in culture to a change in law.

But I doubt you people will be that lucky.

Perhaps that aforementioned alcohol (you conspicuously recommended) may assist you here.

 

[Oxnard]

Broad strokes “pro-life” give rise to radicalism - militant/Christian Nationalists W/Handmaid's Tale mindset. (not to be confused with Christians)
Their views have nothing to do with health or medical fact — they are, root and branch, faith-based misogyny and Hammerlock-Christian superstitions about the ‘superiority’ of the male and Christian fear of female sexuality.

KathleenM1 dalykos(.)com 2019 (paraphrasing)

Barefoot& pregnant!

 

[Lursa]

Rinse, repeat. All you are doing is regurgitating all your failed comments...you are desperately driven to post, over and over, the same empty, unsupported dogma. And you cant even answer the most basic questions regarding the issue:

Why is abortion wrong? "Who" says?​

--and--

Why would Congress want fetal personhood?​

He only got the death penalty because the jury was so outraged by the death of the baby.

"They" cannot, and this has been explained to you. The first degree murder charge, with death penalty (originally) was for killing the woman. It was not legally applicable to the charge re: the fetus.

Why do you lie like you're not aware of this? Your posts are layer upon layer of being corrected and pretending you havent been. Very dishonest.

Killing a baby is never responsible.
Putting it up for adoption is responsible.

These remain some of your stupidest statements.

I gave you a long list proving that abortion is a very responsible option. You wouldnt acknowledge it as valid but of course, it is:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.

You cant a say a single thing on this list isnt true. (Well you could but it would be a lie)

Hold your head up! In the clouds, where you imagine you hold any moral High Ground on this issue.

Hatin' on single mothers as too irresponsible and the cause of society's ills, while demanding they become single mothers

--and--

blaming the kids waiting to be adopted for being born

 

[Lursa]

Actually, it's called "using a euphamism".

Then stop lying over and over and stating that it is a baby.

You just admitted it's not. Bookmarked.

 

[Gordy327]

Hmmm... Arms, legs, a head, a heartbeat... Sure looks like a baby to me.

But it isn't!

Except when it does and people are charged with murdering fetuses.

Except it does not! This has already been explained to you. Not sure why you persist with the lie.

Seems like that's what you guys do when you use terms like "Embyro" or "Fetus".

Embryo/fetus is proper terminology.

He only got the death penalty because the jury was so outraged by the death of the baby.

People sure do get overly emotional and irrational.

Killing a baby is never responsible.

You seem confused. Killing babies is illegal and not the issue anyway.

Using birth control is responsible.
Putting it up for adoption is responsible.
Making sure he's a decent man before you spread your legs is responsible.

Happy to have cleared that up for you.

You forgot to mention abortion being responsible. With abortion, those concerns become irrelevant.

Actually, it's called "using a euphamism".

No, calling an embryo/fetus a "baby" is the euphamism. Calling an embry/fetus and embryo/fetus is proper medical terminology.

I've never heard a woman call her baby a fetus. "Fetus" is one of those terms abortionists use to mollify their consciences about what they are doing. Alcohol probably helps as well.

Fetus is correct terminology. Anything else is emotional and/or generic erroneous terminlogy.

All that said, I would prefer a change in culture to a change in law.

But I doubt you people will be that lucky.

What you prefer is irrelevant. It's what the pregnant woman prefers that matters.

 

[bomberfox]

Hmmm... Arms, legs, a head, a heartbeat... Sure looks like a baby to me.





Except when it does and people are charged with murdering fetuses.





Seems like that's what you guys do when you use terms like "Embyro" or "Fetus".







He only got the death penalty because the jury was so outraged by the death of the baby.







Not a Republican. The Democrats lost the white middle class by hopping in bed with the crazy feminists.



Killing a baby is never responsible.

Using birth control is responsible.
Putting it up for adoption is responsible.
Making sure he's a decent man before you spread your legs is responsible.

Happy to have cleared that up for you.

Ummmmmm mmkay….

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, Pro-Aborts really get mad if you don't endorse their lack of morals.

Why would she? She wants 'it' removed or she's 'expecting' to birth a baby.
Is this even an anti-choice argument?

Sure it is. (I've also heard women who had abortion say "Baby" and not Fetus, like the Asian chick I knew back in my 20s who thought a pregnancy would get her boyfriend to marry her.)

Broad strokes “pro-life” give rise to radicalism - militant/Christian Nationalists W/Handmaid's Tale mindset. (not to be confused with Christians)

You mean we might be stuck in a world of bad prose and disjointed narrative? Seriously, that book sucked. (Her premise, lost in most of the adaptation, was that because Feminists aligned them with the Christian Right on Pornography in the 1980s, they lost the culture war.)

Then stop lying over and over and stating that it is a baby.

You just admitted it's not. Bookmarked.

I said nothing of the sort, but you seem to have poor reading comprehension skills. Ahh.. the fine work product of public education.

What you prefer is irrelevant. It's what the pregnant woman prefers that matters.

Until the laws change.

Here's the thing. I don't think we SHOULD change the laws, because they'd be unenforceable.

But we should change the culture that sees slaughtering a baby as acceptable birth control.

GIven how your side is scaring the straights, though, it might not matter. Trump won. Which means he gets the next two SCOTUS appointments. Maybe more.

And he's already bitching that his last batch aren't radical enough. God knows what he'll put on the court in the future.

 

[quip]

Sure it is. (I've also heard women who had abortion say "Baby" and not Fetus, like the Asian chick I knew back in my 20s who thought a pregnancy would get her boyfriend to marry her.)

Your anecdotes are charming though I'm still waiting for a convincing anti-choice vibe.

All I'm reading is a old crank who doesn't like the current ways of the world. Plus, visiting time is over. Tell your nurse to get you to the bathroom ASAP (as your full of shit) then put you to bed. You'll need to rest up for tomorrow's conniption fit.

 

[Lursa]

I said nothing of the sort, but you seem to have poor reading comprehension skills. Ahh.. the fine work product of public education.

Sure ya did. But we'll see the next time you write otherwise and I remind you with it.

 

[Lursa]

Your anecdotes are charming though I'm still waiting for a convincing anti-choice vibe.

All I'm reading is a old crank who doesn't like the current ways of the world. Plus, visiting time is over. Tell your nurse to get you to the bathroom ASAP (as your full of shit) then put you to bed. You'll need to rest up for tomorrow's conniption fit.

It's this...he's longing for the "good old days" of the '50s. They were great for a white middle or upper class male. For everyone else...it was less of everything for women/gays/minorities. Including respect.

All the stuff he's complaining about was there...just swept under the rug, hidden, enabled...by white males. It's hard losing that control

 

[Gordy327]

Wow, Pro-Aborts really get mad if you don't endorse their lack of morals.

I see when you have nothing, you resort to juvenile trolish statements.

Sure it is. (I've also heard women who had abortion say "Baby" and not Fetus, like the Asian chick I knew back in my 20s who thought a pregnancy would get her boyfriend to marry her.)

Again, it doesn't matter what they want to call it.

I said nothing of the sort, but you seem to have poor reading comprehension skills. Ahh.. the fine work product of public education.

Says the one with poor understanding skills.

Until the laws change.

Or they do not.

Here's the thing. I don't think we SHOULD change the laws, because they'd be unenforceable.

But we should change the culture that sees slaughtering a baby as acceptable birth control.

Yeah, good luck with that.

GIven how your side is scaring the straights, though, it might not matter. Trump won. Which means he gets the next two SCOTUS appointments. Maybe more.

And he's already bitching that his last batch aren't radical enough. God knows what he'll put on the court in the future.

Is that where you're hedging your bets?

 

[JoeB131]

Your anecdotes are charming though I'm still waiting for a convincing anti-choice vibe.

All I'm reading is a old crank who doesn't like the current ways of the world. Plus, visiting time is over. Tell your nurse to get you to the bathroom ASAP (as your full of shit) then put you to bed. You'll need to rest up for tomorrow's conniption fit.

Pro-Aborts can't debate the issue rationally because killing babies isn't rational.

Again, it doesn't matter what they want to call it.

Good point. It's still killing a baby no matter what euphamism you use.

Fetus
Embryo
Unviable Tissue Mass
Meat Byproduct.

Oh, wait you don't use that last one, but you could.

Yeah, good luck with that.

All it takes is for SCOTUS to finally address the issue of when human life begins.

Given the court is currently made up of Catholic Fanatics with Trump ready to appoint more, your chances don't look good.

 

[Gordy327]

Pro-Aborts can't debate the issue rationally because killing babies isn't rational.

You're cleared clearing clearly incapable of debate given you do not even understand the distinction between a ZEF and a baby. But your confusion (or willful ignorance) is yours.

Good point. It's still killing a baby no matter what euphamism you use.

still wrong, no matter how much you believe otherwise.

Fetus
Embryo
Unviable Tissue Mass
Meat Byproduct.

Oh, wait you don't use that last one, but you could.

Unlike you, I use what is proper and applicable terminology.

All it takes is for SCOTUS to finally address the issue of when human life begins.

More confusion on your part. When human life begins is not the issue.

Given the court is currently made up of Catholic Fanatics with Trump ready to appoint more, your chances don't look good.

Funny how the SCOTUS has not entirely ruled lock in step with Trump on certain issues.

 

[quip]

Pro-Aborts can't debate the issue rationally because killing babies isn't rational.

Well, you've set the tone. If you ever decide to actually debate instead of casting moral aspersions, let one of us know. Until then, we'll just poke more fun at your expense.

 

[_.sokoa]

Sure I have. Abortion kills a baby.

every pregnant woman I've ever talked to never says "the Fetus" or "The Embryo", they say "The baby".

Ah yes, a pregnant women using casual language means we rewrite legal definitions or metaphysical categories, good going there! This is exactly the same as saying "Every dog owner I know calls their dog their child, therefore dogs are human under the law." Would you mind defining what makes a "person" objectively since you're practically claiming the fetus to be a person.

That you want to pretend it's a meat byproduct is dissociation.

Well I know this is responding to someone else but it's just so funny since legal personhood requires consistent, rational criteria.

 

[Lursa]

Ah yes, a pregnant women using casual language means we rewrite legal definitions or metaphysical categories, good going there!

He's already admitted he knows it's not the same as a baby. Here:

Actually, it's called "using a euphamism".

This is exactly the same as saying "Every dog owner I know calls their dog their child, therefore dogs are human under the law." Would you mind defining what makes a "person" objectively since you're practically claiming the fetus to be a person.

Yes, I pointed this out to him as well. It was not acknowledged.

Well I know this is responding to someone else but it's just so funny since legal personhood requires consistent, rational criteria.

And that has been provided for him as well. He just flails away, lying as if the inconvenient truths dont exist.

 

[Gordy327]

And that has been provided for him as well. He just flails away, lying as if the inconvenient truths dont exist.

In other words, trolling.

 

[Lursa]

In other words, trolling.

I dont know...he seems pretty desperate to cling to the past and enjoy blaming single mothers for so many of society's ills. Really needs to lay his personal insecurities "caused by today's society" at someone else's door.

But it's just hilarious how he's pretty proud to keep vilifying single mothers...while demanding we deny women elective abortions and creating more single mothers He just cannot manage to connect those dots. So no...he's probably not trolling...he really cant figure it out. OTOH he does outright lie and there's no excuse for that.

 

[Gordy327]

I dont know...he seems pretty desperate to cling to the past and enjoy blaming single mothers for so many of society's ills. Really needs to lay his personal insecurities "caused by today's society" at someone else's door.

But it's just hilarious how he's pretty proud to keep vilifying single mothers...while demanding we deny women elective abortions and creating more single mothers He just cannot manage to connect those dots. So no...he's probably not trolling...he really cant figure it out. OTOH he does outright lie and there's no excuse for that.

Whether he's serious or not, either way it's still ignorant and irrational at the very least.

 

[Lursa]

Whether he's serious or not, either way it's still ignorant and irrational at the very least.

Oh he's serious. IMO he's trotting out all his social insecurities here, as if stating them makes them more real, makes him feel like he has or should have some control over other people. Just how much of that is "real" and how much bluster is hard to tell.

But this is undeniably ludicrous...and he still swears by it: proudly vilifying single mothers, blaming them for many of society's ills...while demanding we deny women elective abortions and creating more single mothers

 

[Gordy327]

Oh he's serious. IMO he's trotting out all his social insecurities here, as if stating them makes them more real, makes him feel like he has or should have some control over other people. Just how much of that is "real" and how much bluster is hard to tell.

But this is undeniably ludicrous...and he still swears by it: proudly vilifying single mothers, blaming them for many of society's ills...while demanding we deny women elective abortions and creating more single mothers

That just affirms what I said and he continues to make himself look foolish in the process.

 

[_.sokoa]

He's already admitted he knows it's not the same as a baby. Here:





Yes, I pointed this out to him as well. It was not acknowledged.



And that has been provided for him as well. He just flails away, lying as if the inconvenient truths dont exist.

It seems he is quite the ignorant one.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, so much whining that I don't fully endorse your lack of responsibility.

More confusion on your part. When human life begins is not the issue.

Actually, it's the issue that the Courts have avoided for 50 years, but at some point, they'll have to.

Funny how the SCOTUS has not entirely ruled lock in step with Trump on certain issues.

This isn't about Trump, who really doesn't spend a lot of time talking about abortion, anyway. It's probably why he won, because there was a nudge, nudge, wink, wink that he'd appoint anti-choice judges.

It's why so many Christians voted for him even after Granny keeled over from Covid

Well, you've set the tone. If you ever decide to actually debate instead of casting moral aspersions, let one of us know. Until then, we'll just poke more fun at your expense.

Really, seems like I'm living in most of your heads, by simply SUGGESTING that a baby's right to life is more important than a woman's ability to act irresponsibly.

Ah yes, a pregnant women using casual language means we rewrite legal definitions or metaphysical categories, good going there! This is exactly the same as saying "Every dog owner I know calls their dog their child, therefore dogs are human under the law." Would you mind defining what makes a "person" objectively since you're practically claiming the fetus to be a person.

That's a pretty dumb argument. A dog doesn't look like a baby. A fetus most certainly does.

Oh he's serious. IMO he's trotting out all his social insecurities here, as if stating them makes them more real, makes him feel like he has or should have some control over other people. Just how much of that is "real" and how much bluster is hard to tell.

But this is undeniably ludicrous...and he still swears by it: proudly vilifying single mothers, blaming them for many of society's ills...while demanding we deny women elective abortions and creating more single mothers

Elective abortions are slowly becoming illegal because you overplayed your hand and dismissed the moral concerns of half the country.