Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[Bodi]

Abortion kills babies. At least be honest about that part.

It does. So what?


.

 

[Bodi]

Maybe she found out her husband was cheating and wanted to get revenge on him by destroying a baby he wanted. It's a tale as old as Medea.

You think that women get purposely pregnant so that they can have an abortion to hurt the man? LOL

That is one of the most stupid thinks that I have ever heard.

.

 

[Bodi]

Why do so many women smother their own newborns after going through all the pain you just described?

Straw Man. Totally different topic.



.

 

[_.sokoa]

Okay, Late Trimester abortions are outliers.
So are cases of Rape, but man, the pro-Abortion side will scream about that until the cows come home.

So you are now playing yourself. You admitted that late-term abortions are rare, so you agreed with the whole point we just made. However, for some odd reason you're trying to hit a quick "gotcha" with the rape being an outlier too.

We bring it up because your side wants zero exceptions, even for rape victims. Thing is, you can't go "all abortion is murder" and then complain when people ask if that includes a 13 year old (sorry if this would offend anyone) who was assaulted.

The entire rape example was used to test the consistency of your own framework. Meanwhile, you're bringing up 8-month elective abortions, which basically don't happen (especially for no reason) just to emotionally charge the conversation and paint us like we're some sort of cartoon villains.

 

[JoeB131]

Some do, I dont. All I do is point out the hypocrisy when anti-abortites say they accept "killing a baby in cases of rape or incest." Is it a baby or not? Is it murder or not?

It would still be murder. In this case, it would be justifiable.

Again, I don't think that outlawing abortion is practical. We just need to move away from a culture where abortion is considered okay because people are irresponsible.

It's just a BS excuse most anti's hide behind, an admission that it's not about protecting "babies", it's about punishing women. Because rape/incest isnt the woman's fault...but if she "opens her legs" then she should be punished...with a child apparently. Dehumanizing, using the kid to punish women. And that's you all 100%.

Why do you think a baby is a punishment? I think this goes to show how crazy the Feminazis are, that they think this.

Your illogic is such that you blame so many of society's ills on single mothers, and then want to deny these "irresponsible" women abortions so that they have to become single mothers

Naw, I'm all for bringing back the shotgun wedding. We have DNA tests now, no more of this bullshit of marking "Unknown" on birth certificates to get welfare benefits. Make the man pay.

You can keep lying about it. There's no "why" just "killing babies bad"

Um, killing babies is bad. Sorry you refuse to see that.

It's not ever their choice.

I dont worry about laws to prevent people from riding unicorns either.

Except you can kill a third-trimester baby. Gosnell killed dozens of them. And if he hadn't messed up and killed an adult woman by mistake, he might still be doing it.

That late? I call BS but thanks for 100% reinforcing exactly what I wrote: Pure misogny. Great...let's see the data for that happening at 8 months.

Okay, let's require all doctors to submit the charts for review, and we can get the numbers.

Really? It's not a fail if the couple have to deal with police at all. THat's ALWAYS stressful. And the doctor would be investigated and it may delay the procedure...adding more pain and suffering. Again, your posts get more monstrous every page.

Create a useless law that will only cause pain and more grief...you're right, you're not a Christian. I must have read that from another poster.

Oh, Officer, don't pull me over for going 50 in a 35, dealing with the police is stressful!!! Even if you were going to let me off with a warning!!!

Never said I was a Christian. I'm an atheist.

Never made an argument God hates abortion. I've made the argument a fetus is a person, and at some point, feels pain of being snuffed out because it had the bad luck to be created inside an immoral woman.

You can have morality with a God. In fact, I think it's a higher morality because you stand for something because it's right, not because you think a magic sky pixie is going to punish you in an undefined afterlife.

Mental illness called post-partum depression. Gee, should we send a nurse monitor home with every woman to make sure she doesnt smother her infant? No? Why not? Doesnt every single baby count? Need to be protected?

So then dont bullshit me with that when you cant even show that women abort healthy, viable fetuses except for medical reasons.

It's baseless unless you can show the data. How many? Let's see it.

Your sill argument was that a woman would never, ever kill a healthy baby in the third trimester because Pregnancy is such a pain. But women kill their babies after birth all the time, that's the point. Going back to Gosnell, none of those post-viability abortions (illegal in PA under Casey) were life threatening, but he did them anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

It does. So what?


.

Well, at least you are admitting abortion is killing a baby. So that's progress.

You think that women get purposely pregnant so that they can have an abortion to hurt the man? LOL

That is one of the most stupid thinks that I have ever heard.

.

I've seen it happen. I've talked about it before, where the young lady I once knew got pregnant to try to trap her boyfriend into marriage, and then had an abortion. and the amazing thing is she did this twice. With the same guy. Maybe did it again later with different guys, I stopped talking to her after that. This was the kind of person who got no education from the first kick of a mule.

(Not to say she was stupid, she was college educated, and very bright. But just made terrible relationship decisions.)

Straw Man. Totally different topic.



.

How is it different? Your fellow poster claimed a woman would never go through 8 months of pregnancy only to abort a perfectly healthy fetus. But women go through the full nine months, and maybe a month or two more of breast-feeding and dirty nappies, only to smother their babies with pillows or put them in the back seat of a car and dump it into a lake and say, "A black guy did it."

So you are now playing yourself. You admitted that late-term abortions are rare, so you agreed with the whole point we just made. However, for some odd reason you're trying to hit a quick "gotcha" with the rape being an outlier too.

We bring it up because your side wants zero exceptions, even for rape victims. Thing is, you can't go "all abortion is murder" and then complain when people ask if that includes a 13 year old (sorry if this would offend anyone) who was assaulted.

The entire rape example was used to test the consistency of your own framework. Meanwhile, you're bringing up 8-month elective abortions, which basically don't happen (especially for no reason) just to emotionally charge the conversation and paint us like we're some sort of cartoon villains.

Not sure what "my side" is, as I have said outlawing abortion would probably be impractical.

 

[quip]

It would still be murder. In this case, it would be justifiable.

Again, I don't think that outlawing abortion is practical. We just need to move away from a culture where abortion is considered okay because people are irresponsible.

"Justification" is slippery slope for the anti-choicer as one's justification could easily be another's imputation.
So, since outlawing abortion is off the table for you, what do you suggest as sufficient admonition for a woman who doesn't recognize your particular authority on moral responsibility/justification?

 

[_.sokoa]

Not sure what "my side" is,

So why are you speaking as if abortion was murder, fetal personhood being obvious, dragging extreme hypotheticals, and calling people "pro-abort fanatics"

as I have said outlawing abortion would probably be impractical.

Well this would completely eliminate the coherence in abortion being murder.

 

[Lursa]

It would still be murder. In this case, it would be justifiable.

Really? Why would it be murder? Please articulate your argument instead of making a proclamation. Can she kill her toddler that was the result of a rape? If not, why not? Come on, let's see some actual "reasoning" in your posts.

Again, I don't think that outlawing abortion is practical. We just need to move away from a culture where abortion is considered okay because people are irresponsible.

So abortion isnt wrong then? You just object to adults having consensual sex? And then if they need to responsibly end that pregnancy when their birth control fails, so they dont have to go on welfare or lose their jobs, etc...that's bad? You just dont approve?

Why do you think a baby is a punishment? I think this goes to show how crazy the Feminazis are, that they think this.

Why dont you use a dictionary? If you force something on someone that harms them, esp physically and emotionally, much less harms their ability to earn an income...that's punishment. "Look it up."

So you run and divert from the actual fact...it's not about protecting the unborn...it's about punishing women. Dont deny it...it dehumanizes the unborn tho...you know, the one you keep calling a "baby?" Make up your mind.

Naw, I'm all for bringing back the shotgun wedding. We have DNA tests now, no more of this bullshit of marking "Unknown" on birth certificates to get welfare benefits. Make the man pay.

That's not an answer, it's more shaking your fist at the sky, crying that you cant get your way. It's more misogyny...again, your posts get more and more monstrous as you go. Here's what you were responding to:

Your illogic is such that you blame so many of society's ills on single mothers, and then want to deny these "irresponsible" women abortions so that they have to become single mothers ​

It's not a remotely rational statement, but it is your position.

Um, killing babies is bad. Sorry you refuse to see that.

Killing babies is bad...why do you lie about me? There are no babies involved in abortions. Your emotional posting still does not provide a rational, reasoned argument why abortion is bad. It's not and to try and make an argument, you have to pretend there is a baby to kill...your fantasy isnt an argument.

Except you can kill a third-trimester baby. Gosnell killed dozens of them. And if he hadn't messed up and killed an adult woman by mistake, he might still be doing it.

You can. If there are medical reasons. We've been thru this and you've been proven wrong on this many times...you continue to lie...and so we'll just disregard this as another bad faith argument that you desperately post in hopes someone else will fall for it.

You just use it to hide behind the fact that you cannot find any data on women aborting healthy, viable fetuses for non-medical reasons. And you've even admitted that if they do happen, they're outliers.

Please make up your mind which lie you're going to continue replaying for us

 

[Lursa]

Okay, let's require all doctors to submit the charts for review, and we can get the numbers.

Are you giving up your federally-protected HIPAA rights? And since that's federal, and Dobbs was clear the unborn has no legal status, states wont be overturning that. It requires probable cause and due process.

Look at you! Proudly crapping on the Constitution when you cant even articulate an argument why abortion is bad. Or wrong? Or why Congress would want to create fetal personhood?

All you want to do is cry and complain...you cant even articulate a reasoned argument. Just "feelings"

Oh, Officer, don't pull me over for going 50 in a 35, dealing with the police is stressful!!! Even if you were going to let me off with a warning!!!

Your comment displays depraved indifference to women/couples who are facing the loss of an anticipated new family member. It's disgusting that you minimize 8 months of hope and sickness and sacrifice to just making sure you can penalize some imaginary women doing something that you imagine they do.

Never said I was a Christian. I'm an atheist.

yes, I said that. Atheists can hold monstrous immoral positions and post monstrous posts too. See directly above.

I've made the argument a fetus is a person,

So...we know that's wrong. Why would Congress want to create fetal personhood?

and at some point, feels pain of being snuffed out because it had the bad luck to be created inside an immoral woman.

Also been posted that you're wrong. ~97.5% are all painless, just flushing the bean-sized unborn from the womb. Procedures further along require a lethal dose of anesthetic, it's dead before anything else happens. You are, pathetically, grasping at another emotionally-manipulative lie because you have no rational argument you can articulate why abortion is wrong

You can respond to this with "your feelings" and excuses but they'll be just invalid as anything but a creepy, sadistic fantasy. Outliers in back alleys dont count...they dont obey laws and procedures properly anyway. The more abortion is restricted...the more of them there will be.

LOL Imagine the pain of birth and being squeezed by uterine and vaginal muscles for hours on end? Nobody ever rends their clothes over that. The hypocrisy is obvious.

You can have morality with a God. In fact, I think it's a higher morality because you stand for something because it's right, not because you think a magic sky pixie is going to punish you in an undefined afterlife.

Who cares? Let me know when you display some. Thus far, you have no moral High Ground on this issue. You are on the record repeatedly blaming kids waiting to be adopted for being born and not giving a shit if grieving parents-to-be are investigated for a late term abortion.

Your sill argument was that a woman would never, ever kill a healthy baby in the third trimester because Pregnancy is such a pain.

Well that's a lie. I didnt use 'never ever.' And feel free to quote where I wrote what you just claimed. It's about why women dont wait that long. Why do you have to lie over and over? Well, obviously it's because you dont have any actual arguments, only micharacterized retorts that betray how much you resent women's freedom and equality and choices. No more control over us eh?

But women kill their babies after birth all the time, that's the point.

That's not the point, it's a completely different issue. See the list of things you keep ignoring on why women dont abort healthy, viable fetuses? NONE of those reasons applies to killing a baby. So the example you're attempting to use doesnt work at all. Another fail for you.

 

[Lursa]

. I've seen it happen. I've talked about it before, where the young lady I once knew got pregnant to try to trap her boyfriend into marriage, and then had an abortion. and the amazing thing is she did this twice. With the same guy. Maybe did it again later with different guys, I stopped talking to her after that. This was the kind of person who got no education from the first kick of a mule.

(Not to say she was stupid, she was college educated, and very bright. But just made terrible relationship decisions.)

And I know of 3 different cases where men got their girlfriends pregnant on purpose...putting holes in their condoms...so the women couldnt leave them. One didnt want his girlfriend going off to college. So what's your point here? That people treat other people shitty in relationships? No kidding? Is it the govt's responsibility to micro-manage people's relationships?

 

[Bodi]

Well, at least you are admitting abortion is killing a baby. So that's progress.

No. It kills as developing human in the fetus stage. Not a baby and not a person... but it kills it, yep.

I've seen it happen. I've talked about it before, where the young lady I once knew got pregnant to try to trap her boyfriend into marriage, and then had an abortion. and the amazing thing is she did this twice. With the same guy. Maybe did it again later with different guys, I stopped talking to her after that. This was the kind of person who got no education from the first kick of a mule.

We have all seen some things... denying women their right to an abortion because 17 crazy bitches are psychopaths is a stupid argument to even attempt.

How is it different? Your fellow poster claimed a woman would never go through 8 months of pregnancy only to abort a perfectly healthy fetus. But women go through the full nine months, and maybe a month or two more of breast-feeding and dirty nappies, only to smother their babies with pillows or put them in the back seat of a car and dump it into a lake and say, "A black guy did it."

Again, denying women their right to abortion because some a few women kill their born babies due to whatever real or imagined pressure they feel, is another stupid argument.

Not sure what "my side" is, as I have said outlawing abortion would probably be impractical.

Pro-Life.

That side...



.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? Why would it be murder? Please articulate your argument instead of making a proclamation. Can she kill her toddler that was the result of a rape? If not, why not? Come on, let's see some actual "reasoning" in your posts.

Well, no you can take a toddler away.

So abortion isnt wrong then?

Sure it is. You wouldn't be so angry about it if it weren't.

Why dont you use a dictionary?

Okay, I didn't see the word "baby" under "Punishment."

You can. If there are medical reasons. We've been thru this and you've been proven wrong on this many times...you continue to lie...and so we'll just disregard this as another bad faith argument that you desperately post in hopes someone else will fall for it.

There was no good medical reason for what Gosnell was doing, and he got away with it for years. If he wasn't caught dealing drugs and killed an adult patient by mistake, he'd probably still be doing it

Are you giving up your federally-protected HIPAA rights?

We already give them up. For instance, if you tell your shrink you plan to shoot up the school tomorrow, he's under an obligation to tell the cops, HIPAA be damned.

 

[JoeB131]

And I know of 3 different cases where men got their girlfriends pregnant on purpose...putting holes in their condoms...so the women couldnt leave them. One didnt want his girlfriend going off to college. So what's your point here? That people treat other people shitty in relationships? No kidding? Is it the govt's responsibility to micro-manage people's relationships?

No, it's the government's job to protect people.

even when those people are too small to protect themselves.

 

[Lursa]

Well, no you can take a toddler away.

Why cant she kill it? She can kill the unborn inside her, and most anti-abortites accept that. Why is the toddler different? Explain?

Sure it is.

Dont lie...you would have explained why by now. You know it's not...you know it's just about your feelings and you cannot present a rational argument.

If you had, you'd be more than happy to prove it by providing a quote or post number. But you cant. And that invalidates everything else you pretend matters about abortion...you cant figure it out and have to cobble together emotionally manipulative crap that makes you and anti-abortites that feel the same look ill-suited for reasoned debate based on rational thinking, laws, and morality.

You wouldn't be so angry about it if it weren't.

I'm not angry at all but I do find the depraved indifference displayed in your posts disturbing.

Okay, I didn't see the word "baby" under "Punishment."

What did you see, please present the definition of "punishment." Then we'll see if "baby" applies.

If you dont, it's obvious you know that you're flailing on that one too.

We already give them up. For instance, if you tell your shrink you plan to shoot up the school tomorrow, he's under an obligation to tell the cops, HIPAA be damned.

Which part of probable cause and due process did you miss in my post? Did you miss this in civics class or just wanted to pretend it doesnt matter, so you could hide behind a failed example?

 

[Lursa]

No, it's the government's job to protect people.

So you believe that the govt should micromanage people's relationshisps? Cool. So you're not a conservative.

How will the govt keep people from lying? Cheating? Being coercive? Stealing money out of his wallet, her purse? Keep them from arguing over the bills? How will it stop arguments over doing the dishes, taking out the garbage? How many times they should have sex per weeks? Who gets to demand that? How does the govt enforce that? How will it force them not to argue over how many kids to have? Will it end divorce?

Oh this is fun. Answer those and I gotta million more! When your posts arent monstrously indifferent to human cruelty, they can be funny.

even when those people are too small to protect themselves.

Oh I'm definitely against babies and toddlers getting into "relationships"

 

[Gordy327]

No, it's the government's job to protect people.

even when those people are too small to protect themselves.

Since the unborn are not people, there's nothing that needs protecting.

 

[JoeB131]

Since the unborn are not people, there's nothing that needs protecting.

Funny, Hitler said the same thing about Jews.

Jefferson Davis said the same thing about black people.

 

[JoeB131]

Dont lie...you would have explained why by now. You know it's not...you know it's just about your feelings and you cannot present a rational argument.

I gave you a perfectly rational argument, what you want is absolution and acceptance.

I'm not angry at all but I do find the depraved indifference displayed in your posts disturbing.

Naw, depraved is aborting a baby because it interferes in your plans.

Which part of probable cause and due process did you miss in my post?

Well, you go back to my point. If a fetus becomes a person at some point before it traverses the birth canal, then the government has an obligation to protect it from harm.

So you believe that the govt should micromanage people's relationshisps? Cool. So you're not a conservative.

Never said I was. I'm a pragmatist.

 

[Gordy327]

Funny, Hitler said the same thing about Jews.

Jefferson Davis said the same thing about black people.

And the Constitution, federal law, and the states says the same thing about the unborn.

 

[Lursa]

I gave you a perfectly rational argument, what you want is absolution and acceptance.

You sure? What is it? If you had, you could quote it. Give a post number. Keep pretending....but your "statement" that "killing babies is wrong" isnt an argument.

Naw, depraved is aborting a baby because it interferes in your plans.

Luckily, it's not possible to abort a baby. Abortions terminate pregnancies and kill the unborn.

Well, you go back to my point.

So you realize your attempted argument about HIPAA/medical records failed? OK good, just checking.

If a fetus becomes a person at some point before it traverses the birth canal, then the government has an obligation to protect it from harm.

Why would Congress want to create fetal personhood? Another question you cannot answer.

Never said I was. I'm a pragmatist.

No, you certainly are not. Here's clear evidence:

You believe that single mothers are a leading cause of our social ills, yet you'd deny them abortions and...create more single mothers ​

​

You declare it's irresponsible to get pregnant if not married, but you'd deny "irresponsible" women/couples abortions so that we have more irresponsible parents ​

​

You would deny women abortions just for them to dump them for adoption when there are ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted. ​

Methinks you need a dictionary for "pragmatic"

 

[JoeB131]

Shrill Pro-aborts trying to live with their consciences.

And the Constitution, federal law, and the states says the same thing about the unborn.

Actually, it says nothing of the sort. The issue of fetal personhood is very legally vague, which is why we throw men in prison for punching their pregnant girlfriends and causing miscarriages.

You believe that single mothers are a leading cause of our social ills, yet you'd deny them abortions and...create more single mothers

Your argument would have weight if there were a decline in illegitimacy. Instead, we went from only 10% of babies being born out of wedlock before Roe to 40% of them being born out of wedlock today.

We don't even use the term "Bastard" anymore to describe children born out of wedlock.

Once you tell people they don't have to take responsibility, they act irresponsibly.

You would deny women abortions just for them to dump them for adoption when there are ~100,000 kids already waiting to be adopted.

There are two million parents waiting to adopt even a single baby.

Those 100,000 are damaged goods. Why buy someone else's problems? Some people do, and C'Thulhu bless them for it, but you can see no one wants to adopt the troubled teen who started his life as a crack baby. A crack baby that was born despite the holy sacrament of Abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Shrill Pro-aborts trying to live with their consciences.



Actually, it says nothing of the sort. The issue of fetal personhood is very legally vague, which is why we throw men in prison for punching their pregnant girlfriends and causing miscarriages.

Looks like your not familiar with constitutional, federal, or state laws.

Your argument would have weight if there were a decline in illegitimacy. Instead, we went from only 10% of babies being born out of wedlock before Roe to 40% of them being born out of wedlock today.

Her argument has weight because its factual and blows your so called argument out of the water.

We don't even use the term "Bastard" anymore to describe children born out of wedlock.

Why should a child be insulted or stigmatized for their parents marital status?

Once you tell people they don't have to take responsibility, they act irresponsibly.

Abortion is responsible.

There are two million parents waiting to adopt even a single baby.

Source?

Those 100,000 are damaged goods. Why buy someone else's problems? Some people do, and C'Thulhu bless them for it, but you can see no one wants to adopt the troubled teen who started his life as a crack baby. A crack baby that was born despite the holy sacrament of Abortion.

Why add to the problem?

 

[Lursa]

Your argument would have weight if there were a decline in illegitimacy. Instead, we went from only 10% of babies being born out of wedlock before Roe to 40% of them being born out of wedlock today.

Not my argument...it's your claim. Foolish and unreasoned.

We don't even use the term "Bastard" anymore to describe children born out of wedlock.

Sure, let's have more names that kids can use to bully and make fun of others in school. Again, your cruel and unthinking posts just get more monstrous. Let's use MORE negative labels for kids. Holy shit what is wrong with you?

Once you tell people they don't have to take responsibility, they act irresponsibly.

ANd they act irresponsibly when you do tell them and even train them. See: cops not securing their firearms and their kids getting them and killing themselves and others. Sadly common.

Your "argument" is invalidated. You cannot legislate responsibility. People have had sex out of wedlock for all of history, even when it meant uncurable STDs, punishment by death, exile, disownment, etc. It's a baseless fantasy that you're trying to sell here.

Why dont you acknowledge that you're wrong here? It's been proven, century after century. It didnt stop in your fantasy nostalgia of the '50s...it was just hidden better.

There are two million parents waiting to adopt even a single baby.

And yet...babies get dumped and not adopted. And so there's now ~100,000 of them So your demand is still cruel and hypocritical...since they dont get adopted. Are you going to blame those kids waiting for being born? Again?

Oh! Oops, wait! Here you go

Those 100,000 are damaged goods. Why buy someone else's problems? Some people do, and C'Thulhu bless them for it, but you can see no one wants to adopt the troubled teen who started his life as a crack baby. A crack baby that was born despite the holy sacrament of Abortion.

Again, your posts just get more amoral and monstrous as time goes on. Your true feelings get revealed. It's a really ugly picture.

 

[Lursa]

Actually, it says nothing of the sort.

See, the opening section of the 14th A and the US Code that's been posted for you many times. Why do you keep lying?

And if it was "legally vague" Dobbs could not enable states to allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process. Right? Yes or no and please explain your answer.

You lie is effectively exposed. Again.

The issue of fetal personhood is very legally vague, which is why we throw men in prison for punching their pregnant girlfriends and causing miscarriages.

We throw people in jail for causing loss and destruction all the time. In the case of a fetus, it's a loss to the woman/her family. The criminal destroyed it and serves time. Certainly there's no rights or legal status recognized for the unborn...as you also know.

Keep failing... You keep re-treading your failures, copy and paste makes it easy to expose them.