Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[JoeB131]

That's only terrible if he isn't banging the secretary and she's just guessing incorrectly. If he's banging the secretary while she's 8 months' pregnant, she should definitely end that relationship, and that is a clear way of ending it.

Um, know, I think it would be terrible if he was banging the secretary or not. The baby wasn't banging the secretary. Not sure why he (or she, let's not forget, that 50% of fetuses aborted are female) deserved to be murdered.

I actually don't think pushing drugs is quite as horrible as castrating men, raping women, and torturing people to death.

I disagree. I remember driving through the West Side of Chicago and playing "Dodge the crack-head". And you don't think the gangs aren't raping people?

First, anyone who makes a high enough income to pay 40% tax on it necessarily lives way better than anyone who qualifies for a section 8 voucher and a SNAP card. If you don't know that, you clearly know nothing about section 8 and SNAP, so your comments on the people who have them are absurd.

Bull-droppings.

Even at low six figures, the Misus and I paid about 25% of our income supporting the welfare state, if you count Federal, State, Property, FICA, Medicare Taxes, sales taxes, and fees. ( I don't even want to get into the ACA Clawback they did after we got married.)

So, yeah, I got a little ticked off driving to work every day to see the Section 8 couple arguing on the front porch about who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

But that said, I certainly agree that there is cheating on the government programs and way too many people who shouldn't be on them, beginning with anyone who is a hard drug addict or alcoholic who hasn't quit. Those people should be kept in rehabilitation places completely away from the ordinary population, whether they like it or not.

Agreed.

I am well aware of the Democratic Party's leftist wing's excesses. It still doesn't justify why anyone would have been stupid enough to vote for Trump and be surprised that Trump is screwing them after he wins.

Who says Trump is screwing them. I despise Trump, but frankly, he has very little effect on my life directly. So I can see if you are a MAGA who doesn't get anything from the government, you don't really care Trump is screwing people you don't like, anyway.

I don't agree with that or understand the people who voted for Trump at all. Most people who did did not take the election seriously or look carefully at the policies they proposed or their honesty in discussing them. Trump is a liar who lies so much that he actually is pathological at it. It was right there - all the information from his first run for president and his four years as president and his appalling behavior during Biden's term.

I understand Trump supporters perfectly. They are tired of working hard, paying too much in taxes, and then being demonized as having "White Male Privilege" for what little they spent their whole lives earning.

This didn't start with Trump. This started with the Democrats electing McGovern and the Hippies back in 1972. We used to call them "Reagan Democrats", but really, they are the people who Democrats should be winning, but are alienating.

And, yes, abortion on demand for birth control purposes, and we laugh at your silly religion, is part of that alienation.

In those days, the women she met were not what she thought. As example, one was working as a Playboy bunny because she could make enough money to support her terribly ill mother. In those days, it was hard to find a job where you could make enough money even to support yourself. The stories Steinem learned are the reason she became a serious feminist. If you want to know about them, read "A Bunny's Tale," or the film made based on it.

So she became a wacky radical because she found out people less well off than she was were doing an unpleasant job to make ends meet?

Why was she looking down on Playboy Bunnies to start with? That seems to be problem with her, not society.

There are always scummy people of both sexes in the world. It doesn't change the fact that all the reasonable and responsible people should have a right to choose, and if scummy people get to come along, let them.

 

[Gordy327]

No, I don't have an issue. I'm not going to get one, my wife is unlikely to get one at her age. (we're both in our 60s) so it's not an issue.

I do see the problem that the Democrats love for abortion-on-demand-and-don't-you-dare-judge-me is ballot box poison, as Kamala could probably tell you if she had any self-awareness.

Who'd calling for ir providing "abortion on demand?" Especially during later gestation?

Bill Clinton had it about right. "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

That's nice, and?

5% of deaths in Canada are due to euthanasia. Canada is soon going to be that nice farm that the family dog got sent to.

So? What does that have to do with abortion? There's nothing wrong with euthanasia either.

But I guess I should be glad of your refreshing honesty that you are on board with aborting a healthy fetus in the 8th month if its mother is having a bad day.

I have always said there is no rational or legal reason for abortion restrictions. But who's getting or performing an elective late term abortion like that?

I don't care what you do with your body.

Why do you care what a pregnant woman does with her body?

Well, kind of hard to do that with HIPAA in place.

That just means abortion is an issue between herself and her doctor. It's certainly no one else's business or concern.

How do you know no one does this? Clearly, since all medical records are sealed, we don't know how often it happens.

Because abortions are reported and counted, like other medical procedures.

We do know, judging by the Gosnell Case, that there are some operators performing late abortions even in states where it was illegal. If one of his adult patients didn't get subtracted from the Census, he might still be at it.

Gosnell operated an unregulated and illegal clinic. Such clinics were in operation pre-Roe. That's what happens when abortion is restricted.

Except the point I make with the Peterson case is that Scott probably didn't do it, but he's spent the last 20 years on his life in prison for being a shitty husband. They have no real evidence against him other than he was out doing other stuff while his wife was at home getting murderized.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Now, if he HAD actually done it, I'd have no problem locking him up and throwing away the key.

That's what happened.

But if you are really on board with murdering third trimester fetuses, then those men should only be charged with simple assault, not murder. Our laws say otherwise.

One cannot murder a fetus, as a fetus is not a person and therefore murder cannot be a legal charge. Battery against the gestator is certainly warranted.

 

[Lursa]

Even at low six figures, the Misus and I paid about 25% of our income supporting the welfare state, if you count Federal, State, Property, FICA, Medicare Taxes, sales taxes, and fees. ( I don't even want to get into the ACA Clawback they did after we got married.)

And you'd have paid a whole lot more if abortion had been illegal then. And all those "irresponsible" women had produced even more kids needing public assistance, subsidized daycare, or been dumped in foster care for adoption.

Right? So you're still posting the same tone-deaf nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

Well, kind of hard to do that with HIPAA in place.

Not at all. Procedures arent private, linking them to individuals is.

We have loads of data on when and what stage and what reason abortions take place. Much has been posted for you. OTOH, you never bother to cite anything and so maybe, have no idea. You just make stuff up as you go.

How do you know no one does this? Clearly, since all medical records are sealed, we don't know how often it happens.

See above. We have the data...and there isnt any for after 24 weeks for non-medical reasons.

Or, prove me wrong and find it.

And I've listed reasons for you before...did you forget? More cut and paste:

--abortions that late are ~10 times more expensive, for ex. $600 vs $6000.​

--they are more dangerous and painful than labor because the woman's body hasnt prepared for birth. For ex. the cervix doesnt dilate.​

--at that point, a woman can get $10,000 - $30,000 for it in a legal private adoption. Why wouldnt she do that rather than pay thousands and go thru all that pain?​

So you can keep inventing misogynistic reasons but if you cant show women are doing this, it doesnt show anything but your negative view of women. There's zero significant data.

We do know, judging by the Gosnell Case, that there are some operators performing late abortions even in states where it was illegal. If one of his adult patients didn't get subtracted from the Census, he might still be at it.

Not this again. This has all been refuted. Dont waste my time. It's so dishonest of you that it makes you trying to make any moral comments in these posts ludicrous.

But if you are really on board with murdering third trimester fetuses, then those men should only be charged with simple assault, not murder. Our laws say otherwise.

OK. Assault...but it's life-threatening to her so...not "simple." Domestic violence is a major crime and charges.

 

[choiceone]

Um, know, I think it would be terrible if he was banging the secretary or not. The baby wasn't banging the secretary. Not sure why he (or she, let's not forget, that 50% of fetuses aborted are female) deserved to be murdered.

An embryo is a merging of his and her chromosomes. If he was cheating on her while this occurred, the whole pregnancy is polluted. Ugh.

I disagree. I remember driving through the West Side of Chicago and playing "Dodge the crack-head". And you don't think the gangs aren't raping people?

I don't disagree that the gangs are raping people, but that wasn't one of your examples.

Bull-droppings.

Even at low six figures, the Misus and I paid about 25% of our income supporting the welfare state, if you count Federal, State, Property, FICA, Medicare Taxes, sales taxes, and fees. ( I don't even want to get into the ACA Clawback they did after we got married.)

So, yeah, I got a little ticked off driving to work every day to see the Section 8 couple arguing on the front porch about who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

A single person below the poverty line is trying to live on less than $14,000 a year. but priority is given to seniors at the bottom of Social Security, lower than $12,000 a year, or is raising a kid. I don't know anything about the couple you mention - is either mentally ill, physically disabled, what? You don't know.

I have met people with section 8 who have been seriously disabled since childhood. One senior is close to eighty, raised about six kids, not all her own, and she ended her first marriage after her alcoholic husband held her down on their bed with a gun barrel in her mouth while their two little kids watched. She worked all her life, but she couldn't save because six kids cost a lot.

Agreed.



Who says Trump is screwing them. I despise Trump, but frankly, he has very little effect on my life directly. So I can see if you are a MAGA who doesn't get anything from the government, you don't really care Trump is screwing people you don't like, anyway.

Some people who voted for Trump have already been seriously harmed by his 2025 antics already. They are interviewed in the news.

I understand Trump supporters perfectly. They are tired of working hard, paying too much in taxes, and then being demonized as having "White Male Privilege" for what little they spent their whole lives earning.

--

This didn't start with Trump. This started with the Democrats electing McGovern and the Hippies back in 1972. We used to call them "Reagan Democrats", but really, they are the people who Democrats should be winning, but are alienating.

Democrats didn't elect McGovern. He lost all but one state. The hippies were not a political factor in the early 1970s, and any who existed in 1980 are more likely not to have voted, let alone voting for Reagan. Democrats didn't vote for Reagan. He won by drawing Republicans out to vote and getting some Independents.

And, yes, abortion on demand for birth control purposes, and we laugh at your silly religion, is part of that alienation.

?

So she became a wacky radical because she found out people less well off than she was were doing an unpleasant job to make ends meet?

She wasn't wacky. Lots of feminists saw Steinem as not especially radical. And what she found out was that Playboy bunnies weren't the shallow women she had imagined. They had no other options for making enough money to care for family members, especially sick, disabled, or otherwise unfortunate ones.

Why was she looking down on Playboy Bunnies to start with? That seems to be problem with her, not society.

She was a lucky middle class young woman with a high IQ who had gone to a good university and aimed to climb the ladder to success in journalism, and was engaged to a young lawyer. Lots of women like this had the same problem - she discovered the working class without the privileges of higher education. Her problem was really being young and inexperienced, but fortunately, instead of going on judging others, she learned from her experiences and grew up.

 

[Lursa]

Hardly. Stick around and I’ll explain why that’s a false statement.\

Let's see.

I thought your argument was the ONLY person or entity whose rights or interests matter where it concerns an unborn child is the pregnant woman’s. That’s not true? Because she’s dead, and presumably, unless she’s in the Netherworld, she isn’t aware of anything. Once the state became aware of the killing of Conner Petersen, why did it matter then? What was its interest then? This is the point at which your argument falls flat on its face and you declare, “Because that’s the law!” That all you have, because you can’t reconcile the inconsistency in your flawed logic.

Most of the time in those posts I also mention her family, if she's dead. She's not always.

And I explained why I believe they have created such laws...go back and read them.

I hope you dont believe I think they should be creating such laws? I dont really. If the woman survives or there's a father that was waiting in the wings, then again...something was taken from them and that's a crime...no different from any other crime. Why does the govt impose charges on any of the similar crimes? But I dont care if there are charges for killing an unborn human that are any different from any similar laws like destroying property, pets, livestock, period.

And what else would it be if "it's not the law?" Ignore all crimes where others destroy what is someone else's? Feel free to make that case

Yeah, I’m sure you’d prefer I change the subject and not point out the glaring hypocrisy and logical absurdity encapsulated in your “Mom is everything” argument. To paraphrase: “There is no crime when ‘Mommy’ kills her baby, because it isn’t a person and she ‘owns’ it. However, it is a crime when ‘Daddy’ does it even though ‘Mommy’s’ not here anymore to object and the only thing she ‘owns’ now is a perpetual plot in a cemetery. Finally, it’s a crime because THAT’S THE LAW!”

Great...then you're claiming what you've tried to deny the whole time. You see no distinction between the legal or ethical status of unborn and born people, and that abortion should be completely banned except if the mother's life is in immediate danger. I unbolded the last part because I didnt want to assume it. Is it accurate?

Make up your mind. Or...if not, then your post is the hypocritical one, as your previous ones would be "glaringly hypocritical." LOL it's like your posts just tipped off a cliff.

And you never explained why I should "stick around" to see why it was a false statement.

 

[Lursa]

Still waiting for an answer to this. Unless we're sticking with banning all abortions.

Because the focus isn’t on punishment. It’s protecting the lives of the mother and her unborn baby (fetus, child, gerbil, alien…. ). Is it murder? I think it depends on the circumstances, especially how developed it is at the time “Mom” wants to terminate it.

That's BS...where did you get that from? If it were true, the states would not deny women abortions which are much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth and they'd have left it up to women and their Drs like in the past.

Why does it matter how 'developed' it is? This is a common point often brought up but never supported. What distinctions do you make in the legal status or physical development of the unborn that make that acceptable to kill it or not? What week/stage? Please explain?

States had the option to restrict abortion after viability in RvW, so it's not viability. That wasnt acceptable to the anti-abortion crowd.

 

[weaver2]

Sorry about my last post. Trying to chat with visitors and write

 

[JoeB131]

Who'd calling for ir providing "abortion on demand?" Especially during later gestation?

Aparrently, all the Democrats who oppose any kind of restrictions.

So? What does that have to do with abortion? There's nothing wrong with euthanasia either.

You can judge a country by how it treats it's most vulnerable. Abortion for the young and euthanasia for the old doesn't speak well for a society.

That just means abortion is an issue between herself and her doctor. It's certainly no one else's business or concern.

So you are fine with abortion on demand, then?

Because abortions are reported and counted, like other medical procedures.

But not the circumstances, that's the point. So we don't know if there's some woman who aborted her healthy, third-trimester fetus to get back at her husband or boyfriend.

Can we agree, if that happened, it was pretty awful, right?

Gosnell operated an unregulated and illegal clinic. Such clinics were in operation pre-Roe. That's what happens when abortion is restricted.

Except his clinic wasn't illegal.

The problem with the pre-Roe laws is that they weren't enforced. Which is why most abortions didn't happen in back alleys, they happened in nice clean OB/GYN's, and they wrote something else down on the charts.

 

[JoeB131]

An embryo is a merging of his and her chromosomes. If he was cheating on her while this occurred, the whole pregnancy is polluted. Ugh.

So why not smother the baby after it is born? Oh, wait, no, THAT would be a crime.

So should slaughtering it when it's still in the womb, at least in the late stages.

A single person below the poverty line is trying to live on less than $14,000 a year. but priority is given to seniors at the bottom of Social Security, lower than $12,000 a year, or is raising a kid. I don't know anything about the couple you mention - is either mentally ill, physically disabled, what? You don't know.

I don't care. We have too many people in the wagon and not enough people pulling it.

I actually went down to the Social Security office recently to get my wife's information updated. (Change to my last name, update address)

Well, we saw a bunch of people there. None of them were over 65. None of them were in wheelchairs.

I have met people with section 8 who have been seriously disabled since childhood. One senior is close to eighty, raised about six kids, not all her own, and she ended her first marriage after her alcoholic husband held her down on their bed with a gun barrel in her mouth while their two little kids watched. She worked all her life, but she couldn't save because six kids cost a lot.

Not sure what your point is here.

I can cite just as many cases where people abuse the system. The problem with Section 8 is that instead of putting poor people into housing projects (which quickly turned into slums) they decided to give them vouchers to go live in nice neighborhoods.

Now, going back to that Condo complex I lived in for most of the Aughts. When I first got there, it was pretty nice. Then the 2008 crash happened (thanks, Bush) and speculators scooped up all those defaulted mortgages. Because the Association didn't have the good sense to impose an owner-occupancy rule, most of those were converted into rentals. So we had a point where 10% of our units were Section 8, and the police were out pretty much every weekend breaking up fights or looking for lowlifes who were hiding out there.

Next place I went to... Owner Occupancy was a must.

Democrats didn't elect McGovern. He lost all but one state. The hippies were not a political factor in the early 1970s, and any who existed in 1980 are more likely not to have voted, let alone voting for Reagan. Democrats didn't vote for Reagan. He won by drawing Republicans out to vote and getting some Independents.

Um, no. Nixon and Reagan drew in working-class and middle-class Democrats who supported the Democrats from FDR to LBJ. Then McGovern got the nomination, and his own running mate, Thomas Eagleton, called it the "Party of Abortion, Acid, and Amnesty!" and rightly predicted that they would lose these people, especially Catholics.

Jimmy Carter only barely beat Jerry Ford, who probably would have won had he not pardoned Nixon. Slick Willy only won because Ross Perot split the vote on him.

You guys keep alienating the middle class, and then wondering why it takes a disaster to get people to even consider you again.

She was a lucky middle class young woman with a high IQ who had gone to a good university and aimed to climb the ladder to success in journalism, and was engaged to a young lawyer. Lots of women like this had the same problem - she discovered the working class without the privileges of higher education. Her problem was really being young and inexperienced, but fortunately, instead of going on judging others, she learned from her experiences and grew up.

And if Feminism was just about equal opportunity, no one would have a problem with it. Somewhere, it became about abortions and lesbians, which is why many women are kind of repulsed by it.

 

[JoeB131]

See above. We have the data...and there isnt any for after 24 weeks for non-medical reasons.

Okay, that's your claim. Then you shouldn't have a problem requiring no elective abortions after the 24th week, then.

Not this again. This has all been refuted. Dont waste my time. It's so dishonest of you that it makes you trying to make any moral comments in these posts ludicrous.

Hardly. Gosnell operated for years, and he offed hundreds of viable fetuses. Some of them even survived the abortion and he had to kill them.

If he hadn't been caught committing other crimes, he might still be at it.

And this in a state with SOME restrictions.

OK. Assault...but it's life-threatening to her so...not "simple." Domestic violence is a major crime and charges.

Except they aren't being charged with assault, they are being charged with homocide.

 

[Gordy327]

Aparrently, all the Democrats who oppose any kind of restrictions.

Still no rational or legal reason forvany restrictions.

You can judge a country by how it treats it's most vulnerable. Abortion for the young and euthanasia for the old doesn't speak well for a society.

Sanctimonious nonsense.

So you are fine with abortion on demand, then?

Have i not made my position on the matter clear?

But not the circumstances, that's the point. So we don't know if there's some woman who aborted her healthy, third-trimester fetus to get back at her husband or boyfriend.

Data regarding the reason for abortion is documented. Besides, what difference does it make?

Can we agree, if that happened, it was pretty awful, right?

Again, what difference does it make?

Except his clinic wasn't illegal.

Except it was.

The problem with the pre-Roe laws is that they weren't enforced. Which is why most abortions didn't happen in back alleys, they happened in nice clean OB/GYN's, and they wrote something else down on the charts.

During pre-Roe, abortion restrictions led women to back alley clinics, where they would sometimes suffer health complications. Restrictions only end up harming women.

 

[Gordy327]

Okay, that's your claim. Then you shouldn't have a problem requiring no elective abortions after the 24th week, then.

Why should there be any restrictions at all?

Hardly. Gosnell operated for years, and he offed hundreds of viable fetuses. Some of them even survived the abortion and he had to kill them.

They were still fetuses.

If he hadn't been caught committing other crimes, he might still be at it.

So he was operating illegally.

And this in a state with SOME restrictions.

Some restrictions is stood too many restrictions.

So why not smother the baby after it is born? Oh, wait, no, THAT would be a crime.

That is correct. What's your point?

So should slaughtering it when it's still in the womb, at least in the late stages.

If its not born, then it's up to the woman and her doctor to decide.

I don't care.

Yes, your posts have made that abundantly clear. Especially in regards to women.

 

[Lursa]

Okay, that's your claim. Then you shouldn't have a problem requiring no elective abortions after the 24th week, then.

I was fine with RvW. It enabled states to do so if they chose to. And still no such abortions took place I cant find something that doesnt exist. If you want to argue they happen, you find the data.

Hardly. Gosnell operated for years, and he offed hundreds of viable fetuses. Some of them even survived the abortion and he had to kill them.

If he hadn't been caught committing other crimes, he might still be at it.

And this in a state with SOME restrictions.

I cant waste more time on you being so wrong on this just to suit your agenda.

Except they aren't being charged with assault, they are being charged with homocide.

You asked if "I was on board with it." I said I didnt really care. I've explained why I understand why they do it. Please keep up. And if you dont want my opinion, dont ask for it.

BTW, speaking of society moving forward, today the current WH administration asked asked a judge to toss out a lawsuit from three Republican-led states seeking to cut off telehealth access to the abortion medication mifepristone. Some red states are trying to prevent women from getting the abortion pills online. What do you know? Something positive from this administration

 

[Ahlevah]

Petersen destroyed something of someone else's...why shouldnt he be charged with a crime like we do in similar cases?

What “someone else” is that? The dead woman you said is the only person who matters when considering the interests of an “unborn child”?

 

[Ahlevah]

Great...then you're claiming what you've tried to deny the whole time. You see no distinction between the legal or ethical status of unborn and born people, and that abortion should be completely banned except if the mother's life is in immediate danger. I unbolded the last part because I didnt want to assume it. Is it accurate?

That’s a mischaracterization of my argument, and you should realize that given that I’ve laid out my opinions and reasoning quite clearly, usually more than once. I didn’t say I see no distinction between the legal or ethical status of unborn and post natal children. The law obviously does not define an unborn child as a “person,” and I clearly stated why I thought that was probably a good idea. My point was the law doesn’t have to define an unborn child as a “person” in order for the state to have an interest in protecting it. That’s the point you can’t seem to comprehend.

Make up your mind. Or...if not, then your post is the hypocritical one, as your previous ones would be "glaringly hypocritical." LOL it's like your posts just tipped off a cliff.

I’m not the one equating an unborn child, the intentional killing of which could potentially land someone in prison for life, to a piece of chattel property like a sock or a skateboard.

And you never explained why I should "stick around" to see why it was a false statement.

 

[Gordy327]

My point was the law doesn’t have to define an unborn child as a “person” in order for the state to have an interest in protecting it. That’s the point you can’t seem to comprehend.

You have not explained or provided any legal definition of what this "state's interest" is. State's interest is nothing more an ambiguous claim in an attempt to justify restricting abortion, especially at seemingly arbitrary times. How does the state have an interest in a non-person with no rights over that of someone who is a person with rights?

I’m not the one equating an unborn child, the intentional killing of which could potentially land someone in prison for life, to a piece of chattel property like a sock or a skateboard.

It's more akin to a parasite or tumor. But whatever one wants to equate a fetus to is irrelevant.

 

[Ahlevah]

That's BS...where did you get that from? If it were true, the states would not deny women abortions which are much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth and they'd have left it up to women and their Drs like in the past.

They’re only safer if they performed by physicians in hospitals with ERs and the proper facilities.

Why does it matter how 'developed' it is? This is a common point often brought up but never supported.

Is that a serious question? Do you not realize there is a difference between a two-cell zygote and a fully-developed, unborn baby?

What distinctions do you make in the legal status or physical development of the unborn that make that acceptable to kill it or not? What week/stage? Please explain?

As I said, philosophically I don’t think it’s ever “acceptable” to take any human life except in extraordinary circumstances such as rape or protecting the life of the mother. But I also think it’s really a matter of personal conscience, so I’m not prepared to make my ethical standard the legal one until the fetus gets to a point where it would likely be viable outside the womb, which today would be somewhere around 22-26 weeks.

States had the option to restrict abortion after viability in RvW, so it's not viability. That wasnt acceptable to the anti-abortion crowd.

Having an unlimited right to terminate a pregnancy in the 1st Trimester wasn’t acceptable to the pro-abortion folks. They had to keep pushing the envelope.

 

[Ahlevah]

You have not explained or provided any legal definition of what this "state's interest" is.

Yeah, I have, numerous times. You’re just in a state of denial—cognitive dissonance—unable to fathom that the state has an interest in protecting human life even if it isn’t legally a person until it’s born.

State's interest is nothing more an ambiguous claim in an attempt to justify restricting abortion, especially at seemingly arbitrary times. How does the state have an interest in a non-person with no rights over that of someone who is a person with rights?

It's more akin to a parasite or tumor. But whatever one wants to equate a fetus to is irrelevant.

Only a sociopath would have no moral scruples about unconditionally killing the fully-developed “non-person” in the 4D ultrasound image on the right and need to have it explained to him what the state’s interest in protecting it would be:

3D/4D Ultrasound: Are They Safe? Things You Need to Know - Mommy And Me 4D Ultrasound

To schedule your 3D/4D ultrasound experience, contact us at (619) 684-5045. We provide the best ultrasound in San Diego 92108.

mommyandme4d.com

 

[Lursa]

That’s a mischaracterization of my argument, and you should realize that given that I’ve laid out my opinions and reasoning quite clearly, usually more than once. I didn’t say I see no distinction between the legal or ethical status of unborn and post natal children.

Well you pretty much wiped it out in what you wrote, IMO to try and make a point.

Yeah, I’m sure you’d prefer I change the subject and not point out the glaring hypocrisy and logical absurdity encapsulated in your “Mom is everything” argument. To paraphrase: “There is no crime when ‘Mommy’ kills her baby, because it isn’t a person and she ‘owns’ it. However, it is a crime when ‘Daddy’ does it even though ‘Mommy’s’ not here anymore to object and the only thing she ‘owns’ now is a perpetual plot in a cemetery. Finally, it’s a crime because THAT’S THE LAW!”

If this was sarcasm...please explain? Why do all the fetal homicide laws ALSO exempt abortion? Again...you accused me of this before and "I'm" not the one writing the laws.

The difference is the woman CONSENTS to an abortion. That choice is hers. That's the law...(not mine but of course I support it). In America we have the right to consent to our reproductive choices. Remember the 9th Amendment right I posted for you???

--right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​

​

(Note that abortion is also on that list, it's pre-Dobbs.)​

In a fetal homicide...the woman does not consent, does she? She's assaulted and possibly murdered. Do you not see a very significant difference here? It's a crime if "daddy" does it because it harms/destroys and possibly destroys 2, neither of which the law recognizes as his to destroy. Right? Yes or no?

Do you understand this? If not, what dont you?

The law obviously does not define an unborn child as a “person,” and I clearly stated why I thought that was probably a good idea.

No kidding? And why isnt it? You've spend so much time focused on exactly that and picking it apart...what exactly IS your point and "why is it a good idea not to?" after all that?

My point was the law doesn’t have to define an unborn child as a “person” in order for the state to have an interest in protecting it. That’s the point you can’t seem to comprehend.

I never said it did. But you and others get offended when I agree and point out that we protect lots of other things. Like coral reefs and forests, and pets, and livestock.

And what more reason does the govt need than the crime I've pointed out: it's destroying something that's not theirs? Why is this such a big deal for you? That's a serious crime in many cases and it often depends on the value...remember? I think you got pissed when I just tried the analogy of comparing the penalties for some misdemeanors and felonies being based on dollar amount...as an example.

I’m not the one equating an unborn child, the intentional killing of which could potentially land someone in prison for life, to a piece of chattel property like a sock or a skateboard.

See? There you go doing it. Please, explain YOUR view of it then instead of getting mad at me when I take your words at face value.

Well? What did you mean? I'm not a mind reader.

 

[Lursa]

Did you forget this?

I’m not. Why can’t you see that the law can classify an unborn human being as an “unborn child,” giving someone who intentionally kills it up to life in prison in the federal slammer for murder, without calling it a “person”?

I dont object to "unborn child"..."unborn" is a qualifier, an adjective that makes it clear that it's unborn. I dont use it because it connotes an emotionally needy quality to an argument, indicating feelings clouding fact. Btw...if you read your ENTIRE Lacy/Peterson statute...it goes into great detail explaining exactly this and how they justified using "unborn child" anyway...but it took at least a page to craft a legal argument to do so.

Did you miss that?

Btw, nowhere in the Federal Fetal Homicide/Laci Petersen Law can I find anything about "the states' interest." If it's not there, that's no longer a federal argument because again...RvW is gone. There were celebrations on the right, remember?

 

[Gordy327]

Yeah, I have, numerous times. You’re just in a state of denial—cognitive dissonance—unable to fathom that the state has an interest in protecting human life even if it isn’t legally a person until it’s born.

Cite the post/s where you provided an explanation and/or legal definition of this interest and not just make an empty claim of stayes interest! Since you agree the unborn are not persons with rights, how does the state have interest in a non person with no rights over an actual legal person with rights? I asked you that previously and you did not provide an answer.

Only a sociopath would have no moral scruples about unconditionally killing the fully-developed “non-person” in the 4D ultrasound image on the right and need to have it explained to him what the state’s interest in protecting it would be:


View attachment 67568701

3D/4D Ultrasound: Are They Safe? Things You Need to Know - Mommy And Me 4D Ultrasound

To schedule your 3D/4D ultrasound experience, contact us at (619) 684-5045. We provide the best ultrasound in San Diego 92108.

mommyandme4d.com

I see you have to resort to transparent attempts at ad hom attacks and emotional manipulation, as you cannot seem to rationally address points and questions made. How about you actually and rationally answer my questions!

 

[Lursa]

They’re only safer if they performed by physicians in hospitals with ERs and the proper facilities.

And what is your point here? Certainly anyone humane would hope such facilities are available to any women that need them. Some states are restricting women's access to that care tho...women that wanted their pregnancies and are bleeding out or carrying dying septic unborn. Not very humane.

But please explain your point?

Is that a serious question? Do you not realize there is a difference between a two-cell zygote and a fully-developed, unborn baby?

Here's the whole quote:

Why does it matter how 'developed' it is? This is a common point often brought up but never supported. What distinctions do you make in the legal status or physical development of the unborn that make that acceptable to kill it or not? What week/stage? Please explain?​

I bring it up because no one will answer it except anti-abortionists that are against all abortions unless the woman's life is in immediate danger. The anti-abortionists in general are all over the place in every state...6 weeks, 8 weeks, 12, 15.

There's no consensus and none of it seems based on any meaningful distinctions. What is the justification for imposing laws that put women's lives and health and self-determination at risk? That take away our moral agency, our right to consent, and prioritize the unborn above that if they cant even identify something significant?

As I said, philosophically I don’t think it’s ever “acceptable” to take any human life except in extraordinary circumstances such as rape or protecting the life of the mother. But I also think it’s really a matter of personal conscience, so I’m not prepared to make my ethical standard the legal one until the fetus gets to a point where it would likely be viable outside the womb, which today would be somewhere around 22-26 weeks.

States had that option under RvW And people werent satisfied. So then see what I just wrote above. WTF do they want?

Is it murder to kill the unborn or not? The majority of Americans support elective abortion to some extent. Yet some states are acting against women's lives and interests and fighting for something they cant even define. It's pure self-righteous hypocrisy.

Having an unlimited right to terminate a pregnancy in the 1st Trimester wasn’t acceptable to the pro-abortion folks. They had to keep pushing the envelope.

RvW provided the unlimited right to terminate anytime, but allowed states to restrict it at viability, and some states chose not to restrict it. And most states restricted it at viability.

In both cases women didnt/dont abort healthy, viable fetuses unless she's got a medical reason and even then, most women WANT those pregnancies and choose to risk their lives and have it anyway. That "restriction" doesnt even matter...it's useless, feel-good legislation. All of Canada has no such restriction...and no such abortions. See post 1429.

And the anti-abortites got Dobbs, which reinforced that the federal govt does not protect the unborn and states can enable women/their Drs to kill their unborn with no due process.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, I have, numerous times. You’re just in a state of denial—cognitive dissonance—unable to fathom that the state has an interest in protecting human life even if it isn’t legally a person until it’s born.



Only a sociopath would have no moral scruples about unconditionally killing the fully-developed “non-person” in the 4D ultrasound image on the right and need to have it explained to him what the state’s interest in protecting it would be:


View attachment 67568701

3D/4D Ultrasound: Are They Safe? Things You Need to Know - Mommy And Me 4D Ultrasound

To schedule your 3D/4D ultrasound experience, contact us at (619) 684-5045. We provide the best ultrasound in San Diego 92108.

mommyandme4d.com

Why lose any sleep over something that doesnt happen? Post 1429. Good luck finding any data on it, the occurrences are more than rare.

Certainly it's not worth having women denied or delayed life-saving care during a miscarriage or the horror of carrying a dying septic fetus that would have been an eagerly awaited new family member. Everything about the right's restrictions on abortion are inhumane and not remotely any moral High Ground.

Please dont say abortion is inhumane for the unborn...I know you're better prepared than that. The ~97% that take place early consist of flushing the unborn painlessly from the womb. The rest, almost all medically necessary, require a lethal amount of anesthetic before removal.

 

[Ahlevah]

I see you have to resort to transparent attempts at ad hom attacks and emotional manipulation, as you cannot seem to rationally address points and questions made. How about you actually and rationally answer my questions!

Yeah, you kind of got gut-punched on that one, didn’t you? Hard to rally the troops in favor of killing “non-persons” with cute button noses who remind them of Infant Jesus in a manger scene, isn’t it? Of course, I didn’t have to do that, but after repeatedly attempting to get you and @Lursa to understand that there comes a point at which the state’s interest in protecting the life of what you continued to characterize as something non-human overrides the woman’s interest in ending it, I felt I needed to resort to the Bread method: “If a picture paints a thousand words…. “ If you and she still don’t get it, what can I say? Nothing. Basic logic brings me to an uncomfortable truth: you never will.