- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,261
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I just wanted to highlight the irony.![]()
Abortion is so safe we have to warn women about the medical risks

I just wanted to highlight the irony.![]()
Abortion is so safe we have to warn women about the medical risks:2wave:
What irony?
I never said "This is an oxymoron........safe reproductive health ....".
You made that sentence by splicing bits of two different statements together, and then falsely attributed it to me.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it.
Safe reproductive health care is not an oxymoron.
Despite the opposition of people like you, it is a reality, and always will be, if I have anything to say about it.
Who is "we"?
You and Doughgirl?
There are no significant "medical risks" (unlike with pregnancy and childbirth).
Ergo, you find it necessary to invent false ones ("Post-Traumatic Abortion Syndrome", "increased risk of breast cancer")..
The words are: pedantic and response and bringing and irrelevant and ectopic and pregnancies.could you be any more patronisng?
Nobody is talking about the health risk to the foetus. Unless the issue of a nervous system/pain/stimulus responce thing is on the agenda, the health care is primarily about the woman, so stop being perdantic and brigning up points irrelavent to the debate.
and eptopic pregnanacies are a reason for abortion.
In a way I hoping 1069 would have insisted on discussing her sh!t analogy.perforated uterus...sepsis...infertility issues...increased risk of ectopic pregs...etc..:roll:
ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that sh!t is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fecal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the terd's right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that sh!t is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
I'd give you a "thanks" on that, but it's just too so totally gross:hitsfan:In a way I hoping 1069 would have insisted on discussing her sh!t analogy.
What fun that could be!
Taking a sh!t = birth.
What is the sh!t equivalent to abortion?
An enema would be a late term abortion.....so early abortion would be what....gastric bypass?
No law is proposed which would dictate when women could have children, so there is no equivalent to telling men when they can sh!t.
There are regulations for when men can get an enema...like when it's *medically necessary* :doh ....but what kind of man seeks an elective enema when his bowels are working just fine and there is no medical necessity?
I think they call that a scat fetish.
So do PC women have a similar sexual fetish which drives them to abort?
***
Rape resulting in pregnancy would = the Taco Bell Chihuahua forcing a Chalupa up your asss......Oh, and check this out: the terd's right to life
I'd give you a "thanks" on that, but it's just too so totally gross:hitsfan:
Given the law in question it is my opinion that SD doctors should be required to make a statement to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life,
could cause depression and suicide,
and ends a woman's constitutionally protected relationship with her unborn child.
The words are: pedantic and response and bringing and irrelevant and ectopic and pregnancies.
(spell check)
How’s that for patronizing?
BTW—the topic IS about both patients...re-read the OP as I have already suggested.
You'll have to point out where in the Constitution it mentions unborn children because it simply doesn't exist.
(spell check )
How’s that for patronizing?
So I'll call you out now.
On the basis of Nancyboy's posts, I'm guessing he/she is a resident of either the UK, Canada, or Australia.
"Patronising" is the correct English spelling of the word. That is the spelling that is used in the UK and in every other English-speaking country, with the exception of the United States, where we've bastardized ("stupidized", I like to say) the English language, which, in its original form, contains very few z's.
So.
Even if Nancyboy is in fact American, perhaps he or she just prefers to use correct English spellings, rather than their bastardized 20th Century-American equivalents.
Absolutely no woman going for an abortion is unaware of this.
Lots of things, including *HAVING* the baby can cause this. Should we warn prospective mothers that *NOT* having an abortion can cause depression and suicide as well?
You'll have to point out where in the Constitution it mentions unborn children because it simply doesn't exist.
I knew you couldn't resist...that's why I let that one hang out there....Of course I know there are variation in English spellings. Check again darlin' --even with the "s" rather than a "z"--he still inverted letters...So hoisted by your own petard, eh?!:mrgreen: :2wave: Baloney (oh my...should I spell that with a "gna" instead???:shock: ) You LOVE the grammar/spelling Nazi schtick.:roll: :2razz:
Hey Ten....you have anything more to add to the oxymoronic irony of abortion being "safe reproductive health care?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_CongressIn my opinion women should be allowed to abort their offspring through the 108th trimester.
'splains it...thanks.Cheers ten. ......after consuming rediculous amounts of alcohol. .
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.