Recommended Posts

How long before the state department of some foreign countries issue travel notices to pregnant women not to visit Alabama and Ohio?

In Alabama, you can now be imprisoned for a miscarriage. And get life in prison for aborting a baby. And get a decade in jail for leaving Dumfuckistan to get a legal abortion in another state.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartbeat-bill-in-georgia-abortion-law-signing-brian-kemp-to-sign-georgia-fetal-heartbeat-bill-today-2019-05-07-live/

And in Ohio, a state legislator proposes a bill that would prohibit private insurance covering abortions and make several popular and effective forms of birth control illegal, while pushing untested (read: nonexistent) medical procedure on women with tubal ligations that could kill them.

https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21067590/ohio-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-banning-insurance-coverage-for-abortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a smart woman would immediately sue for child support and demand 50% for healthcare. Might act as a brake when they realize that responsibility is a two-way street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, what about the state department of other States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

In Alabama, you can now be imprisoned for a miscarriage. And get life in prison for aborting a baby. And get a decade in jail for leaving Dumfuckistan to get a legal abortion in another state.

This is the thing that tells me it's just an attempt to get abortion in front of the Supreme Court again. They have to know it would never be given the tick of approval by Supreme Court, but it sure makes for a good vehicle to get the case appealed all the way to the top for another chance to chip away at Roe v Wade. In the meantime, they'll be able to gin up a whole bunch of outrage from the religious folks when it inevitably gets slapped down by the courts.

This isn't a law designed to work in the real world. It's a law designed to be opposed, get out the vote, rake in some religious right donation dollars, and maybe, hopefully, if the court is stacked just right override some precedent when it gets before SCOTUS. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

How long before the state department of some foreign countries issue travel notices to pregnant women not to visit Alabama and Ohio?

In Alabama, you can now be imprisoned for a miscarriage. And get life in prison for aborting a baby. And get a decade in jail for leaving Dumfuckistan to get a legal abortion in another state.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartbeat-bill-in-georgia-abortion-law-signing-brian-kemp-to-sign-georgia-fetal-heartbeat-bill-today-2019-05-07-live/

And in Ohio, a state legislator proposes a bill that would prohibit private insurance covering abortions and make several popular and effective forms of birth control illegal, while pushing untested (read: nonexistent) medical procedure on women with tubal ligations that could kill them.

https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21067590/ohio-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-banning-insurance-coverage-for-abortion

I know it’s flogging a dead horse in a ditch by a road, but when do the Gileads discover industrial teratogens and set their small part of the world ablaze with death and transfiguration?

The madness lives among us.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

This is the thing that tells me it's just an attempt to get abortion in front of the Supreme Court again. They have to know it would never be given the tick of approval by Supreme Court, but it sure makes for a good vehicle to get the case appealed all the way to the top for another chance to chip away at Roe v Wade. In the meantime, they'll be able to gin up a whole bunch of outrage from the religious folks when it inevitably gets slapped down by the courts.

This isn't a law designed to work in the real world. It's a law designed to be opposed, get out the vote, rake in some religious right donation dollars, and maybe, hopefully, if the court is stacked just right override some precedent when it gets before SCOTUS. 

That is the point of these ridiculous laws.

If no one fights them, it's a win. If they do fight them, you have a right wing judges in place to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Win-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

That is the point of these ridiculous laws.

 If no one fights them, it's a win. If they do fight them, you have a right wing judges in place to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 Win-win.

True, but they are deliberately making this so onerous it has to get challenged. The whole "get arrested for having an abortion in another state" thing is so onerous, whist clearly violating states' rights and the right to freedom of movement, that any halfway competent judge would have to throw it out. some laws get passed with the appeal being a "not so bad" outcome. This one seems custom made to force an appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

This is the thing that tells me it's just an attempt to get abortion in front of the Supreme Court again. They have to know it would never be given the tick of approval by Supreme Court, but it sure makes for a good vehicle to get the case appealed all the way to the top for another chance to chip away at Roe v Wade. In the meantime, they'll be able to gin up a whole bunch of outrage from the religious folks when it inevitably gets slapped down by the courts.

This isn't a law designed to work in the real world. It's a law designed to be opposed, get out the vote, rake in some religious right donation dollars, and maybe, hopefully, if the court is stacked just right override some precedent when it gets before SCOTUS. 

I believe that's pretty much it as well.  I don't think the SCOTUS will overturn Roe v Wade but I rather strongly suggest the US and European standards will converge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

In Alabama, you can now be imprisoned for a miscarriage. And get life in prison for aborting a baby. And get a decade in jail for leaving Dumfuckistan to get a legal abortion in another state.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartbeat-bill-in-georgia-abortion-law-signing-brian-kemp-to-sign-georgia-fetal-heartbeat-bill-today-2019-05-07-live/

 

Quote

The American Civil Liberties Union has vowed to file a complaint against the legislation long before January 2020, when the policy change is scheduled to be implemented.

On the bright side, it's always good to see a corporation exercise its first amendment-protected right to expre$$ itself by spending money filing civil rights lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be embarrassing to live in a place like Alabama - or are they just too dumb to know they should be embarrassed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

It must be embarrassing to live in a place like Alabama - or are they just too dumb to know they should be embarrassed?

On the bright side, these measures may improve the Gene pool

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-birth. Not pro-life. Once they are born, screw them. The Best Americans will have the government saddle them with debt and redistribute the money upward. The minute they are born they become takers. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever tried to sue the state for child support when forced to bear an unwanted child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

It must be embarrassing to live in a place like Alabama - or are they just too dumb to know they should be embarrassed?

I went to high school there. A graduating class of about 50 had three National Merit Scholarship winners, two from Alabama.

The third was a FL boy.

That's a higher ratio of winners to graduates than any school that year.

Meaning, your generalization is as smart as any other attempt to define a large group of people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

On the bright side, these measures may improve the Gene pool

 

Unlikely....

Do you know of any offspring born from incest that is exceptionally bright, or talented?

Think Sarah Huckleberry Sanders when you read through the list of mutations...

https://www.ranker.com/list/genetic-mutation-from-incest/laura-allan?page=4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly why I don't think The Handmaid's Tale should be on TV. All the Republicans think it is a how-to manual. Kind of like reading Mein Kampf is for them - inspiration :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is exactly why I don't think The Handmaid's Tale should be on TV. All the Republicans think it is a how-to manual. Kind of like reading Mein Kampf is for them - inspiration :rolleyes:

Ha! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Has anyone ever tried to sue the state for child support when forced to bear an unwanted child?

No, but you could put your newborn up for adoption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rat's ass said:

No, but you could put your newborn up for adoption. 

Women as chattel. Very Grumpian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rat's ass said:

No, but you could put your newborn up for adoption. 

Then let's cut the bullshit and just refer to pregnancy as forced incubation.  Probably should start regulating how and when a man can ejaculate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Reich, human rights begin at conception, and end at birth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I believe that's pretty much it as well.  I don't think the SCOTUS will overturn Roe v Wade but I rather strongly suggest the US and European standards will converge.

Not for decades. Simple reason: 56% of the US claims to believe in god, 27% of Europeans makes the same claim. Nations like Ireland have been legalizing abortion, not restricting it.

not that facts matter a damn.

anyways, amusing article about the interplay between right relgion and money in the new south https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-08/nashville-wants-to-be-the-next-austin-but-tennessee-won-t-make-it-easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Then let's cut the bullshit and just refer to pregnancy as forced incubation.  Probably should start regulating how and when a man can ejaculate as well.

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8, 9  months, then decides to kill it,  is that right?  Does an 8 month completely viable and healthy fetus have feelings or rights  that should be protected?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8, 9  months, then decides to kill it,  is that right?  Does an 8 month completely viable and healthy fetus have feelings or rights  that should be protected?   

 

 

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8 or 9 months and has to make a decision as to whether to save her own life or the life of the child, are you going to mandate she give up her own life?  Does the woman not have feeling or rights that should be protected?

Some of these laws don't even allow for cases of rape, incest or if the health of the mother is in danger.  The ones that do, require a police report to be filed before the abortion can be considered.  

Study after study has shown that the best way to reduce abortions is keep it legal and safe while providing comprehensive sex-ed.  Banning abortion will only lead to more death as women die from trying to do it themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like PHRF is a returd of SailBlueH2SO4, who I think was flicked because of dead baby pix. Let's see how long this ignorant sock lasts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

 

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8 or 9 months and has to make a decision as to whether to save her own life or the life of the child, are you going to mandate she give up her own life?  Does the woman not have feeling or rights that should be protected?

No I would not mandate that.  Not sure where that comes from   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Looks like PHRF is a returd of SailBlueH2SO4, who I think was flicked because of dead baby pix. Let's see how long this ignorant sock lasts. 

That is a perfectly alive baby  (at that moment) depiction taking from a  legitimate news organization website article.  Does the reality shock you into censorship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

No I would not mandate that.  Not sure where that comes from   

Well, that is what these proposals are.  No one is advocating infanticide.  What they are doing is allowing a mother to make life and death decisions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

Well, that is what these proposals are.  No one is advocating infanticide.  What they are doing is allowing a mother to make life and death decisions.  

and what if her decision is based on economics?  Or a coin flip?   Oh my how complicated this becomes. Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

and what if her decision is based on economics?  Or a coin flip?   Oh my how complicated this becomes. Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?! 

It's actually not complicated.  Someone else's healthcare decisions are none of your fucking business.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite astounding how many old white guys want to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

It's actually not complicated.  Someone else's healthcare decisions are none of your fucking business.  

You sound like someone who is probably ostracized from your Ogden Mormon neighbors and feeling very alone and bitter!  Or you're coming home from a long day of driving your FedEx truck and are facing feeding and providing for 3 wives and 9 kids and thinking ' Shit! I could have just moved to Rhode Island and chopped their heads off! Who knew!?' . Don't internalize buddy.  Let it out! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

You sound like someone who is probably ostracized from your Ogden Mormon neighbors and feeling very alone and bitter!  Or your coming home from a long day of
driving your FedEx truck and are facing feeding and providing for 3 wives and 9 kids and thinking ' Shit! I could have just chopped their heads off! Who knew!?' . Don't internalize buddy.  Let it out! 

You know nothing about me.  Please don't pretend you do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swimsailor said:

Wow. You are quite the piece of shit aren't you?  Fuck you and your pro-birth bullshit.  You know nothing about me.  I would prefer any of my Mormon neighbors to your backwards hillbilly ass any day of the week. 

Sorry I didn't mean to insult you. There is another option. Utah law states 'An abortion is legal in Utah if it’s done before viability, or if able to live outside the womb, it’s necessary to save the woman’s life or health, if she’s a victim of rape or incest that resulted in the fetus, or the fetus has a uniformly diagnosable and lethal defect'.  Since you married your sister, you don't even have to move to Rhode Island! 

That law actually satisfies all the concerns of the yachting libtards that hangout here.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

Sorry I didn't mean to insult you. There is another option. Utah law states 'An abortion is legal in Utah if it’s done before viability, or if able to live outside the womb, it’s necessary to save the woman’s life or health, if she’s a victim of rape or incest that resulted in the fetus, or the fetus has a uniformly diagnosable and lethal defect'.  Since you married your sister, you don't even have to move to Rhode Island! 

That law actually satisfies all the concerns of the yachting libtards that hangout here.

 

Actually Utah just passed one the "trigger laws" that would effectively ban abortion if Roe vs Wade was reversed.  I actually edited my post to not be so insulting to you.  So, keep on with your bullshit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Looks like PHRF is a returd of SailBlueH2SO4, who I think was flicked because of dead baby pix. Let's see how long this ignorant sock lasts. 

I’ve got his useless ass on ignore

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

I’ve got his useless ass on ignore

Me too, but I peek sometimes. He sure comes out with some stupid shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

I’ve got his useless ass on ignore

Yeah, I just did that as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

It's quite astounding how many old white guys want to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies.

Why is it always binary absolutes with so many jackasses in here?   There are cases in which Mom's life and the baby's are in danger - and a decision has to be made.  There shouldn't be any statute that stands in the way of making the most medically sound decision.   Contrarily, should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?   

The discussion isn't in the fringe absolutes that people on both sides of this topic trot out to try to disparage the people on the other side - there's a lot of nuance and way too many considerations in each case to condense the discussion into a 30 second soundbite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why is it always binary absolutes with so many jackasses in here?   There are cases in which Mom's life and the baby's are in danger - and a decision has to be made.  There shouldn't be any statute that stands in the way of making the most medically sound decision.   Contrarily, should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?   

The discussion isn't in the fringe absolutes that people on both sides of this topic trot out to try to disparage the people on the other side - there's a lot of nuance and way too many considerations in each case to condense the discussion into a 30 second soundbite. 

I don't recall anyone on the pro-choice side advocating on-demand abortions at 8 months. Conversely, I see many on the anti-abortion side who would like to eliminate abortion for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8, 9  months, then decides to kill it,  is that right?  Does an 8 month completely viable and healthy fetus have feelings or rights  that should be protected?   

 

Do you think that you and I should have little if any say in this matter? It really comes down to the woman, her partner if he is around with guidance from her doctor and other significant people in her life. Gilead indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Do you think that you and I should have little if any say in this matter? It really comes down to the woman, her partner if he is around with guidance from her doctor and other significant people in her life. Gilead indeed.

Small government is the only way...

Except when it isn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I don't recall anyone on the pro-choice side advocating on-demand abortions at 8 months. Conversely, I see many on the anti-abortion side who would like to eliminate abortion for any reason.

I don't recall that either, Ish - but, unless the statutes include a test for why the abortion is being performed at that late date, then the statute provides for that possibility, doesn't it?   You're right - there are many who oppose all abortion.  I'm definitely closer to that than I am to the people who call unborn babies "parasites" - but, I also understand that there are damn few absolutes, and that conditions often warrant very different outcomes.   

This "all or nothing" approach is harmful, divisive, and at best results in the alienation of a group of people.  Some who contribute here get all giddy at that thought - and I'd like to smack those guys in the head w/a beer bottle, it's a loser's attitude.   

We shouldn't outlaw ANY medical procedure that might help a person.  That said - it's also absolutely appropriate to protect the babies who haven't been born yet from whimsical decisions - and I think that "abortions as birth control" oughta be limited to the 1st trimester of a pregnancy.  Beyond that?  A problem w/Mom or the unborn baby oughta be the only justification for terminating a pregnancy.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why is it always binary absolutes with so many jackasses in here?   There are cases in which Mom's life and the baby's are in danger - and a decision has to be made.  There shouldn't be any statute that stands in the way of making the most medically sound decision.   Contrarily, should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?   

The discussion isn't in the fringe absolutes that people on both sides of this topic trot out to try to disparage the people on the other side - there's a lot of nuance and way too many considerations in each case to condense the discussion into a 30 second soundbite. 

Abortions of a perfectly normal fetus from a physically fine mother at 8 months do not normally occur, if the situation arises there is something seriously wrong, the pregnancy has been evident for months, the risk to terminate is high, labour can be induced for adoption and for most woman abortion at this stage will cause significant psychological trauma.  Doctors to perform this procedure will be near impossible to find as an induced labour followed by adoption is much safer. At this stage the procedure is a serious one requiring hospitalisation with serious risks to the woman no longer a "whimsical decision".
Technically its possible but unless there are serious abnormalities or the mother's life is threatened it's not going to happen.Whether its medically advisable or not abortion is the choice of the pregnant woman, morally only her opinion and that of the person performing it should count. 
Punishing and making it harder to abort for those who need it just because of hypothetical reasons just shows your intentions and your disregard for the rights and pain late term mothers who need to abort are in. 
Back allys and coat hangers have existed for a long long time and so has suicide as a last resort. Pushing the desperate back into such conditions seems to be your goal.

What happened to the holistic views that you hold when it comes to gun violence? That the root and causes of the problem should be treated first? Causative agents (rape and teen/unwanted pregnancies) should be targeted first. That society should change in a way that such things are no longer needed.
Make the need for abortions disappear and it will no longer be needed but till the time its needed do it in a way that is safe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VhmSays said:

Abortions of a perfectly normal fetus from a physically fine mother at 8 months do not normally occur, it the situation arises there is something seriously wrong, the pregnancy has been evident for months, the risk to terminate is high, labour can be induced for adoption and for most woman abortion at this stage will cause significant psychological trauma.  Doctors to perform this procedure will be near impossible to find as an induced labour followed by adoption is much safer. At this stage the procedure is a serious one requiring hospitalisation with serious risks to the woman no longer a "whimsical decision".
Technically its possible but unless there are serious abnormalities or the mother's life is threatened it's not going to happen.
Whether its medically advisable or not abortion is the choice of the pregnant woman, morally only her opinion and that of the person performing it should count. 
Punishing and making it harder to abort for those who need it just because of hypothetical reasons just shows your intentions and your disregard for the rights and pain late term mothers who need to abort are in. 
Back allys and coat hangers have existed for a long long time and so has suicide as a last resort. Pushing the desperate back into such conditions seems to be your goal.

What happened to the holistic views that you hold when it comes to gun violence? That the root and causes of the problem should be treated first? Causative agents (rape and teen/unwanted pregnancies) should be targeted first. That society should change in a way that such things are no longer needed.
Make the need for abortions disappear and it will no longer be needed but till the time its needed do it in a way that is saf

I think you seriously misunderstood my post - re-read it please, and tell me what you think I'm advocating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't recall that either, Ish - but, unless the statutes include a test for why the abortion is being performed at that late date, then the statute provides for that possibility, doesn't it?   You're right - there are many who oppose all abortion.  I'm definitely closer to that than I am to the people who call unborn babies "parasites" - but, I also understand that there are damn few absolutes, and that conditions often warrant very different outcomes.   

This "all or nothing" approach is harmful, divisive, and at best results in the alienation of a group of people.  Some who contribute here get all giddy at that thought - and I'd like to smack those guys in the head w/a beer bottle, it's a loser's attitude.   

We shouldn't outlaw ANY medical procedure that might help a person.  That said - it's also absolutely appropriate to protect the babies who haven't been born yet from whimsical decisions - and I think that "abortions as birth control" oughta be limited to the 1st trimester of a pregnancy.  Beyond that?  A problem w/Mom or the unborn baby oughta be the only justification for terminating a pregnancy.  

 I agree the morning after is now being used as a primary contraceptive by many and there are cases where first trimester abortions especially MTPs are used as birth control but for the majority of women even first trimester abortions are not "whimsical decisions".  Late term abortions tend to be hard on the woman physically as well as psychologically. Just because they are getting an abortion they are not wicked so don't belittle their decision. 

Imposing conditions just makes those in pain jump hoops, the rich can always get a doctors certificate stating the hormonal changes will trigger painful bone spurs, the poor will wind up in debt or dead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

 I agree the morning after is now being used as a primary contraceptive by many and there are cases where first trimester abortions especially MTPs are used as birth control but for the majority of women even first trimester abortions are not "whimsical decisions".  Late term abortions tend to be hard on the woman physically as well as psychologically. Just because they are getting an abortion they are not wicked so don't belittle their decision. 

Imposing conditions just makes those in pain jump hoops, the rich can always get a doctors certificate stating the hormonal changes will trigger painful bone spurs, the poor will wind up in debt or dead.

 

To the italicized part of your comment, I don't think that I've ever said or done anything of the sort.  

To the bolded, do I correctly understand that you disagree with my feeling that terminating a pregnancy beyond the first trimester should be permitted only for conditions beyond convenience?   Remember that I also said that there aren't any absolutes, and that circumstances often warrant very different outcomes.  

I'm OK with you not liking that, as long as you understand why I feel that that's appropriate.  Don't we take a away a child and imprison a parent who's behavior harmed that child?   My premise is that a viable, unborn child deserves that same consideration and protection.  In the case of medical necessity, or a child who's not and won't develop properly?  IMHO those are justifiable exceptions to the prohibition.   My intent isn't to "control what a woman I don't know does with her body" - it's to advocate for and protect a child - and that's all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

You sound like someone who is probably ostracized from your Ogden Mormon neighbors and feeling very alone and bitter!  Or you're coming home from a long day of driving your FedEx truck and are facing feeding and providing for 3 wives and 9 kids and thinking ' Shit! I could have just moved to Rhode Island and chopped their heads off! Who knew!?' . Don't internalize buddy.  Let it out! 

OK, How many kids have you adopted??  Are you currently running an orphanage?  How about a placement service for said kids??  Until you do, well shut the fuck up and get the hell out of other peoples business..  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Do you think that you and I should have little if any say in this matter? It really comes down to the woman, her partner if he is around with guidance from her doctor and other significant people in her life. Gilead indeed.

Please don't indulge Sailblue with his lies and nonsense...No one murders perfectly healthy, viable  8 9 month Fetus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Please don't indulge Sailblue with his lies and nonsense...No one murders perfectly healthy, viable  8 9 month Fetus. 

Gun nutz do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Gun nutz do...

Well yeah. there is that.

But the Abortion debate is not dissimilar to the gun debate..all a load of bollocks.

I just wish men would get used to the idea that women can do whatever they like with unwelcome internal growths.

All this emotional claptrap about when or when we can't decide to dispose of a bunch of cells..Get it around your heads..if it's not viable outside it's host..it aint nothing but a bunch of cells and we can dispose of it at any time, by any method and for any reason we choose.

If these control freaks like sailblue were serious, they'd be supporting services where women could choose to carry until the unwanted growth can be incubated and adopted by those thousands of women (and men) that can't have a child of their own.

please dont give sailblue oxygen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Looks like PHRF is a returd of SailBlueH2SO4, who I think was flicked because of dead baby pix. Let's see how long this ignorant sock lasts. 

I wondered who owned this sock? Thanks, onto ignore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I just wish men would get used to the idea that women can do whatever they like with unwelcome internal growths.

That's far more depth than the US can handle at the moment. In the US we need to start with basic biology & the mostly men writing the laws don't understand what happens with the growths and really don't care. So you've an anti-abortion bill in Ohio meant to eliminate coverage for abortions that would bar insurance coverage for treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Which leads one to the general conclusion it's about treating women as chattel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shaggy said:

OK, How many kids have you adopted??  Are you currently running an orphanage?  How about a placement service for said kids??  Until you do, well shut the fuck up and get the hell out of other peoples business..  

Back in the 70s I had a couple of friends who were nurses.  A couple of tough broads if any ever existed. They worked MICU.  Both were pro-choice. On more than one occasion when they saw the then popular “adoption not abortion” bumper sticker and the driver of the vehicle they asked your question—-how many how you adopted? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Looks like PHRF is a returd of SailBlueH2SO4, who I think was flicked because of dead baby pix. Let's see how long this ignorant sock lasts. 

That is a perfectly alive baby  (at that moment) depiction taking from a  legitimate news organization website article.  Does the reality shock you into censorship?

So definitely a SailBlue returd. Give him a chance to fuck himself over again and the mods will flick him like they did last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We shouldn't outlaw ANY medical procedure that might help a person.  That said - it's also absolutely appropriate to protect the babies who haven't been born yet from whimsical decisions - and I think that "abortions as birth control" oughta be limited to the 1st trimester of a pregnancy.  Beyond that?  A problem w/Mom or the unborn baby oughta be the only justification for terminating a pregnancy.  

As science has not determined that a baby is conscious until near, or at, the end of the second trimester - I disagree with your deadline. There is no "there" there until between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. My mother is a fully qualified neonatal midwife and we had this discussion many a time in our household, especially when the Church decided to rescind her temple recommend for a while after she openly told the local bishop she was OK with abortion before then because of that fact.

I can dig up some papers if you like on it, but it's not hard to find yourself if you don't want to trust me. 24-28 weeks is when the baby goes from a non-conscious potential being into one that can start to think and "be". At that point, I think the issue becomes more complex and I'm morally against termination "just cos", but again don't think the law should step in until the government is willing to extract the baby and look after it themselves at the moment of banned termination. Before that consciousness moment though, I'm going to strongly defend both the moral and legal right of women to terminate for whatever reason they like. Until that moment, it is not yet a being with thoughts, and should get no more legal protection than any other health complication.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Then let's cut the bullshit and just refer to pregnancy as forced incubation. 

Who said anything about rape, ya fucking moron? :ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whimsical decisions? Who has the right to judge "whimsy" :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8, 9  months, then decides to kill it,  is that right?  Does an 8 month completely viable and healthy fetus have feelings or rights  that should be protected?   

 

And if a woman carries a baby 7, 8, 9 months and suffers a spontaneous abortion because of industrial teratogens, or an act of war, should that have been protected? Was that right?  Should somebody be punished, as in an auto accident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

For the Reich, human rights begin at conception, and end at birth. 

And if a woman wants bodily autonomy, she'll have more legal protections as a corpse than a live woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

If a woman carries a baby to 7, 8, 9  months, then decides to kill it,  is that right?  Does an 8 month completely viable and healthy fetus have feelings or rights  that should be protected?   

 

1) That's not how it works, you misogynistic toad.

2) Please stop spewing the OUTRIGHT LIES from the Pro Forced Birth movement.

I'd say it doesn't become you, but we know your type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Actually Utah just passed one the "trigger laws" that would effectively ban abortion if Roe vs Wade was reversed.  I actually edited my post to not be so insulting to you.  So, keep on with your bullshit.  

Why on earth would you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I'd say it doesn't become you, but we know your type.

It's just a returd of SailBlue back after his flick to continue the same shit. Like before, not worth the time and effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Contrarily, should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?

Because it's her body, not yours.

Period, full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's just a returd of SailBlue back after his flick to continue the same shit. Like before, not worth the time and effort.

Goddammit you quoted my typo before I could fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Well yeah. there is that.

But the Abortion debate is not dissimilar to the gun debate..all a load of bollocks.

I just wish men would get used to the idea that women can do whatever they like with unwelcome internal growths.

All this emotional claptrap about when or when we can't decide to dispose of a bunch of cells..Get it around your heads..if it's not viable outside it's host..it aint nothing but a bunch of cells and we can dispose of it at any time, by any method and for any reason we choose.

If these control freaks like sailblue were serious, they'd be supporting services where women could choose to carry until the unwanted growth can be incubated and adopted by those thousands of women (and men) that can't have a child of their own.

please dont give sailblue oxygen.

If Sailblueballs and his elk gave a shit about babies, children, stopping abortions and really believed life began at conception they would be, among other things...

  1. Standing on the corners throwing condoms into the crowd like a Shriner clown at a parade with pockets full of candy.
  2. Making birth control free and readily available to anyone of any age on an anonymous basis without parental intervention or consent.
  3. Supporting comprehensive, accurate, fact based sex education from a young age
  4. Support open, shame free and fact based discussions about sex, reproduction, responsibilities and relationships.
  5. Provide free medical care for life for all unwanted babies.
  6. Provide food, clothing, and a home for every unwanted baby
  7. Provide free pre-medical care for all mothers, free delivery and free post natal care'
  8. Support parental leave rights

 

And they'd be screaming their heads off to ban IVF and lock up every fertility doc that has done it and every infertile couple that has tried it, successful or no. Because every single successful IVF pregnancy has anywhere from 2 to a dozen or more fertilized eggs that end up "reduced".

That's a real tell right there, if they have nothing to say about IVF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Contrarily, should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?

Because it's her body, not yours.

Period, full stop.

I somewhat skimmed over the whole "mother physically fine, baby physically fine" the first time around. This ignores the risks of pregnancy and birth. I almost lost my wife in childbirth. Twice. Being "physically fine" doesn't negate the risk to the life of the mother. And it's worse in the USA than here in Australia; another one I can dig up stats for, but easy to find if one is actually interested.

We're a far cry from the loss of life in childbirth than we used to be a hundred years back, but by no means is it risk free. Perfectly healthy women can, and do, die during childbirth. It isn't just a matter of them sweating it out for another month and giving it up for adoption. Their life, and future health, is at risk and frankly, as morally opposed to termination after seven months of gestation, I think there is only one person that should have the final say regarding the risks to their life - the person whose life is at risk.

Make pregnancy and childbirth risk free and the argument changes. Until then, as much as we might not like it, it's not our right to force a risk to life on another. 

 

9 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Goddammit you quoted my typo before I could fix it.

Don't know what you're talking about. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I somewhat skimmed over the whole "mother physically fine, baby physically fine" the first time around. This ignores the risks of pregnancy and birth. I almost lost my wife in childbirth. Twice. Being "physically fine" doesn't negate the risk to the life of the mother. And it's worse in the USA than here in Australia; another one I can dig up stats for, but easy to find if one is actually interested.

We're a far cry from the loss of life in childbirth than we used to be a hundred years back, but by no means is it risk free. Perfectly healthy women can, and do, die during childbirth. It isn't just a matter of them sweating it out for another month and giving it up for adoption. Their life, and future health, is at risk and frankly, as morally opposed to termination after seven months of gestation, I think there is only one person that should have the final say regarding the risks to their life - the person whose life is at risk.

Make pregnancy and childbirth risk free and the argument changes. Until then, as much as we might not like it, it's not our right to force a risk to life on another. 

 

Don't know what you're talking about. ;) 

I chose to ignore Chessie's 8-month bit because it's a stupid red herring. It doesn't happen the way he describes, pretty much ever.

My wife, as damned near everyone knows, is an OB-Gyn. She knows the medicine. She keeps shaking her head at the stupidity of the male GOP legilsators that put this bullshit forward, and the morons that support them.

They know so little about women's health, reproduction, etc. The party of "legitimate rape" really just needs to STFU on women's issues and let the adults handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I went to high school there. A graduating class of about 50 had three National Merit Scholarship winners, two from Alabama.

The third was a FL boy.

That's a higher ratio of winners to graduates than any school that year.

Meaning, your generalization is as smart as any other attempt to define a large group of people.

Probably ignores the 5000 who left school (or never went in the first place) that were in the same age cohort as those 50.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I chose to ignore Chessie's 8-month bit because it's a stupid red herring. It doesn't happen the way he describes, pretty much ever.

My wife, as damned near everyone knows, is an OB-Gyn. She knows the medicine. She keeps shaking her head at the stupidity of the male GOP legilsators that put this bullshit forward, and the morons that support them.

They know so little about women's health, reproduction, etc. The party of "legitimate rape" really just needs to STFU on women's issues and let the adults handle it.

Yes well, my first wife *teaches* the doctors in training; she's a department head at one of Australia's big teaching hospitals. Her opinion is, if the foetus is viable in a tech womb equivalent *and* it has no genetic abnormalities, it's too late to kill it. And she does use the word 'kill' because with current tech that foetus is viable outside the mother's uterus.

You can't turn off the humidi-crib post delivery if you decide via post-natal depression or whatever reason at all that you don't want it any more. You can surrender for adoption.

Life by some definition may begin at conception. So what? As Bent says, consciousness doesn't exist until approx the same time as current tech can keep a premature birth baby alive and viable. So that's the cutoff as far as I'm concerned.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yes well, my first wife *teaches* the doctors in training; she's a department head at one of Australia's big teaching hospitals. Her opinion is, if the foetus is viable in a tech womb equivalent *and* it has no genetic abnormalities, it's too late to kill it. And she does use the word 'kill' because with current tech that foetus is viable outside the mother's uterus.

You can't turn off the humidi-crib post delivery if you decide via post-natal depression or whatever reason at all that you don't want it any more. You can surrender for adoption.

Life by some definition may begin at conception. So what? As Bent says, consciousness doesn't exist until approx the same time as current tech can keep a premature birth baby alive and viable. So that's the cutoff as far as I'm concerned.

FKT

We're pretty much in agreement on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

should a woman who's physically fine, carrying a baby who's physically fine, be able to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months simply because she wants to?  Who advocates for and protects that unborn baby?   

I think you'd run into Meli's viability outside rule with the first question.

The second one is easy, since it's such a common answer in America: Congress. They've gotta regulate interstate commerce, you know. If they don't, we become Somalia. At least, that's the usual argument.

Quote

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

As is often the case, I fail to see the interstate commerce here and think Congress has overstepped their authority again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day perhaps we'll be able to spontaneously re absorb our litters..won't that make their pointy heads explode :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 10:38 PM, B.J. Porter said:

How long before the state department of some foreign countries issue travel notices to pregnant women not to visit Alabama and Ohio?

Virginia should be OK
 

Quote

 

As Georgia, Ohio, and several others states move to ban abortion after a few weeks of pregnancy, Virginia this week brings us a rare bright spot on the reproductive freedom front. A federal judge there just ruled against the state's mandate that only physicians can prescribe abortion pills or otherwise provide first-trimester abortions. And the decision, from U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, could have influence across the United States.

Virginia is one of 34 states that have said only physicians can perform first-trimester abortions, even though "a consensus appears to have evolved" that this is medically unnecessary, as Judge Hudson puts it in his May 6 decision.


 

(with apologies for posting more Koch-$pon$ored propaganda, of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

As science has not determined that a baby is conscious until near, or at, the end of the second trimester - I disagree with your deadline. There is no "there" there until between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. My mother is a fully qualified neonatal midwife and we had this discussion many a time in our household, especially when the Church decided to rescind her temple recommend for a while after she openly told the local bishop she was OK with abortion before then because of that fact.

I can dig up some papers if you like on it, but it's not hard to find yourself if you don't want to trust me. 24-28 weeks is when the baby goes from a non-conscious potential being into one that can start to think and "be". At that point, I think the issue becomes more complex and I'm morally against termination "just cos", but again don't think the law should step in until the government is willing to extract the baby and look after it themselves at the moment of banned termination. Before that consciousness moment though, I'm going to strongly defend both the moral and legal right of women to terminate for whatever reason they like. Until that moment, it is not yet a being with thoughts, and should get no more legal protection than any other health complication.

It sounds like we agree w/r/t the determination that when the fetus becomes a "conscience" is the appropriate threshold.  The point though is that there *is* a threshold -  I'm absolutely in agreement with establishing that at the most rational point in the pregnancy.  Contrary to what many here say - once the unborn baby has reached viability, it's much more than a "mass of unwanted cells", and I think that discounting that beyond that point in time is wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

I chose to ignore Chessie's 8-month bit because it's a stupid red herring. It doesn't happen the way he describes, pretty much ever.

My wife, as damned near everyone knows, is an OB-Gyn. She knows the medicine. She keeps shaking her head at the stupidity of the male GOP legilsators that put this bullshit forward, and the morons that support them.

They know so little about women's health, reproduction, etc. The party of "legitimate rape" really just needs to STFU on women's issues and let the adults handle it.

And I never said that it DID - did I?  RIF Porter - the point is that the statute we were discussing doesn't make any provisions that would preclude that. 

 

6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I somewhat skimmed over the whole "mother physically fine, baby physically fine" the first time around. This ignores the risks of pregnancy and birth. I almost lost my wife in childbirth. Twice. Being "physically fine" doesn't negate the risk to the life of the mother. And it's worse in the USA than here in Australia; another one I can dig up stats for, but easy to find if one is actually interested.

We're a far cry from the loss of life in childbirth than we used to be a hundred years back, but by no means is it risk free. Perfectly healthy women can, and do, die during childbirth. It isn't just a matter of them sweating it out for another month and giving it up for adoption. Their life, and future health, is at risk and frankly, as morally opposed to termination after seven months of gestation, I think there is only one person that should have the final say regarding the risks to their life - the person whose life is at risk.

Make pregnancy and childbirth risk free and the argument changes. Until then, as much as we might not like it, it's not our right to force a risk to life on another. 

 

Don't know what you're talking about. ;) 

Sincerely sorry to hear that your family had that scare.  I do know what that's like - we experienced the same thing when she was in labor with our youngest, necessitating resuscitation and an emergency C-section.   Both are awesome now, thank goodness.  I would suggest that a medical opinion that Mom's health wouldn't support the delivery would be a qualifying medical factor, and would absolutely fall within the consideration of "mom being OK".   

The kill the babies crowd are trying to paint an inaccurate picture - and THAT's the larger point I made in my initial jump into this thread - it's not binary, there are no absolutes, and different circumstances warrant different decisions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Why on earth would you do that?

Ha!  Deep down I'm a good person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole issue could be mitigated to a large extent if you over-sexed crazed Libtards  could teach your kids to keep their dicks in their pants and legs closed just a little longer.
#blowjobs! The breakdown of the traditional Libtard family unit has  been conclusively proven to contribute to a continuing generational cycles of lesser education, poverty, and unwanted pregnancies.  Go ahead and take some time to Google it before responding.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Go fuck yourself, Sailblue.

Thank you.  At least that would not result in an unwanted pregnancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Just block him. Attention feeds the attention whore.

I don't have to read his garbage to tell him to fuck off. I just assume it's garbage and proceed on that premise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I don't have to read his garbage to tell him to fuck off. I just assume it's garbage and proceed on that premise.

:kingdp:

 

Comment of the year :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites