New Draconian Anti-Choice Laws Bring "Handmaid's Tale" Closer to Reality For American Women

  
By:  atheist  •  2 weeks ago  •  390 comments

New Draconian Anti-Choice Laws Bring "Handmaid's Tale" Closer to Reality For American Women
The statute[s]—one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation—prohibited, with narrow exceptions, abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often six weeks post-fertilization, sometimes before a woman knows she is pregnant.https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/north-dakota-fetal-heartbeat-bill-court-opinion-an-anti-science-states-rights-call-to-ban-abortion.html

These so-called "heartbeat" anti-choice bills started appearing several years ago and have already been struck down in several states.  That hasn't stopped the march into dystopia by other states from enacting the same laws in the rightwing's never-ending quest to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will.  As I've said before, the only way these laws could work would be to declare every uterus in the country a potential crime scene and would require a network of spying and intrusion into the personal lives of women.  It's easy to see how mindless anti-choice zealots would rat to the government any time a friend, co-worker or even relative might be pregnant and would be able to subject that woman to an investigation and monitoring in order to make sure she doesn't try to terminate the pregnancy--including in GA's law criminalizing her if she even leaves the state to obtain an abortion in a state where it's legal.  

As is always the case, the rightwing runs eagerly toward a fascist, totalitarian solution for their problem even as they accuse liberals of being the advocated for the big nanny state.  It's the Goebbel's tactic every time for these people. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 weeks ago

How is it that the same people who are constantly accusing liberals of intrusions into their private lives (e.g., not to have to pay taxes) never blink at the opportunity to rush to take the most basic personal liberty away from people--and by people, I mean women?   Delusions and primitive religious beliefs explain part of it.  Lack of any personal awareness is in their as well, of course.  But, the biggest driver seems to be the psychological defect of convincing themselves of having  moral superiority where it is in non-existent. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    2 weeks ago

Because they think that their "private lives" extend to the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others.

It's very unamerican.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1    2 weeks ago

Actually it is very American to extend the protection of the constitution to all American human life from conception on.  It is also American to use advances in science and technology to get the court to extend human life protections to preborn 👶 babies.  If not to conception perhaps to the heart beat or the pain threshold being reached or a point in between the latter two the end of the 1st trimester.  Only 28% of Americans favor 2nd trimester abortion and 13% favor allowing it in the 3rd trimester.  So the court could be on solid legal and popular ground if it said that science and technology advances lead to moving state interest in preserving life to the beginning of the 2nd trimester and apply that to the entire nation.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Actually it is very American to extend the protection of the constitution to all American human life from conception on.

So, illegals as well, got it. The problem is that a fetus isn't a human as it cannot do anything that living humans can do. Vote, swim, talk, ride a bike, climb a tree, go for a walk, hold a pen, get a job, pick their nose, roll out dough for a pretzel, flip over easy eggs without breaking the yolk, feed a pet....should I keep going? Until it can survive on it's own, it's not a human, it's a fetus or to dramatize a tad bit, it's a tumor or a leech. 

At the end of the day? Nothing, and no one should be able to make decisions about another persons healthcare. If you have a tape worm, would you want the government telling you, "Well, it's alive, can't do anything about it!!!!!", after which, eventually, you would die. Too dramatic? Many women get an abortion because their doctor told them it would be dangerous to carry the fetus to term. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.3  XXJefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

key word was American human life.  Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever as long as they are here or until they obtain legal resident alien status.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Sure, all human life should have the right to use the bodies of other humans to support itself.  So when are you going to give up that kidney or lobe of liver to someone who will die without it?  If you are advocating for forced surrender of bodily autonomy for women, you should be for forced surrender of bodily autonomy for everybody.  If I have to let a fetus use my kidneys, if my kidneys should ever fail, I should be able to commandeer one of yours.  I have the right to life, even if it's at your expense.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
key word was American human life.  Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever as long as they are here or until they obtain legal resident alien status

Wow, what hypocrisy. You go on about protecting human life, but only certain kind of human life. Screw anyone who doesn't fit your narrative.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

So, life is sacred only when YOU approve of it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
key word was American human life.

AH! So only American's are humans? Lets put it another way. If you went to say....Italy, and you had a heart attack. Would you expect the citizens of Italy to help you? What if they said, "Only Italians are deserving of our care, so let him die"? Pretty sure you wouldn't be very happy, (well, for as long as you lasted). 

Do you know WHY America is one of the most hated countries on Earth? Because of attitudes like yours...that's not meant as an insult, it's a fact. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.8  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever as long as they are here or until they obtain legal resident alien status.  

Once again, you demonstrate a complete (and what must be a deliberate) ignorance of what our Constitution actually says.  All of our constitutional rights apply to every "person" or "the people"  in this country.  The Constitution never says or even implies that rights only apply to citizens. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
If you hate

"have". 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
So, life is sacred only when YOU approve of it.

And are able to a loophole in the bible to support their belief.

Genesis 2.7 says the people aren't alive until they breathe air, which eliminate the idea of fetal personhood at conception.

Life starting at conception is a religious belief that is prohibited as secular law by the Establishment Clause. 

Leviticus says that they are to welcome refugees, but that passage isn't convenient when they are actually required to do something for others instead of requiring others to obey them. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force

Just ask the Indians. 

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.12  charger 383  replied to  epistte @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

It is right there in their book and they still won't follow it

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.13  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
It is right there in their book and they still won't follow it

They pick and choose from the Bible when it is useful for their ulterior motives.  If Jesus ever came back they would call him a Marxist peacenik.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

That sounds rather racist.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.15  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
1.1.16  Veronica  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Was Jesus an American?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

Well, duh, Veronica! If you have been educated at a religious school, you would know the answer to that question.

(snicker)

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.18  SteevieGee  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
1.1.19  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

Well I guess I need someone to MANSPLAIN it to me. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
luther28
1.1.20  luther28  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
key word was American human life.  Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever as long as they are here or until they obtain legal resident alien status.

I thought you proclaim to be a Christian, this statement is not very Christ like, as a matter of fact I would think it would piss him (her or whomever) off to a considerable degree.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
I thought you proclaim to be a Christian, this statement is not very Christ like, as a matter of fact I would think it would piss him (her or whomever) off to a considerable degree.

Why do some wish to ensure the very strict interpretation of separation of church and state and then demand that anyone who professes to be Christian use that Christianity in public matters?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Actually it is very American to extend the protection of the constitution to all American human life from conception on.

What utter bullshit. 

Minors lack constitutional rights in this country Xx. They are denied basic civil rights based on the dictate of their parents. 

If not to conception perhaps to the heart beat or the pain threshold being reached or a point in between the latter two the end of the 1st trimester.

You like polls? 60% of Americans support abortion in the first trimester. 

Do you KNOW how many weeks there are in a trimester Xx? 

Does 13 weeks ring a fucking bell? 

The seed is about an event that occurs as early as 6 weeks Xx. That's LESS than half of the first trimester. 

In short, 60% DISAGREE with the draconian heartbeat standard, which eviscerates your 'popular ground' bullshit. 

 
 
 
luther28
1.1.23  luther28  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Actually I believe that your beliefs or lack of them is a personal matter, I am not the one who constantly brings Christianity into a discussion.

Now I will ask again, is it a very Christ like statement? If one is going to talk, then make sure one walks.

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.24  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

are you willing to pay the full cost of this?   If you can get the government to take choice away then that makes government fully liable for all costs

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.25  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

I.e., the original people of this land. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.26  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
Why do some wish to ensure the very strict interpretation of separation of church and state and then demand that anyone who professes to be Christian use that Christianity in public matters?

The two clauses of that sentence do not connect in any logical or grammatical way.  Try again, Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

And it wasn't KAG that did, either.

Just some who will always demean Christianity in any way they can, I guess.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.26    2 weeks ago

I'm sorry you can't grasp what was stated.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.25    2 weeks ago
I.e., the original people of this land.

Asians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Veronica @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

I read somewhere that Jesus did visit America and left some tablets. I don't know if he had a Visa or just beamed in...

 
 
 
Veronica
1.1.31  Veronica  replied to  Dulay @1.1.30    2 weeks ago
I don't know if he had a Visa or just beamed in...

EEK!!!! An illegal alien.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Veronica @1.1.31    2 weeks ago
EEK!!!! An illegal alien.

From the Middle East no less! The HORROR!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.33  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  luther28 @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

I think KAG (etc, etc) better hope there isn't a hell.  He might want to "convert" to my non-religion. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.34  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
Asians?

Why, yes, Tex.  Congratulations.  I believe that may be the first fact you've ever supplied to a discussion--definitely the first one I've ever seen. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.35  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

I thought they were golden plates or something like that. Lol

 
 
 
Veronica
1.1.36  Veronica  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    2 weeks ago
From the Middle East no less

OMG! A terrristtttttt.jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.37  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
Just some who will always demean Christianity in any way they can, I guess.

People like you and KAG do a better job of that than I could ever hope to accomplish. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.38  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    2 weeks ago
I'm sorry you can't grasp what was stated.

If only there'd been something in either sentence to get a grasp on.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.39  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
are you willing to pay the full cost of this?

You were joking, right?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.29    2 weeks ago

Isn't it interesting that the first immigration laws based on race targeted Asians? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.34    2 weeks ago
Why, yes, Tex. Congratulations. I believe that may be the first fact you've ever supplied to a discussion--definitely the first one I've ever seen.

Well, congrats on your sterling recognition of fact. Too bad so many times you've managed to ignore them.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.42  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Veronica @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
Was Jesus an American? 

In what passes for their slap-dash, invent/modify-on-the-fly religious beliefs who knows? 

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.43  charger 383  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.39    2 weeks ago
    "Are you willing to pay the full cost of this?
      You were joking, right?"

If they knew the full cost, Tax dollars, personal money, medical. time, effort and all others plus the opportunity costs, and had to pay that, the tune would change  

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.44  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
key word was American human life.  Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever as long as they are here or until they obtain legal resident alien status.  

Where does the Bible make that nationalist distinction, if yuou are claiming that stance is religious based? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.45  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @1.1.44    one week ago

original

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.45    one week ago

It always makes me giggle when I see a meme where Jesus asks "Did I stutter?"

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.47  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.46    one week ago

Rocket science....

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.48  Tessylo  replied to  luther28 @1.1.23    one week ago
'I am not the one who constantly brings Christianity into a discussion.'

So true.  So tiresome.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.49  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.43    one week ago

I'm not so sure.  Their so-called fiscal conservativism seems to be as phony as their religious beliefs.  When their radical social ideas are at issue, there's no such thing as too much spending. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.50  epistte  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.49    one week ago
I'm not so sure.  Their so-called fiscal conservativism seems to be as phony as their religious beliefs.  When their radical social ideas are at issue, there's no such thing as too much spending. 

How can the GOP possibly be the party of fiscal conservatism when the last 3 recessions  (Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43) and have begun under their leadership?  Trump has added more than two trillion to the national debt.  They cut taxes and then spend more leaving the mess for others to clean up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-national-debt-2-trillion-donald-trump-presidency-deficit-treasury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html

Dwight Eisenhower was the last rational Republican and his tax rates are higher than those of Bernie Sanders. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.51  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    one week ago

Stop pretending you give a shit about "babies."  Everything you represent here time and time again gives the lie to that phony claim.  The wonder is you keep thinking you can get away with it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.52  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.11    one week ago
Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force
Just ask the Indians. 

Ouch. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.53  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    5 days ago
Actually it is very American to extend the protection of the constitution to all American human life from conception on.

This from someone who has no qualms about capital punishment.  Sheesh, he makes it so easy to tear his hypocrisy down. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.54  Bob Nelson  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.53    5 days ago
protection of the constitution to all American human life

You might also note the the protection of the Constitution covers all who are under American authority, regardless of nationality. Habeas corpus is for all...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.55  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.41    5 days ago
Too bad so many times you've managed to ignore them.

One can't ignore something that doesn't exist.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.55    5 days ago
One can't ignore something that doesn't exist.

I present you with facts.

I can't understand them for you.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.57  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.56    4 days ago
I present you with facts. I can't understand them for you.

So you do have a sense of humor, or at least for self-ridicule, after all.  That was funny as hell.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.58  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.57    4 days ago
'So you do have a sense of humor, or at least for self-ridicule, after all.  That was funny as hell.'   

She's always posting that shrewy harpy nonsense.  It's hilarious isn't it?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.59  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.58    yesterday
She's always posting that shrewy harpy nonsense.  It's hilarious isn't it?

384

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    2 weeks ago

I can assure you that a sizable percentage of people who don't subscribe to any form of religious belief, including women of all ages and races, oppose abortion on demand, for any reason, at any state of pregnancy. The pro-abortion zealots have no one to blame but themselves for this backlash.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.1  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

Thanks for representing the plain old non-religious fascist viewpoint, then.  I apologize if I made you feel left out. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago
oppose abortion on demand, for any reason, at any state of pregnancy.

Then they shouldn't have abortions.  That's their right to decide in their private lives.

pro-abortion zealots

And who would that be?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago
I can assure you that a sizable percentage of people who don't subscribe to any form of religious belief,

That's funny, since most arguments I've heard against abortion are usually based on or refer to some kind of religious belief and rhetoric.

including women of all ages and races, oppose abortion on demand, for any reason, at any state of pregnancy.

Then they are free to not have an abortion if they have such hangups about it. But they are trying to tell others if they can or cannot have an abortion!

The pro-abortion zealots have no one to blame but themselves for this backlash.

What backlash? Who is telling women they must have an abortion? Despite your disingenuous assertion, pro-choicers want to protect a woman's right to an abortion. That's it. It's the pro-lifers that want to eliminate those rights.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago
The pro-abortion zealots

I have yet to have someone banging on my door asking me to support abortions. Do you see women running through the streets yelling, "I just got an abortion!!!!!!! WooooHooooo!!!!!". 

No you do not. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.5  XXJefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

Anyone who is not pro life....

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Anyone who is not pro life....

You seem to be very rigid in your views. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.7  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Anyone who is not pro life....

Says the one who's so called "pro life" ideas would enslave women.  Like I said, your sanctimonious garbage is not welcome here. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.8  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. 

Very true. Too bad liberals do not subscribe to that thought...especially on college campuses.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Anyone who is not pro life....

Isn't telling the truth also a religious belief of yours, despite the 10 Commandments teaching to do not bear false witness?

Your concern for that fetus's life ends as soon as they breathe air and become a baby with physical needs.   You are not pro-life, but are instead forced birth because if you were pro-life you would support subsidized child care, parental leave, better public schools, and universal healthcare, among other ideas that a child needs to be a well adjusted, educated and healthy adult.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

So these people, including women, would not have an abortion if their life depended on it? Would refuse abortion to another woman whose life depended on it?

So my mother should have just tried to carry that fetus to term despite the fact it would have killed her, the fetus, and left 2 small children motherless?

When you make outrageous statements that you oppose abortion for any reason you make yourself sound like those religious zealots portrayed in "The Handmaid's Tale", do you realize that?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.11  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
You seem to be very rigid in your views.

Like most zealots of his type, he's created his own religion and pretends it's "Christian."  It is nothing of the sort.  Before I decided to be an atheist, I was well soaked in Christianity and even the worst of the things I learned about what was done in the name of that belief system doesn't come close to what those like KAG have done to it. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.12  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bugsy @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
Too bad liberals do not subscribe to that thought...especially on college campuses.

So are  we to understand you to say you take no position on the subject of this seed, recognizing the validity of both (or neither) side? 

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.13  luther28  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

Just a suggestion, perhaps these folks should stop telling women what they can and cannot do with their vaginas (and supporting pieces), before women begin telling males what to do with their penises (and I can only imagine where they will say to place it).

Kind of along the lines of MINDING ONES OWN BUSINESS, a novel concept for some.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago
I can assure you that a sizable percentage of people who don't subscribe to any form of religious belief, including women of all ages and races, oppose abortion on demand, for any reason, at any state of pregnancy.

You can? Please cite the source of your assertion. 

The most recent poll by Pew shows that those that are 'unaffiliated' have the HIGHEST percentage of support [75%] for legal abortion in all or most cases. 

The pro-abortion zealots have no one to blame but themselves for this backlash.

What 'backlash' is that Greg. That same Pew poll shows a whole 2% difference from 1995-2018. 

As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.15  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Anyone who is not pro life....

That would be you judging from your comments and beliefs about the worthlessness of non-American life. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.16  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

Wouldn't the people who fight against choice and contraception qualify as the real pro-abortion crowdn. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

I don't take a position because, although I care, you can kill your offspring and it doesn't affect me.

The "handmaiden" thing is a bit disingenuous and a whole lot of fear mongering, so the entirety of the seed is pretty much the same.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @1.2.17    2 weeks ago
The "handmaiden" thing is a bit disingenuous and a whole lot of fear mongering, so the entirety of the seed is pretty much the same.

Considering there are those in the government that want to, and have repeatedly attempted to severely limit or outright deny women their right to choose, any fear is justified. So the Handmaiden is not such a stretch.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.19  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bugsy @1.2.17    one week ago
The "handmaiden" thing is a bit disingenuous and a whole lot of fear mongering,

And yet these laws reflect exactly the plot of that novel.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2  XXJefferson#51    2 weeks ago

I’ll just repeat what I said on a similar seed on this very topic here a few minutes ago. https://thenewstalkers.com/comity/discussion/45964/stricter-abortion-bans-are-conservative-led-states-gambit-to-overturn-roe-vs-wade

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2    2 weeks ago
I’ll just repeat what I said on a similar seed on this very topic here a few minutes ago.

And I'll repeat what I've said in other seeds too: It's nobody else's business if someone wants or has an abortion!

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    2 weeks ago

It is actually.  There are actually some limits on abortion allowed now and with the technology and science advances in the medical areas since 1972 when this case was being discussed that the Supreme Court could well move the date of the states interest to preserve human life giving a preborn baby a human right to life at an earlier stage of our human development than allowed for now even if the court doesn’t overturn roe vs Wade.  Not ideal but progress based on science.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
It is actually.

No, it isn't!

There are actually some limits on abortion allowed now and with the technology and science advances in the medical areas since 1972

The limit on abortion is generally at the point of viability. That's already been medically and legally established.

when this case was being discussed

There have been many such discussions after too, which only resulted in expanding and affirming abortion rights.

Not ideal but progress based on science.

Science established the point of fetal viability and the courts determined that is an acceptable cutoff for elective abortions.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Oh, so you're telling us that there's a viability issue to be considered here.  Yet don't you oppose  even the morning after (progesterol) pill?  C'mon....KAG, don't you even object to contraception?

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.4  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

What a woman chooses to do with an unplanned pregnancy IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.....PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

You keep repeating 'technology and science advances'. Please cite what those are? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2    2 weeks ago

Don't bring your garbage from other discussions and dump it here. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2    2 weeks ago

Gordy s seed and yours are largely the same except for your sweeping generalizations and appeals to emotion.  Did you really expect me to say anything different here or there?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
Gordy s seed and yours are largely the same except for your sweeping generalizations and appeals to emotion.

The only one's I see making appeals to emotion are you and other pro-life advocates.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
 Did you really expect me to say anything different here or there?  

Well, stop dumping your garbage here whether it's a new batch or recycled.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.4  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

Those of you on the pro abortion side can have no discussion here on the pro abortion issue without our viewpoints being represented just as you all show up on pro life save human life seeds.  You could have a private group if you want an echo chamber. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.5  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
pro abortion

You do realize that this doesn't exist, right? 

 
 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.7    2 weeks ago

You should have read the article... First paragraph.

I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery. As the last protection against ill-conceived childbearing when all else fails, abortion is part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing. 

The author is saying she is in favor of women having a choice with regards to abortion. She is NOT saying that abortions should be mandatory or be peddled as something positive. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
Those of you on the pro abortion side can have no discussion here on the pro abortion issue without our viewpoints being represented just as you all show up on pro life save human life seeds.

When you start with disingenuous terms like "pro-abortion," how can there be any meaningful discussion?

 You could have a private group if you want an echo chamber. 

Make sure you remember that for yourself the next time you want to complain about being "censored" or "silences" or some such nonsense. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.10  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.6    2 weeks ago
You do realize that this doesn't exist, right? 

It's what they have to invent to prop up their sanctimony cloaked immorality. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.12  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.9    2 weeks ago

Especially since now you can do the censoring of conservatives speaking our minds....Happy hunting. jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.13  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

NO ONE is pro abortion no matter how many times you spew that falsehood

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.12    2 weeks ago

More whining and paranoia I see. You're the one suggesting someone get an echo chamber for saying something,  but clearly you can't take it when it gets thrown back at you. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.15  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lady in black @2.2.13    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.16  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.15    2 weeks ago

Yes they are if they are NOT for all 3 choices women choose

 
 
 
charger 383
2.2.17  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.15    2 weeks ago

    "No one is anti choice no matter how many times you all spew that falsehood."

that makes everybody pro choice,  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.18  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.15    2 weeks ago

Do you oppose allowing women to get an abortion? 

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.19  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.15    2 weeks ago
No one is anti choice no matter how many times you all spew that falsehood.  

They certainly are anti-choice if they do not support every women to make the best reproductves choice for her.  You cannot deny a woman the choice to get a legal abortion because of your religious views and claim that you aren't anti-choice.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.20  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.12    2 weeks ago

You haven't been censored in any way.   You've been completely free to pollute this seed with your disgusting religious crap, fathomless immorality and massive hypocrisy.  

 
 
 
Freefaller
2.2.21  Freefaller  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.15    2 weeks ago
No one is anti choice no matter how many times you all spew that falsehood.  

Lol, how does pro forced birth sound then?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.22  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
Those of you on the pro abortion side can have no discussion here on the pro abortion issue without our viewpoints being represented just as you all show up on pro life save human life seeds.

Then have a discussion within THIS seed and refrain from attempting to inserts comments from elsewhere. 

BTW, get real, your viewpoints are yours and yours alone. Stop pretending that you speak for anyone else. 

You could have a private group if you want an echo chamber.

Posting a strawman reply is a piss poor method of participating in a good faith discussion Xx. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.23  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  lady in black @2.2.13    2 weeks ago

I respectfully disagree.  I believe those who oppose abortion while simultaneously being opposed to contraception (i.e., KAG and many of his type, including the Catholic Church) are, in effect, increasing the demand for abortion...i.e., promoting abortion. They and they alone qualify for that description.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.24  mocowgirl  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2.23    2 weeks ago
including the Catholic Church) are,

My motto is always follow the money.  The Catholic Church is expanding their hospital network in the US.  This is a real threat to women's health because the Catholic Church has and will continue to risk the mother's life for a fetus.  

In the past decade or so, the Catholic Church has actually been sued because women have died after being denied lifesaving treatment.  Informed women, who care about their own health, are most likely to choose hospitals that will offer them every lifesaving treatment that is available instead of limiting it to religious doctrine directed treatment. 

IF it were possible to trace the anti-choice movement to its very roots in the past decade, I believe it would begin with the Catholic Church because it threatens their profits from their "health" services.

Just food for thought....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/health/catholic-hospitals-procedures.html

After experiencing life-threatening pre-eclampsia during her first two pregnancies, Jennafer Norris decided she could not risk getting pregnant again. But several years later, suffering debilitating headaches and soaring blood pressure, she realized her I.U.D. had failed. She was pregnant, and the condition had returned.

At 30 weeks, with her health deteriorating, she was admitted to her local hospital in Rogers, Ark., for an emergency cesarean section. To ensure that she would never again be at risk, she asked her obstetrician to tie her tubes immediately following the delivery.

The doctor’s response stunned her. “She said she’d love to but couldn’t because it was a Catholic hospital,” Ms. Norris, 38, recalled in an interview.

Experiences like hers are becoming more common, as a wave of mergers widens the reach of Catholic medical facilities across the United States, and the Trump administration finalizes regulations to further expand the ability of health care workers and institutions to decline to provide specific medical procedures for moral or religious reasons.

One in six hospital patients in the United States is now treated in a Catholic facility, according to the Catholic Health Association, a membership organization that includes 90 percent of the Catholic hospitals in the United States. In a 2016 report, MergerWatch, a nonprofit group in New York that tracks hospital consolidation, found that in 10 states, 30 percent or more of the acute-care hospital beds were under Catholic ownership, or in a hospital affiliated with a Catholic health care system. In a growing number of rural areas, a Catholic hospital is the sole provider of acute care.

Most facilities provide little or no information up front about procedures they won’t perform. The New York Times analyzed 652 websites of Catholic hospitals in the United States, using a list maintained by the Catholic Health Association. On nearly two-thirds of them, it took more than three clicks from the home page to determine that the hospital was Catholic.

Only 17 individual Catholic hospital websites, fewer than 3 percent, contained an easily found list of services not offered for religious reasons, and all of them were in Washington State, which requires that such information be published on a hospital’s site. In the rest of the country, such lists, if available, were posted only on the corporate parent’s site, and they were often difficult to find.

“I think that any business is not going to lead off with what they don’t do,” Charles Bouchard, senior director of theology and ethics at The Catholic Health Association, said in response to the Times analysis. “They are always going to talk about what they do do. And that goes for contractors and car salesmen. They are not going to start off by saying, ‘We don’t sell this model,’ or ‘We don’t do this kind of work.’”

Responding to a growing number of mergers and affiliations with secular institutions, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops updated its instructions to Catholic hospitals in June, ordering them to continue to provide care consistent with church teaching when entering into such business arrangements, including prohibiting procedures that are “intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization.”

Roughly 30 secular institutions that have merged or affiliated with Catholic systems in recent years have agreements that require them to follow some or all of the church directives, according to MergerWatch.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.25  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.24    2 weeks ago

from 2013....

https://www.aclu.org/blog/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/you-go-catholic-hospital-read

She knew that her care could be compromised – that Catholic hospitals adhere to religious directives issued by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops governing Catholic health services.

Tamesha Means didn't know this. When her water broke at eighteen weeks of pregnancy, she went to her local hospital. It was historically secular, but had recently been gobbled up by a large Catholic health care system. What happened to her? She got sent home – more than once – with the hospital telling her there was nothing it could do. They didn't tell her that, given her stage of pregnancy, there was almost no chance the fetus would survive, that attempting to continue the pregnancy would put her health and possibly even life at risk, or that, given these factors, the safest course of care would be to end the pregnancy. They didn't tell her any of that even in the face of her bleeding, pain, and signs of infection.

Tamesha didn't get the information or care she deserved because her local hospital is bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care (the Directives), issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. She got care governed by religious directives – and she became infected. And the Bishops got a lawsuit.

Tamesha's story could be yours. That's the point of a new report,Miscarriage of Medicine: The Growth of Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Reproductive Health Care, released yesterday by MergerWatch and the ACLU. The report shows the continued expansion of Catholic hospitals and systems. It reports on facts that most of us don't know, but should:
 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.26  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.25    2 weeks ago

The Catholic hospital network takes hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, but demands the right to limit women's healthcare according to their religious doctrine.  This is not only about controlling women... it is about controlling women and making a profit while doing it!

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN?  Is it because we don't know or don't care?

https://rewire.news/article/2014/06/24/dispelling-six-myths-catholic-hospital-care-united-states/

Over the past decade, Catholic hospitals have merged with and purchased nonsectarian hospitals around the United States, becoming leading players in the nation’s health-care industry. Catholic hospitals receive billions of taxpayer dollars each year and have a combined gross patient revenue of $213.7 billion. The standards of medical care put forth in the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” differ from those generally recognized in other medical settings, particularly regarding reproductive health care. These variances not only restrict choices about abortion and contraception, but reduce access to evidence-based reproductive health services as a whole. 

Here are six commonly held misconceptions about the breadth and depth of Catholic hospital care in the United States. Below we dispel these myths:
 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.27  Dulay  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.24    2 weeks ago
In the past decade or so, the Catholic Church has actually been sued because women have died after being denied lifesaving treatment.

Those suits should have happened decades ago. My mother in law was a nursing student in a Catholic Hospital in the 50's and witnessed women being left in hallways to bleed to death after an abortion. The nuns said "She made her choice." 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.28  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.24    2 weeks ago

Bullseye, mcg (if I may).  When some Catholic hospitals (and other organizations as well as fundamentalist-owned companies like Hobby Lobby) sued the PPACA to prevent  their employees from receiving the free contraception coverage even when given and opt-out we saw just how determined that certain religious zealots were in the effort to deny women the right to choose even the option to avoid having to consider abortion.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @2.2.27    2 weeks ago

And here I thought religion advocated compassion. What a joke. What's scary is, I've heard people say that if a woman dies or is injured from an abortion, then she deserved it. Funny how some care only about a fetus they have no vested interest in, but do not care about an actual person suffering. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.30  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.27    2 weeks ago
Those suits should have happened decades ago.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has vast influence in the US.  (The RCC is also going into the charter school business since their private school system was failing.)  When it comes to the RCC, it pays to read about the history of the church in Europe and the US.   The RCC is close to two thousand years old and has experience playing the long game when necessary.  

The RCC is used to being almost untouchable, and is successfully undermining the separation of church and state in the US.    It was happening long before Trump took office.  GWB funneled millions, if not billions, directly to the RCC via his Faith Based initiative program enacted by EXECUTIVE ORDER.  Obama continued it, and maybe even expanded it.

The RCC has more of a love for power and money than it does for doing the "good works of the Lord".  Mexico is over 90% Catholic, but the RCC does not build hospitals and schools in Mexico.   

Under Trump, the RCC is on steroids overturning the separation of church and state in the US.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-catholic-bishops-are-shaping-health-care-in-rural-america/

Almost as soon as President Trump took office, he began rolling back health care rules that had angered religious groups for much of the last decade. First, Trump signed an executive order declaring that his administration would protect religious freedom. Then, his administration ruled that health insurance plans offered by large employers don’t have to cover contraception for employees, an about-face from a contentious Obama policy. The Department of Health and Human Services created a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, signaling a new focus for the agency. A proposed rule could require all 5,500 hospitals in the U.S. to post notices informing individuals and entities that they are protected from religious discrimination.

The changes are all designed to ensure that employers, health care institutions and providers don’t have to participate in health care practices they object to for ethical or moral reasons. But even decades before the Trump administration moved to roll back Obamacare policies, some religious hospitals — in particular, Catholic hospitals — already had the green light from the government to deny certain treatment options to their patients. These hospitals’ right to refuse care is generally unquestioned, creating a dilemma for the people who walk in the door: What happens when you need or want a standard medical service, but the hospital won’t provide it?

In a growing number of communities around the country, especially in rural areas, patients and physicians have access to just one hospital. And in more and more places, that hospital is Catholic. That sounds innocuous — a hospital is a hospital, after all. But Catholic hospitals are bound by a range of restrictions on care that are determined by religious authorities, with very little input from medical staff. Increasingly, where a patient lives can determine whether Catholic doctrine, and how the local bishop interprets that doctrine, will decide what kind of care she can get.

In 2011, the earliest year for which data was available, at least 29 communities only had a Catholic hospital to rely on for most of their care. By 2016, that number had grown to 45, according to MergerWatch,1 an organization that is opposed to health care providers operating under religious restrictions and tracks how religious doctrine has shaped the U.S. health care system. That’s 10 percent of the 459 hospitals that were classified as the sole hospitals in their community in 2016, according to the database referenced by MergerWatch.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.31  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.29    2 weeks ago
And here I thought religion advocated compassion.

It comes down to the problem that when "compassion" is dictated by some unquestioning belief or required obedience to this or that bit of "scripture" written by humans just fresh out of the stone age it becomes a polluted by all the believers' personal animosities and prejudices -- fed by those demands of "faith" whatever it might be. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.32  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2.31    2 weeks ago

Indeed.

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.33  epistte  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.26    2 weeks ago
The Catholic hospital network takes hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, but demands the right to limit women's healthcare according to their religious doctrine.  This is not only about controlling women... it is about controlling women and making a profit while doing it!

If the Cathjolichiospiotals and those of any other religion want to inject their religious beliefs into the lives of others then we as the [people need to put an end to their receiving payments from Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security because by allowing them to receive that money is a racist state endorsement of their religious views over the constitution rights, both secular and religious of that of their patients, male or female. 

 Public ambulances or those paid for by public funds will take patients to other hospitals so only patients who choose to be treated at religious hospitals will be delivered to their doorstep. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2.34  evilgenius  replied to  epistte @2.2.33    2 weeks ago
...those paid for by public funds will take patients to other hospitals...

There are two local hospitals here and they are both Catholic. There are no other choices. Even the clinics here are satellites of those two hospitals.

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.35  epistte  replied to  evilgenius @2.2.34    2 weeks ago

There are two local hospitals here and they are both Catholic. There are no other choices. Even the clinics here are satellites of those two hospitals.

 
Then the rights of the patients to have proper effective secular care without the injection of the religious beliefs of others override the religious beliefs of the hospitals, or they sell one of the hospitals to a private secular owner or the city.
No hospital could survive without Medicaid, Medicare and Society Security and they are very well aware of that. Those public funds keep the lights on and the doors open.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.25    2 weeks ago
there was almost no chance the fetus would survive, that attempting to continue the pregnancy would put her health and possibly even life at risk, or that, given these factors, the safest course of care would be to end the pregnancy. They didn't tell her any of that even in the face of her bleeding, pain, and signs of infection.

That's failure to diagnose, and it's malpractice.  A few sizable lawsuits and medical board investigations might be in order.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.37  mocowgirl  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.36    one week ago
That's failure to diagnose, and it's malpractice. 

Not according to Roman Catholic religious doctrine.  If the fetus is still "alive", the mother's life means NOTHING to the Catholic MEN who write this doctrine.  I repeat absolutely NOTHING.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church have this much POWER in US government in the United States?  Is it via our elected reps and Supreme Court?

https://qz.com/972686/the-religions-of-the-us-supreme-court-justices-tell-the-tale-of-a-changing-nation/ Still, a shift in the religious backgrounds of justices in recent years arguably represents a dramatic change in American culture. There is no religious test for Supreme Court justices, nor any requirement that the bench represent the makeup of the nation. Yet it’s notable that court has gone from all-Protestant origins to now mostly-Catholic, with one third of the bench Jewish.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.38  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.37    one week ago
the mother's life means NOTHING to the Catholic MEN who write this doctrine. 

The Roman Catholic Church's stance on women & marriage & sex is clearly defined in their history.

Why should men who despise women & even sex be allowed to have any power in US government to control our lives?  

There is valid reasoning behind our founder's writing a separation of church and state.  The history of Europe is rife with wars waged by the Vatican on rulers who would not bend their knee to the Pope.  Our founders were better educated about the societal evils of religious control because they lived in a time when the Inquisition was still ongoing and wanted to insure it did not happen in OUR country.

https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church

A Brief History of Celibacy in the 
Catholic Church

First Century
Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The New Testament implies that women presided at eucharistic meals in the early church.

Second and Third Century
Age of Gnosticism: light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.

Fourth Century
306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.
325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

Fifth Century
401-St. Augustine wrote, Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman.

Sixth Century
567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.
580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.
590-604-Pope Gregory the Great said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).

Seventh Century
France: documents show that the majority of priest were married.

Eighth Century
St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.

Ninth Century
836-Council of Aix-la-Chapelle openly admitted that abortions and infanticide took place in convents and monasteries to cover up activities of uncelibate clerics.
St. Ulrich, a holy bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to permit priests to marry.

Eleventh Century
1045-

Benedict IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.
1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.
1095-Pope Urban II had priests wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned.

Twelfth Century
1123-Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.
1139-Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous councils decree.

Fourteenth Century
Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.

Fifteenth Century
Transition; 50% of priests are married and accepted by the people.

Sixteenth Century
1545-63-Council of Trent states that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage. 
1517-Martin Luther.
1530-Henry VIII.

Seventeenth Century
Inquisition. Galileo. Newton.

Eighteenth Century
1776-American Declaration of Independence.
1789-French Revolution.

Nineteenth Century
1804-Napoleon.
1882-Darwin.
1847-Marx, Communist Manifesto.
1858-Freud.
1869-First Vatican Council; infallibility of pope.

Twentieth Century
1930-Pope Pius XI: sex can be good and holy.
1951-Pope Pius XII: married Lutheran pastor ordained catholic priest in Germany.
1962-Pope John XXIII: Vatican Council II; vernacular; marriage is equal to virginity.
1966-Pope Paul VI: celibacy dispensations.
1970s-Ludmilla Javorova and several other Czech women ordained to serve needs of women imprisoned by Communists.
1978-Pope John Paul II: puts a freeze on dispensations. 
1983-New Canon Law.
1980-Married Anglican/Episcopal pastors are ordained as catholic priests in the U.S.; also in Canada and England in 1994.

 


Popes who were married

St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

 


Popes who were the sons of other popes, other clergy

Name of Pope Papacy Son of
St. Damascus I 366-348 St. Lorenzo, priest
St. Innocent I 401-417 Anastasius I
Boniface 418-422 son of a priest
St. Felix 483-492 son of a priest
Anastasius II 496-498 son of a priest
St. Agapitus I 535-536 Gordiaous, priest
St. Silverus 536-537 St. Homidas, pope
Deusdedit 882-884 son of a priest
Boniface VI 896-896 Hadrian, bishop
John XI 931-935 Pope Sergius III
John XV 989-996 Leo, priest

 

Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139

Innocent VIII 1484-1492 several children
Alexander VI 1492-1503 several children
Julius 1503-1513 3 daughters
Paul III 1534-1549 3 sons, 1 daughter
Pius IV 1559-1565 3 sons
Gregory XIII 1572-1585 1 son
 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.39  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.38    one week ago
Our founders were better educated about the societal evils of religious control because they lived in a time when the Inquisition was still ongoing and wanted to insure it did not happen in OUR country.

How many people today realize the history of depravity of leaders/members of religious organizations?  Our founders KNEW.  So do we, but on somewhat a lesser scale.  We do not want to risk finding out on a larger scale.  Do we really want the Vatican in charge of OUR government and military? 

Not only do we need to enforce the separation of church and state.  We MUST quit funneling millions/billions of dollars to the Vatican via our hospitals and public charter schools.  (The RCC is probably behind the push to give taxpayer money to private schools.)   We don't need the RCC profiting from substandard health care.  We damn sure don't need them "educating" our children.

Good article at link below.  I am just including a small part about the "New World".

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition

Inquisition in the New World

As Spain expanded into the Americas, so did the Inquisition, established in Mexico in 1570. In 1574, Lutherans were burned at the stake there, and the Inquisition came to Peru, where Protestants were likewise tortured and burned alive.

In 1580 Spain conquered Portugal and began rounding up and slaughtering Jews that had fled Spain. Philip II also renewed hostilities against the Moors, who revolted and found themselves either killed or sold into slavery.

Philip II died in 1598 and his son, Philip III, dealt with the Muslim uprising by banishing them. From 1609 to 1615, 150,000 Muslims who had converted to Catholicism were forced out of Spain.

By the mid-1600s the Inquisition and Catholic dominance had become such an oppressive fact of daily life in Spanish territories that Protestants avoided those places altogether.

End of the Spanish Inquisition

In 1808, Napoleon conquered Spain and ordered the Inquisition there to be abolished.

After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, Ferdinand VII worked to reinstate the Inquisition but was ultimately prevented by the French government, which helped Ferdinand overcome a fierce rebellion. Part of the agreement with France was to dismantle the Inquisition, which was defunct by 1834.

The last person to be executed by the Inquisition was Cayetano Ripoll, a Spanish schoolmaster hanged for heresy in 1826.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition still exists, though changed its name a couple of times. It is currently called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.40  Dulay  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.26    one week ago
The Catholic hospital network takes hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, but demands the right to limit women's healthcare according to their religious doctrine.  This is not only about controlling women... it is about controlling women and making a profit while doing it!

Not only that but in their hiring practices too.

Here is the statement the Franciscan Healthcare system posts on their job openings. 

Franciscan Alliance reserves a Right of Conscience objection in the event local, state or Federal ordinances that violate its values and the free exercise of its religious rights.

Then hilariously, they state this:

Franciscan Alliance is committed to equal employment opportunity.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @2.2.40    one week ago

IOW, they reserve the right to refuse employment to LGBT people

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.42  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.38    one week ago
Why should men who despise women & even sex be allowed to have any power in US government to control our lives?  

The Roman Catholic Church is all about control.  Controlling a person's sex life is controlling that person's life - period.  There is nothing compassionate about the care that women receive at the hands of the RCC minions when the RCC considers women to be broodmares at best and sinful, evil creatures responsible for the downfall of mankind.

Explain to me why we are paying them to operate hospitals and schools in the US.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696 Several explanations have been offered for the decision of the Church to adopt celibacy. Barry University's Ed Sunshine told Knight-Ridder that the policy was initiated to distinguish the clergy as a special group:"A celibate clergy became the paradigm of separation from the sinful world." A.W. Richard Sipe, a former priest and author of Sex, Priests and Power: The Anatomy of Crisis (1995), told Knight-Ridder that the"question at the time was who is the final power -- the king or the church. If [the church] could control a person's sex life, it could control their money, their employment, their benefice." Garry Wills suggested in Under God that the ban on marriage was adopted to lift the status of priests at a time when their authority was being challenged by nobles and others.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.43  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.41    one week ago

Which is why I refuse to go there for testing or care. They almost have a monopoly in my area. One secular hospital has already closed. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.44  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.40    one week ago
Not only that but in their hiring practices too.

Why does our government allow the RCC to operate "secular" businesses and be exempt from secular business laws?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.45  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.43    one week ago
They almost have a monopoly in my area. One secular hospital has already closed. 

The secular for profit hospitals are closing (at least in part) because they cannot compete with the RCC "non-profit" hospital.

I have read that some RCC hospitals have refused treating people who cannot pay and referred them to other hospitals.

The article below is from 2013, but I doubt that much has changed except the RCC hospitals are doing the same, or less, "charity" work today than it did a decade ago.  

The RCC hospitals are being operated as a for profit business and still enjoying the benefit of being tax exempt.  Why?  If we do not recognize what is happening under our very eyes, in the not so distant future, the RCC hospitals may be 50%, or more, in charge of our nation's health care. 

None of this should be acceptable to anyone.  However, I can understand how this has happened because our politicians and major media keeps us distracted with BS to fight over while our politicians have been selling us out for decades.  

People are angry.  They have a right to be angry.  However, we need to quit fighting each other and recognize where the power really lies ---- hint, it is not with us, any of us.  If it were, then at some point in the last 3+ decades we would have gained income and benefits instead of losing to Wall Street.  The RCC is just another business that is profiting from our weaknesses.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor/

The hospitals have long justified their tax status and restrictions on care by pointing to their religious mission of serving the poor and their delivery of charitable care. But the new ACLU/MergerWatch report suggests, and the chart below illustrates, Pope Francis might be on to something when he’s said that the church needs to shift its priorities to focus less on abortion and more on the poor. MergerWatch data show that Catholic hospitals, where executives often earn multimillion-dollar salaries, aren’t doing any better providing charity care than other religious non-profit hospitals that don’t restrict care. They’re barely any better than ordinary secular nonprofits.

The charitable care figures also don’t give a complete picture of how well Catholic hospitals serve the poor and uninsured because it doesn’t include patients who are covered by Medicaid, the government health care plan for the low-income and disabled. As it turns out, Catholic hospitals, which in 2011 had more than $200 billion in gross patient revenue, had the lowest percentage of revenue from Medicaid of any type of hospital. Even for-profit hospitals earned more revenue from Medicaid than Catholic hospitals.

All of these numbers suggest that as Catholic hospitals have merged and expanded into a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they’ve moved far beyond their religious mission and become like any other large corporation. Given those trends, and the hospitals’ reliance on public funding, it’s hard to see how they can continue to justify their mixing of Catholic doctrine with health care, especially when it disproportionately violates standards of care for women.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.46  Dulay  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.45    one week ago
The RCC hospitals are being operated as a for profit business and still enjoying the benefit of being tax exempt.  Why?  If we do not recognize what is happening under our very eyes, in the not so distant future, the RCC hospitals may be 50%, or more, in charge of our nation's health care. 

My mothers GP was under contract with the Franciscans until that demanded that Doctors sign an agreement to spend no more than 15 minutes per patient. Mom's GP said 'Fuck that' and joined a private healthcare group. My NP is with the same group and our appointments last up to 45 minutes depending on what's going on and how many jokes get told...

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.47  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.46    one week ago
demanded that Doctors sign an agreement to spend no more than 15 minutes per patient.

Ridiculous.  

I can understand if it is a routine well check with no issues whatsoever that need addressed.  I am a person who would even prefer it.  However, I realize I am probably an exception for many reasons.  I have been very fortunate in having been healthy most of my life.  In hindsight, I realize that as an introvert, I was fortunate to have been raised on a farm and have had the ability to earn a living with minimal people contact.  For the decade that I was forced to work in the corporate world, my health suffered because of all of the stress in dealing with assholes.  I would rather deal with cantankerous cattle any day.  At least, cattle usually give notice that they have intentions of running over a person.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.48  Dulay  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.47    one week ago

Mom had a blood clot in her lung from an ankle replacement. Warfarin is a HORRIBLE drug and she had to be monitored monthly. It took a year to get her off that shit. 

Needless to say, it was scary as hell and rushing through a 15 minute appointment wouldn't cut it. We're glad her long time doctor decided to nix the Franciscan's greed. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.49  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.48    one week ago
Warfarin is a HORRIBLE drug

I'd reckon.  It was used in rat poison.  I had to google to make sure I remembered correctly and learned something new today.  I knew that clover could cause bloat in cattle, but I did not know that moldy clover hay was the origin of Warfarin.

I really need to sign off and start some garden seed, but I am so unmotivated today.  LOL!

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrcardio.2017.172 The discovery of warfarin originated in the 1920s on the prairies of Canada and North America. Previously healthy cattle began dying from internal bleeding with no obvious cause. The cattle and sheep had grazed on sweet clover hay (Melilotus alba and Melilotus officinalis); the haemorrhaging occurred most commonly when the climate was damp and the hay had become infected with mould. The spoiled hay would normally have been discarded, but financial hardship in the 1920s meant that farmers could not afford replacement fodder. The haemorrhagic disease became known as 'sweet clover disease'.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.50  mocowgirl  replied to  Dulay @2.2.48    one week ago
It took a year to get her off that shit. 

Wow and wow!  Modern medicine can be extremely brutal - even when it is effective.  There are valid reasons why I fear doctors and pharmaceuticals more that I do death. 

Also, having lived on a farm and worked with animals most of life, I have been allowed to see how disease progresses and the effectiveness (or non-effectiveness) of treatments work or don't work on individuals. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.51  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.49    one week ago

I didn't know that warfarin came from moldy clover hay! Ya learn something new every day!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.52  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.50    one week ago

My mother was on Coumadin which is basically warfarin. The medical professionals didn't monitor her blood very well and she ended up dead. The doctor who took care of her when she died told me it was a trifecta. She had an overdose of coumadin which led to the internal bleeding which caused the myocardial infarction. It even says that on her death certificate.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.53  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.52    one week ago
The medical professionals didn't monitor her blood very well and she ended up dead.

(((Trout)))  You have my deepest condolences.

Medical professionals are people, too.  Even the ones who really care make mistakes.  This is why I try to educate myself on basic ailments, optimal diet, and take a holistic approach to health....and live life with a grateful attitude for all of the wonderful, peaceful, joyful days that I have enjoyed over the 6+ decades of life..and try to forget the barbaric days I endured....and occasionally join the crusade to try to protect women and children from the mentally challenged and the zealots who support them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.54  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.53    one week ago

Thank-you for the condolences.

My mother had rheumatic fever when she was about 14 and it affected her heart. She ate right, exercised, didn't smoke and tried to do everything to keep herself healthy. But when you have rheumatic heart disease doing everything right sometimes isn't enough

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.55  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.54    one week ago

Your mother sounds like a wonderful person who was dealt a rough hand and did everything she could to live life to the fullest....and teach her children to do the same.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.56  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.55    one week ago

Thank-you, Mo. Today would have been her 76th birthday.

I really do appreciate your kind words

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.57  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.52    one week ago

My condolences for your loss Trout.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.58  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.57    one week ago

Thank-you, Gordy

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.59  epistte  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.37    one week ago
Not according to Roman Catholic religious doctrine.  If the fetus is still "alive", the mother's life means NOTHING to the Catholic MEN who write this doctrine.  I repeat absolutely NOTHING. Why does the Roman Catholic Church have this much POWER in US government in the United States?  Is it via our elected reps and Supreme Court?

We need to find a way to keep devout religious people off of the courts because we all cannot have equal secular and religious rights if the various judges on the courts get to decide what our constitutional rights are by filtering them through their various religious beliefs. A person in that position of power cannot serve two masters, their own god plus the US Constitution, and when they are on the bench the Constitution and the preceding amendments have absolute precedence. I'm sure that there are a few people who are able to separate their beliefs (Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, and Ginsburg among others come to mind) from the ideas that are in front of them but there is no way to guarantee that policy. We could give them a test but there is no way to guarantee that they do not lie when giving their answers. 

It's also possible that there might be a better way for the courts or even another form of power to balance that of the legislative and the executive in the way that the judicial branch was supposed to function but obviously doesn't in its current format.

I dearly miss the input of Dennis Kremmer and Dcscala(sp) of Newsvine because they had far more knowledge of this subject than I do.  Dennis was on the Newsvine refugees Google community but he disappeared a few months ago.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.2.60  mocowgirl  replied to  epistte @2.2.59    one week ago
I dearly miss the input of Dennis Kremmer and Dcscala(sp) of Newsvine

I dearly miss all of our Newsvine friends who enriched our lives by sharing their experiences and knowledge.  I am grateful that Perrie has given us a home on NT so we can still connect.  

As to the Supreme Court, secularism is rising in the US and should continue to rise to the point that religious doctrine will be placed on the fiction shelf within 2 to 3 decades.

In the meantime, the RCC will continue to allow the religious zealots of other sects to make headlines and take credit for the majority of doing "God's work" while the RCC continues to reap the benefits.

I know that illegal immigration is a no-win political topic, but without illegal immigration the RCC was losing membership in the US.  The RCC does little to ease poverty in Mexico because they hold little to no sway in the government due to the Inquisition and other heinous acts of the not so distant past.  The RCC aids Hispanic illegal immigration in the US in order to gain more adherents and more power.  I could google and cite links to support, but if anyone really cares, then they can research it.

I always say follow the money and find the root cause and who is benefiting.  In the war against women/women's rights/birth control, I believe that the RCC seeking money and power is one of the main causes.

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.61  epistte  replied to  mocowgirl @2.2.60    one week ago
In the meantime, the RCC will continue to allow the religious zealots of other sects to make headlines and take credit for the majority of doing "God's work" while the RCC continues to reap the benefits.

I know that illegal immigration is a no-win political topic, but without illegal immigration the RCC was losing membership in the US.  The RCC does little to ease poverty in Mexico because they hold little to no sway in the government due to the Inquisition and other heinous acts of the not so distant past.  The RCC aids Hispanic illegal immigration in the US in order to gain more adherents and more power.  I could google and cite links to support, but if anyone really cares, then they can research it.

I always say follow the money and find the root cause and who is benefiting.  In the war against women/women's rights/birth control, I believe that the RCC seeking money and power is one of the main causes.

The Catholic church would not survive on the global scale if you took away their donating membership in 3rd world and developing countries. Religion is quickly dying in the developed world such as Europe, Australia, Japan, and North America. China has never been overly religious and SE Asia is a Buddhist heartland that isn't open to the Catholic church outside of the French colonial influence in Vietnam. 

 The fact that the Roman Catholic Church isn't moral is obvious. I see them as the last vestiges of the power and influence of the western Roman empire.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.62  Ender  replied to  epistte @2.2.59    one week ago
I dearly miss the input of Dennis Kremmer and Dcscala(

Dcsala (sp?) if I remember correctly, taught classes about the bible and religion. He did know what he was talking about. He was a resource unto himself.  Haha

The google community itself is gone, they discontinued it. Last time I looked, Soph and Laird had not posted for a long time.

 
 
 
epistte
2.2.63  epistte  replied to  Ender @2.2.62    one week ago
Dcsala (sp?) if I remember correctly, taught classes about the bible and religion. He did know what he was talking about. He was a resource unto himself.  Haha

IIRC, He taught at a college in the Southeast. 

The google community itself is gone, they discontinued it. Last time I looked, Soph and Laird had not posted for a long time.

Google pulled the plug on those communities on April 2nd.  A few people migrated to Minds.com

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Or this?  A man's seed is ordained by gawd and a woman's duty is to fulfill her ordained obligation.

This is not about 'the fetus'.  This is about order, power and subjugation.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago

Amen.

 
 
 
luther28
3.2  luther28  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 weeks ago
A man's seed is ordained by gawd and a woman's duty is to fulfill her ordained obligation

Now there is something to ponder: If a woman has an abortion she may be considered a murderer by some, if a man spills his seed upon the ground (I never thought I'd use that line) does that make him a mass murderer?

I would question how one can be justified but not the other, since some folks are so hung up on the sanctity of life.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  luther28 @3.2    2 weeks ago

Good point.

"Life begins at conception" is pure nonsense. Life began (on Earth) a few billion years ago, and has been continuous ever since. The father is alive, his sperm is alive. The mother is alive, her egg is alive. The zygote is alive.

There is no break in the continuum of life.

Likewise, there can be no specific, particular moment when the developing human becomes a person. (Kinda like a "consume by" date: what magic occurs the day before?)

Personhood is a continuous process, from conception to death. Choosing a particular moment as "most significant" is entirely subjective.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
The father is alive, his sperm is alive.

In the Hebraic tradition, masturbation (a.k.a., the sin of Onan) was considered a form of genocide since it was felt that it prevented endless generations (by way of billions of sperm being denied their due) of humans from coming into existence.  Of course, Onan's fate--to be struck down on the spot by The Lord--paradoxically resulted only aggravating the same offense.  But mysterious are the ways of the Lord, eh?

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.3  bbl-1  replied to  luther28 @3.2    2 weeks ago

Justification?  In an interview the Trump stated that there, "Should be some sort of punishment for the women."  In a follow up question he stated that, "There should not be punishment for the man." 

There it is.  There you have it.  If the 'seed' is spilled on the ground that is the destiny of the seed which is ordained.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

I firmly believe that the pro-lifers stance is more about control, and less about actually caring about the rights of a fetus. Think about it..

They oppose heath care for the poor.

Housing.

Clothing.

Education. 

Welfare. 

(Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying or implying that only poor women seek abortions)

.

So what exactly is the motivation to force women to have an unwelcome child? To watch it die of disease and/or starvation in the streets? It literally makes no sense at all. If they want to force women to give birth, should they not also be supporting legislation to help SUPPORT that child? Yes, but they don't. It's about control, little more. They just don't want women making decisions about their own bodies, that's what it really boils down to. 

.

What they are doing would be comparable to a blue state shutting down ALL gun stores, but one, and then slapping one regulation after another on that one store. Can only be open one day a week, on Wednesdays, between the hours of 10am and 3pm. Can't sell any ammunition, can't sell any caliber larger than .22. Can you, dear reader, imagine the outrage from the right if a blue state did that? Yet that is EXACTLY what they are doing with regards to these heartbeat bills. 

.

If abortion is murder, does that mean that male masturbation is genocide? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @4    2 weeks ago

No more genocidal than a woman having her period every month. Neither anything until the sperm inhabits an egg.  If the two are combined then killing that union is exactly 100% what you described in your question. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.1  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago

Tell me how a spontaneous ("natural" to your sort) abortion (which occurs in 1/3 of all pregnancies) is to be handled by these laws.  The state police  would have to investigate every case, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago
If the two are combined then killing that union is exactly 100% what you described in your question.

Specify where in the law books it says that! Or is that only your own opinion? By that reasoning, a woman who miscarries would be charged with manslaughter.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago
Neither anything until the sperm inhabits an egg.

Cell division happens a LOT in nature, what else are you proposing we ban based on cell division because if you seriously think life begins at conception......wow. Not even the bible says that...

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that "personhood" begins at birth.

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18514-what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion

In other words, basing support for banning abortions based on religious belief is......not going to work. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.4  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

A spontaneous non induced miscarriage is not premeditated unlike abortion but rather a no fault accident.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
A spontaneous non induced miscarriage is not premeditated unlike abortion but rather a no fault accident.  

How would you know if it was induced or not? And since abortion is legal and a right, it is not murder. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
a no fault accident.  

God did it. I mean, he is responsible for everything, at least that's what many, (NOT ALL), on the religious right claim. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
And since abortion is legal and a right, it is not murder. 

It amazes me that the same people who oppose legal abortion also favor the death penalty. 

Irony...there have been several, "abortion doctors" murdered by people who claim that abortion is murder. It's too stupid to make it up. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.8  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

If I can’t say it is then you should not be allowed to say that it is not... 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

The difference is, when I say it's not, the law supports that assertion, as abortion is not legally defined or regarded as murder. So my statement is a fact. Your statement that abortion i's murder is a demonstrable lie and legally erroneous. So you can say what you want. But be prepared to be called out for your lies and/or misinformation. You only make yourself look dishonest and foolish.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

Tell me about it.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.11  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
A spontaneous non induced miscarriage is not premeditated unlike abortion but rather a no fault accident.  

If you support fetal personhood at 9 weeks then a spontaneous abortion after 10 weeks of gestation is involuntary manslaughter, just as a car accident where someone is killed, even if it wasn't intentional.  Unless you want to argue that it is fetal suicide?

I can concoct arguments that are just as logically absurd as your sanctimonious religious nonsense. You cannot pick and choose to support it when it is convenient for your irrational religious beliefs. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
I can concoct arguments that are just as logically absurd as your sanctimonious religious nonsense.

Actually epistte, your arguments are far more logical because they expose the absurdity and irrationality of the other so called "argument."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
you support fetal personhood then a spontaneous abortion after 8 weeks of gestation is involuntary manslaughteS

Wow. Do you even know what an abortion is?  By all means, please provide the legal definition of a "Spontaneous abortion"

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.14  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
Actually epistte, your arguments are far more logical because they expose the absurdity and irrationality of the other so called "argument."

I like to play devil's advocate, but it takes a while to let yourself ignore logic when your argument needs to be just as absurd is your opponents.  Sophistic arguments have their place in philosophy and law.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.15  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
Wow. Do you even know what an abortion is?  By all means, please provide the legal definition of a "Spontaneous abortion"

It's a miscarriage.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.16  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

My first pregnancy was a miscarriage.  It was called a missed abortion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

Oh. So you either don't understand what a miscarriage is, or you don't understand the elements of involuntary manslaughter. Because your argument that a miscarriage would constitute manslaughter is simply idiotic.   

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but "involuntary manslaughter" requires an act of criminal negligence that causes the homicide .  There is no criminal act that causes a naturally occurring miscarriage. You should read your own definition again if you have any doubts. 

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.18  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.17    2 weeks ago
involuntary manslaughter.

I certainly do know what involuntary manslaughter is. It is defined as causing the death of another person but without overt intent. 

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or intent.

If a fetus is a person and dies then it is only fitting that the mother would be charged with involuntary manslaughter because her body is to support the fetus until birth. Do you not see the logical parallel of this argument and the absurdity of claiming that a fetus is a person that I am trying to illustrate? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @4.1.18    2 weeks ago
nvoluntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or in

Let me make this as simple as I can. 

You seemed to have missed the part where you must show a criminally negligent act that causes the death.   

A miscarriage is a natural cause of death, like a heart attack or stroke.  It's not a homicide. Not even the most repressive regime in the history of the world has tried making the argument you have.  Congrats on that, I guess. 

I honestly  can't get over how  you can continue to argue that spontaneous miscarriages are caused by criminally negligent acts of the mother. Talk about anti-woman. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.19    2 weeks ago
A miscarriage is a natural cause of death, like a heart attack or stroke.

If an embryo/fetus were considered a person, then every miscarriage would necessitate criminal investigation to determine whether it was due to natural causes or due to actions of the woman. 

I honestly can't get over how you can continue to argue that spontaneous miscarriages are caused by criminally negligent acts of the mother.

you seem to think a woman's actions, whether intentional or not, cannot cause a miscarriage?

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.21  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.19    2 weeks ago
You seemed to have missed the part where you must show a criminally negligent act that causes the death.   

A miscarriage is a natural cause of death, like a heart attack or stroke.  It's not a homicide. Not even the most repressive regime in the history of the world has tried making the argument you have.  Congrats on that, I guess. 

I honestly  can't get over how  you can continue to argue that spontaneous miscarriages are caused by criminally negligent acts of the mother. Talk about anti-woman. 

It is obvious that you missed the idea that my sophistic argument was a parallel to the logical absurdity of fetal personhood.  Fetal personhood is a blatant religious belief and it needs to stay on that side of the aisle instead of being enforced as secular law. 

If you can claim that an 8-weeks fetus is a person that they could equally claim that the mother was at fault for flawed DNA or her lack of devout religious beliefs. Maybe she drank too much coffee or didn't pray enough. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

Fetal personhood is also one of the most idiotic and illogical ideas ever conceived. The only thing more so is perhaps those who actually support it.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.23  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.22    2 weeks ago
Fetal personhood is also one of the most idiotic and illogical ideas ever conceived. The only thing more so is perhaps those who actually support it.

Fetal personhood is another irrational emotional hairball that the religious right coughed up as a tool to attack Roe' after their previous claim was shot down by the federal courts.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.24  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.22    2 weeks ago

It would also make everybody older and actual age would be difficult to determine, affecting more than they have thought about

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.1.25  pat wilson  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.24    2 weeks ago
It would also make everybody older

LOL, That alone will tank this notion.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.26  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
A spontaneous non induced miscarriage is not premeditated unlike abortion but rather a no fault accident.

But how do you know? 

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.27  epistte  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.26    2 weeks ago
But how do you know? 

His god knew it would happen because they claim that he is omniscient, but his god didn't prevent it, even though he could, because of his claimed omnipotence, so why do religious conservative believe that they should step in when their god choose not to do so?

 Isn't that a situation of mortal men playing god, against the wishes of their own god?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

Irrational emotional is an understatement. It's amazing in this day and age abortion is even an issue. Let a woman have an abortion if she wants! Who cares who has an abortion. It doesn't affect anyone else nor is it anyone else's business.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

I see you agree that the argument that every miscarriage constitutes involuntary manslaughter is nonsensical. 

ou seem to think a woman's actions, whether intentional or not, cannot cause a miscarriage?

No, I don't and it's silly to think from the discussion. .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @4.1.21    2 weeks ago
bvious that you missed the idea that my sophistic argument was a paralle

While I agree your argument is pure sophistry,  you apparently don't even understand the subject you are trying to argue about. Let's be clear. No person with a high school reading abiltiy could believe that "fetal personhood" would mean miscarriages constitute involuntary manslaughter.  You don't understand any of these concepts if you think that the lack of "fetal personhood" is what keeps mothers who suffer a miscarriage from being charged with involuntary murder.  For the last time, it's the lack of criminally negligent act causing the spontaneous miscarriage. 

Are you getting this argument from a "protcals of the elder of zion" type book that pro-abortionists pass around?   I'm not sure what else could explain such an assault on logic and basic reading comprehension.

 Fetal personhood is a blatant religious belief 

Of course it isn't. 

ld equally claim that the mother was at fault for flawed DNA or her lack of devout religious beliefs.

No you can't. You are in bananas land. Please, please, try and make arguments that bear some resemblance to reality.

It very depressing to think that abortion cheerleaders are so ignorant about our laws that they believe flawed DNA constitutes criminally negligent behavior.   Do dictionaries no longer exist? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago

I agree that the whole concept of fetal personhood is illogical. But if a fetus were considered a person, then logically every miscarriage would have to be investigated as possible manslaughter. That's not the same as saying every miscarriage constitutes involuntary manslaughter.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago

A woman really can't stop having her period every month unless she is on birth control that can stop her period....then she is certainly not guilt of genocide, especially since most women only pass one egg a month. How many millions of sperm are in one ejaculation? And when a man masturbates he chooses to commit that "genocide".

Do we have to have a class on Biology 101 for you?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.33  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.30    2 weeks ago
No person with a high school reading abiltiy could believe that "fetal personhood" would mean miscarriages constitute involuntary manslaughter. 

So all you need to do here, Sean, is show evidence that these laws somehow take into account that the vast majority of abortions are spontaneous and those will not be subjected to investigation.  IOW, cite the parts of these bills that exempt those abortions from scrutiny.  We eagerly await your report. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.34  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.26    2 weeks ago
But how do you know? 

Answer:  He doesn't know and is just doing his usual "thing."

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.35  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @4.1.15    2 weeks ago
It's a miscarriage.

They don't even know what the word "abortion" encompasses and yet support laws that criminalize it.  For the vast numbers of abortions (i.e., spontaneous or in lay terms "natural") I guess the believers would have to admit "god" was the perpetrator as the author of all natural events according to them.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.36  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.32    2 weeks ago
Do we have to have a class on Biology 101 for you?

It wouldn't do any good even if he was forced to repeat it ad infinitum.   

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

It's rather frustrating discussing these scientific concepts with someone who has a complete lack of a scientific education even a rudimentary one.

 
 
 
Freefaller
4.1.38  Freefaller  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
then logically every miscarriage would have to be investigated as possible manslaughter.

Exactly, I mean how would every woman be monitored, tracked while pregnant, investigated for any miscarriage and then jailed if necessary?  That would be a very big brother type government, but I guess that would be ok as it would only be impinging on the rights of women.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

Indeed. Some people might rant about a bigood government, but they don't care how big when it comes to a woman's reproductive choices. Where's the outrage about government then?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.40  Dulay  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.24    2 weeks ago

Exactly. 

A woman who becomes pregnant in November could claim a dependent on her taxes in December. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.41  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Freefaller @4.1.38    2 weeks ago
I mean how would every woman be monitored, tracked while pregnant, investigated for any miscarriage and then jailed if necessary?

If they believe they should have a right to a woman's body as soon as the sperm hits the egg, what's to stop them from trying to regulate the limited number of eggs a woman carries in her body?

And if nature, or "God", is allowed to terminate pregnancies which some estimates believe happen to nearly 50% of fertilized eggs, why do some think a fertilized egg is so "sacred" that they believe they should be allowed to criminalize its termination? If they believe fertilized egg termination to be evil then their God, if it exists, is the biggest abortion provider on the planet. If a magical eternal "soul" is created at conception, then God must have an entire wing of heaven dedicated to the billions of miscarriage souls he either made happen or refuse to prevent.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.42  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
A spontaneous non induced miscarriage is not premeditated unlike abortion but rather a no fault accident.

Completely side-stepping the fact that the laws you're supporting would allow the state police machinery to invite itself to investigate any abortion on any pretext.  They've even granted themselves the blatantly and massively unconstitutional power to prosecute women who have their abortions in other states when they return to their home state.  If that isn't the very definition of a fascist state I can't think of what else would be. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.43  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
If I can’t say it is

This incessant whining of yours just underscores how weak your case is.  Of course, you can say it but what you say is 99.99% either wrong on the facts or violate the truth in general. 

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.44  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.30    2 weeks ago
Of course it isn't. 

What current medical textbook, secular ethics class or secular legal text does the concept of fetal personhood appear in? 

No you can't. You are in bananas land. Please, please, try and make arguments that bear some resemblance to reality. It very depressing to think that abortion cheerleaders are so ignorant about our laws that they believe flawed DNA constitutes criminally negligent behavior.   Do dictionaries no longer exist? 

My idea is an exact parallel of yours, but you cannot the equal absurdity is because of your irrational stance. You think that you can pick and choose what you agree with and ignore just how hypocritical and absurd your stance is.

There are no abortion cheerleaders, despite your obvious strawman. People demand that every woman has the right to make the choice that is best for her instead of having that child forced on her by religious institutions or politicians. This is the very concept of freedom, but you want to give rights to a biological parasite and take them away from a woman and the host that the parasite depends on. She would become a prisoner in her own body, despite the fact that she didn't choose to become pregnant.  

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.45  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
But if a fetus were considered a person,

If a person that is somewhere that they are not wanted, the owner of that place can have them charged with trespass and have them removed by force.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.46  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.45    2 weeks ago

Think of all the extra legal wrangling that would come into play if fetal personhood was realized. And some say the courts are back logged now. Just wait until we deal with fetus based cases.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.47  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.46    2 weeks ago

Unintended consequences everywhere: what exact age is a person now?  when can benefits be claimed?  What about sports eligibility when close to a cut off date?  What about voting, drinking, age of consent?  

Does fetal personhood allow use of HOV lanes?  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.48  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @4.1.44    one week ago
What current medical textbook, secular ethics class or secular legal text does the concept of fetal personhood appear in?

Not only does "fetal personhood" not appear in any of the sources you cite... but neither does it appear in the Bible.

These people cannot point to any source, secular or religious, that supports "fetal personhood". Except of course what they have themselves written in the past few years. Try it: challenge them to cite a Biblical text. There are none.

(There are, however, Biblical indications that a newborn is still not a person for some time yet!)

This is their own imagination. And they are intent on imposing it on the entire country.

 
 
 
Freefaller
4.1.49  Freefaller  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.47    one week ago
Does fetal personhood allow use of HOV lanes?

Lol

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.50  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.17    one week ago
There is no criminal act that causes a naturally occurring miscarriage. You should read your own definition again if you have any doubts. 

I see you and other anti-choice zealots are just going to ignore the fact that there's nothing in any of these laws that prevents law enforcement from investigating any and every abortion regardless of what caused it.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @4    2 weeks ago
I firmly believe that the pro-lifers stance is more about control, and less about actually caring about the rights of a fetus.

Yep.  It's men putting women in their place with certain types of women as accomplices.  Of course, we have the examples of these worms getting their mistresses (or wives) pregnant and then pushing them to abort:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/24/desjarlais-pro-life-congressman-who-urged-abortions-for-ex-wife-and-mistress-is-running-again

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-04/pro-life-rep-tim-murphy-pressured-mistress-to-get-abortion

I'll say this for these lower-than-scum shitbags:  they've perfected hypocrisy and have found a warm, cozy spot in the republican party to profit from it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2    2 weeks ago
Of course, we have the examples of these worms getting their mistresses (or wives) pregnant and then pushing them to abort:

Exactly, thanks for the links BTW. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 weeks ago

The usual "sovereign citizen" types always show up to show what hypocrites they are.  Complete sovereignty for me, not for you, is how it goes. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5    2 weeks ago

Funny isn't it?  ( deleted)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 weeks ago

One thing anti-choice, anti-women (and yes, other rightwing women zealots have definitely shown their colors on that score) republicans can always be counted on: No matter how draconian and brutal the laws may be, if they need to get an abortion for their _______ (sister, daughter, wife, girlfriend, mistress) they will get it, be allowed to get away with it and somehow find a way to call themselves virtuous for having done it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6    2 weeks ago

As long as you call us anti choice we will call you pro abortion on a tit for tat basis for as long as it takes to get your side to drop the use of that term toward us even if it means forever more.  We choose life, all human life from conception onward.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.1  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
We choose life, all human life from conception onward.  

That's a proven lie.  You support every military action your shitbag presidents (only when something a Dem does do you protest--such is the "choice for life" you pretend to have) start and dismiss or ignore the civilian deaths (including large numbers of children) that result.  Right now your Scumbag is supporting genocide by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and the POSes you vote for in Congress refuse to go along with any effort to stop it.  Here at home you oppose any assistance for children born into poverty and with your insane gun worship (more heart-felt than for your Jesus whom you betray with virtually every word and deed) help continue the horrible gun violence in certain parts of the country.  Oh, and as pointed out, the unstinting support for the death penalty despite years of growing evidence that it's just for retribution, it doesn't deter violent crime and it often murders the wrong person.  You really shouldn't be trying to pull off this fakery so late in the game, KAG.  You and yours have already revealed far too much to even have a hope of still carrying off that BS with anyone but yourselves.  I guess you do need to keep the pretense up even if it is only for your own benefit. 

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.2  lib50  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago

I'll be coming out every time to keep you and your religious beliefs out of women's lives.  You have no right to impose your beliefs on everybody else in the country.  How many times do you have to be told we all hold different beliefs?  Why do you feel you are special?   Why do people like you feel entitled to inject yourselves in the business of others?  It's not like you care about kids, and that proof is in the words and actions right outta your mouth, or fingers in this case.  That entire moral superiority evangelicals thought they had has been decimated by the actual values they hold, which are the antithesis of what they try to pretend.  Follow whatever you want and let the rest of us follow our own tenets.  And leave that fake 'we choose life' crap at the door, its clear the well being of kids who have been born don't matter at all to those people.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
As long as you call us anti choice

So, tell us you're pro-choice then.  Tell us you support the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies and it's not your choice to make for them.  It's one or the other--there's no middle ground between choice and no choice. Show us that calling you anti-choice is inaccurate.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
We choose life, all human life from conception onward.

And yet:

key word was American human life.  Illegal  aliens are a hostile invading force deserving of no American constitutional protections whatsoever

Can you even keep straight what you've said in one thread, so that you don't contradict it in another?

 
 
 
charger 383
6.1.5  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
"We choose life, all human life from conception onward. " 

what are you going to do with all these people?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.5    2 weeks ago
what are you going to do with all these people?

Quality over quantity. Maybe Thanos had the right idea jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.7  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
We choose life, all human life from conception onward.  

When you only allow one option it is a lie to call it a "choice."

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.8  r.t..b...  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
We choose life, all human life from conception onward.

'All human life' until they violate your construct. Got an opinion on the death penalty? ....situational ethics on parade

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1    2 weeks ago
As long as you call us anti choice we will call you pro abortion on a tit for tat basis for as long as it takes to get your side to drop the use of that term toward us even if it means forever more.  We choose life, all human life from conception onward.  

Until you support the inherent right of the woman to choose to have an abortion then you are anti-choice. You are not actually pro-life because you do not care about the life of the child once it is born, or if the child isn't an American.

You want to force a woman to have a baby because of your very conservative religious beliefs, despite the fact that Jesus never once mentioned abortion. Not all Christians are anti-choice, so the denial of the right to abortion isn't an concrete Christian belief.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.9    2 weeks ago
You are not actually pro-life because you do not care about the life of the child once it is born, or if the child isn't an American.

When has he ever said he didn't care about the lives of children?

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.11  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    2 weeks ago
When has he ever said he didn't care about the lives of children?

He and other conservatives oppose universal healthcare, parental leave, expanded secular public schooling and other social supports that children need.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.11    2 weeks ago
He and other conservatives oppose universal healthcare, parental leave, expanded secular public schooling and other social supports that children need.

Do we actually have any of those things?

Have we had those things?

If the answer is no, then obviously there is an argument whether children need those things or not, seeing as how we have survived thus far.

I believe that the argument centers more on why would we start paying for stuff as a country which we haven't paid before?

Where is the money going to come from to pay for healthcare for all, free college for all, guaranteed income for all, more schools (which is a legitimate need), etc.?

 
 
 
charger 383
6.1.13  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.12    2 weeks ago

you just proved the cost effectiveness of abortion

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.12    2 weeks ago
Do we actually have any of those things? Have we had those things?

Actually, yes. How the fuck could we delude ourselves that we are anything close to an exceptional nation if we didn't? 

If the answer is no

Since it isn't the rest of your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.14    one week ago

Ok, so we already have those things. /s

Where is universal healthcare for all, and why do so many keep screeching for it if we already have it?

If we already have parental leave for all, why are some Democrats advocating for it?

Seems to me we have always built more schools as needed, so why insist on doing something that isn't being opposed?

Seems illogical to advocate for things you claim we already have.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.13    one week ago
you just proved the cost effectiveness of abortion

I am not opposed to abortion. I do think it is a piss-poor method of BC in TODAY'S world, with BC readily and cheaply available.

I wish every person waited until they could afford to support their own offspring before saddling society with the cost of their personal choices.

Wasn't it you that stated the other day--something about if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em?

But that is a different argument than what this is about--the cost of what some deem necessary, and who must pay for others' choices.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @6.1.9    one week ago

I wonder if these people like KAG would advocate abortion for those illegals coming across our border since they aren't American?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    one week ago
Ok, so we already have those things. /s

There you go again with a strawman comment Tex.

Do we actually have any of those things?

You didn't ask about ALL or EVERY ONE OF, you said ANY. 

So unless and until you can argue that we have never had 'social support that children need' the rest is moot. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.1.18    one week ago
'There you go again with a strawman comment Tex.'

That's essentially all she has.  And deflection 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.18    one week ago

Gonna play that tired old game again. eh?

Carry on!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.19    one week ago
That's essentially all she has. And deflection

Sir, I am right here if you feel the need to comment about me, so please do it to me.

There is no need to pussyfoot around and comment to me through others.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.20    one week ago
Gonna play that tired old game again. eh?

If you think it's getting old to be asked to stand by your own words, imagine what it's like for those of us reading the same old bullshit deflections ad nauseam. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    one week ago
Sir, I am right here if you feel the need to comment about me, so please do it to me. There is no need to pussyfoot around and comment to me through others.

That's hilarious coming from you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    one week ago
If you think it's getting old to be asked to stand by your own words, imagine what it's like for those of us reading the same old bullshit deflections ad nauseam.

Well, you always have toe option to ignore my posts, Skippy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.23    one week ago
That's hilarious coming from you.

You do realize that post wasn't directed to you, right?

Why do you need to butt into that conversation when we already had one going?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.24    one week ago

You "toe'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.25    one week ago
You do realize that post wasn't directed to you, right?

You do realize that you replied to a post that WAS directed to me right? 

Why do you need to butt into that conversation when we already had one going?

Members don't 'butt into' conversations here Tex. They participate. That's how this shit works...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.28  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.12    one week ago
Do we actually have any of those things?

We can always count on you, tex, to start a dodgeball game when you can't defend your position. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7  Bob Nelson    2 weeks ago

The Handmaid's Tale is the inevitable consequence of "heartbeat laws". A woman could be carrying a person, with all a person's rights, before she is aware of the fact.

Any behavior by the woman that harms the fetus, even unintentionally and without knowledge, would be at a minimum "criminal negligence". The only way to prevent such harm would be to strictly control the woman's sexual activity.

Handmaid.

 
 
 
lady in black
8  lady in black    2 weeks ago

The south's War on Women marches on...keep them ignorant, bare foot and pregnant and under their thumb

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @8    2 weeks ago

Clearly that's what some would prefer. How pathetic 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  lady in black @8    2 weeks ago
The south's War on Women marches on..

Right into the late 1850's. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  lady in black @8    2 weeks ago

It's happening in almost every state the republican party controls.  Republicans have managed to confederate much of the Midwest and West.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

[Removed]

The bad guys in this story are driven by the same  identity and utilitarian politics they champion every day.  Y

Calling a woman who doesn't act in her assigned role an "unwoman" is exactly how the rich white progressives who run the democratic party denounce blacks who don't act as their race supposedly requires them to. The government of Gilead denies the rights of individual in favor collective groups, just like modern progressives.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    2 weeks ago
Removed for context. 

Viability is around 23 weeks. Abortions are generally not performed after that, except in cases of medical necessity.

The bad guys in this story are driven by the same identity and utilitarian politics they champion every day. Y

Hilarious. Some of us respect and support women's rights. Others want to remove them. So who's the evil one again?

The government of Gilead denies the rights of individual in favor collective groups, just like modern progressives.

Nice sweeping generalization. But it's mostly certain states that want to deny the rights of the individual. And they would be happy if it was a national prohibition of certain rights too.

 
 
 
lib50
9.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    2 weeks ago

I don't care about any of that mansplaining storytelling.  I just care you want to force your specific belief system on every woman.  It's been said enough, but here it is again - this is NOT about children.  We see how evangelicals and conservatives feel about children, they don't care. Migrant children,  poor hungry kids,  sick kids (no insurance),  gay kids,  minority kids, the list goes on.  No support for reproductive healthcare like contraception, no care through pregnancy if not insured, no care for the family after birth.  No support system (cut, cut, cut).  We have the worst maternal death rate in the industrialized world.  But ignorant old (mostly) white men without medical degrees don't care, they think they have a say anyway.  Check out that idiot in Ohio who thinks ectopic pregnancies can be re-implanted in the uterus (never been done).  Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and can be fatal when it bursts the fallopian tube.  WTF?  This is who wants to control our health?  Hell no!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    2 weeks ago
Calling a woman who doesn't act in her assigned role an "unwoman" is exactly how the rich white progressives who run the democratic party denounce blacks who don't act as their race supposedly requires them to.

That really makes less sense than your usual comments, Sean.  What exactly is the "unwoman" role.  And, of course, there's the usual lie about blacks being "denounced" which is rich coming from the side that accuses blacks of being duped into supporting Democrats -- IOW insulting the intelligence vast majority of blacks because they can see who and what the Republican party has become--simply former Dixiecrats in different suits.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10  Jack_TX    2 weeks ago
Anti-Choice Laws Bring "Handmaid's Tale" Closer To Reality 

And leftist nutjobs get angry when nobody takes them seriously.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @10    2 weeks ago

So these bills are not about retracting women's sexual rights and returning them to a subservient role in society? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1    2 weeks ago
So these bills are not about retracting women's sexual rights and returning them to a subservient role in society?

Not in the minds of the people supporting them, no.  And everybody knows that. 

And I'm not sure how abortion is a "sexual right", unless people are having sex during them, which seems logistically problematic on several levels. 

All of which is totally beside the utter ridiculous stupidity that is the premise of The Handmaid's Tale.  It's less plausible than Lord of the Rings, FFS.

 
 
 
epistte
10.2  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @10    2 weeks ago
And leftist nutjobs get angry when nobody takes them seriously.

If that isn't true then why do you make this misogynist statement in another thread about abortion, or weren't we supposed to notice? ?

Mansplaining"....noun.... word women use when men are interrupting their feelings with common sense.

#2.1.1

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/45959/alyssa-milano-calls-for-sex-strike-to-protest-abortion-bans

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago

I won't go to that seed, but I think Ms Milano has the right idea. Until men realize they are the reason women get pregnant, women should just close up the Candy Store.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.2.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago

The Lysistrata gambit.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago
If that isn't true then why do you make this misogynist statement in another thread about abortion, or weren't we supposed to notice? ?

Oh I'm happy you noticed.  

I'm surprised you don't see the connection.   We'll just take this entire seed as "Exhibit A" for the other comment.  

 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
I won't go to that seed, but I think Ms Milano has the right idea. Until men realize they are the reason women get pregnant, women should just close up the Candy Store.

Well...except for the fact these laws are all driven primarily by women.  Just not liberal ones.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2.1    2 weeks ago

 It's all the man's fault?I know if I was the one that could get pregnant but still wanted to be a slut I would get my tubes. I had a vasectomy so my wife would have to take birth control and also I wouldn't start a life to later just shuff it out.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @10.2.5    one week ago

You do realize that women just can't get their tubes tied that easily, don't you?

Many doctors will not perform this operation unless the woman is of a certain age and has had at least 2 children.

ps...CAN women get pregnant all by themselves? And we're not talking about sperm banks here

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.7  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.3    one week ago
Oh I'm happy you noticed.  

I'm surprised you don't see the connection.   We'll just take this entire seed as "Exhibit A" for the other comment.  

Is misogyny something that you are proud of? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @10.2.7    one week ago
Is misogyny something that you are proud of?

I have the same intellectual expectations of women that I do of men.  That includes avoiding intellectually lazy terms like "mansplaining" or intellectually lazy practices like crying "misogyny" any time anyone disagrees with them.

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.9  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.8    one week ago
I have the same intellectual expectations of women that I do of men.  That includes avoiding intellectually lazy terms like "mansplaining" or intellectually lazy practices like crying "misogyny" any time anyone disagrees with them.

 Your first statement is blatantly untrue because of your previous posts. You have made sexist comments to both Sandy' and myself. You hinted before that you believe that women are too emotional and therefore men are more suited to do intellectual heavy lifting because you believe that men are inherently more logical than women. Your previous claims that you believe that you can redefine beliefs and opinions to be facts makes it a waste of time to have a discussion with you when that illogical idea destroys the very concept of a common language that is necessary for a rational discussion and the exchange of ideas.  A dictionary is not filled with suggestions but concrete defintions, despite what you may want to believe.  In my opinion, you are not a nuanced thinker but instead, you see the world in black and white.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @10.2.9    one week ago
Your first statement is blatantly untrue because of your previous posts.

Do cite these posts.  While you're at it, do offer an explanation as to why you seem to believe women should be held to lower intellectual standards than men.

You have made sexist comments to both Sandy' and myself.

Citation?  Do be very sure to quote me accurately.

You hinted

Hinted.  Ahhh.   Riiiiiiight.   So....didn't actually "say".  So this is you pretending again I said something you wish I had said because if I had said it you might have a valid point.  Alas.

Your previous claims that you believe that you can redefine beliefs and opinions to be facts

Do cite these supposed claims.

makes it a waste of time to have a discussion with you

I've lost track of the number of times you've stated there isn't any point continuing a discussion with me...only to have you continue the discussion.  It seems to happen when I refuse to accept your opinions as facts and you don't know how to proceed.

In my opinion, you are not a nuanced thinker but instead, you see the world in black and white.

The irony of this statement is enough to alter the orbital flight of the earth.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.10    one week ago
While you're at it, do offer an explanation as to why you seem to believe...

Seriously?

Are you truly commanding someone to explain your unconfirmed impression?

Wow...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.10    one week ago
you seem to believe women should be held to lower intellectual standards than men.

I've seen no evidence of this.  Care to provide an example?

Citation?  Do be very sure to quote me accurately.

Your personal definition of "mansplaining" from another thread.  Yes, it was misogynistic, and implied that women are emotional and men are rational.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.11    one week ago
unconfirmed impression?

More like intentional misrepresentation.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.13    one week ago

Oh!

Far from me to presume........

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.15  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.12    one week ago
Your personal definition of "mansplaining" from another thread.  Yes, it was misogynistic, and implied that women are emotional and men are rational.

Jack's sexist comment to me was in the thread about transgender athletes. I would post it as proof but it was deleted by Split-Personality. It was at the very bottom of the thread of someone wants to try to resurrect that thread.

He made the same comment to me that men are inherently more rational than women.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.16  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.12    one week ago
I've seen no evidence of this.  Care to provide an example?

Sure.  We'll start with defense of the word "mansplaining" and declarations of "misogyny".

The term "mansplaining" serves to communicate very clearly that a woman's views are more valid simply because she is a woman, and that no non-female ideas will be considered.

Both of those ideas are both irrational and intellectually lazy, as well as entitled and immature. 

So is that our expectation of women?  It's not mine.  So I don't accept the use of the term, any more than I would accept "hush now honey, the men are talking".  

If women are capable of logical and rational expression of their thoughts (which is obviously true and not in question), then how insane is it to expect anything other than for them to communicate those thoughts in an intelligent and rational manner??....not with some lazy nonsense like "mansplaining".  

Some women use the term "misogyny" in a similar fashion.  They attempt to "hide behind their skirt", instead of make their points in an intellectual fashion.

In this case, she attempted to label me a misogynist without a remote attempt to read the comment objectively or rationally.  

Your personal definition of "mansplaining" from another thread.  Yes, it was misogynistic, and implied that women are emotional and men are rational.

Why would that be the implication?  Do all women use the term?  I sure as hell hope not.  The definition was a very straightforward jab at people who use the term.  The definition was not intended to be pleasant, nice or polite, because the term is not pleasant, nice, or polite. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.16    one week ago
The term "mansplaining" serves to communicate very clearly that a woman's views are more valid simply because she is a woman, and that no non-female ideas will be considered.

Where women's issues and experiences are concerned, they often are.  As men don't experience pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, they should probably defer to women on those subjects.  And yet we have men "mansplaining" women's bodies to women.  "Rape shuts that whole thing (referring to pregnancy) down."  "She should be able to hold it until she gets to a toilet (referring to menstrual blood)."  Women rightly object, and some people call them irrational for it.

Both of those ideas are both irrational and intellectually lazy, as well as entitled and immature.

I would say that claiming that "mansplaining" is rational men talking to emotional women would be a good example of that.  And of mansplaining, come to think of it.

Like it or not, Jack, abortion is an issue that has a far greater effect on women than it does on men.  Our opinions regarding our own bodies will always count for more than anybody else's.  Anybody who decides that, because we're women, their opinion about our bodies counts for more than our own is being irrational, immature, entitled, and misogynistic.  And if they're men, they're mansplaining.

When somebody tells you that you can be prevented by the opinion of somebody other than yourself and your doctor from having a procedure that can have a profoundly positive effect on your life, perhaps even to the point of saving it, get back to me.

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.18  lib50  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago

Nicely said, thank you. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago
Where women's issues and experiences are concerned, they often are.  As men don't experience pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, they should probably defer to women on those subjects. 

Really?  Fascinating.  I'm curious.  On what subjects should women probably defer to men? 

 some people call them irrational for it.

So the goal is to create an intellectual laziness contest of some sort?  

Like it or not, Jack, abortion is an issue

That you'll notice I don't discuss, except to point out that neither side is nearly as villainous as their enemies wish to portray.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.19    one week ago
On what subjects should women probably defer to men? 

Public ball scratching. 

So the goal is to create an intellectual laziness contest of some sort?

Was it your goal to illustrate intellectual laziness by truncating her comment to fit your agenda?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @10.2.20    one week ago
Was it your goal to illustrate intellectual laziness by truncating her comment to fit your agenda?  

Do describe what you imagine my agenda to be.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.19    one week ago

You may not discuss abortion directly,  but you show up on discussions about abortion to deride women for wanting a say about bodily autonomy.

And Alabama's new law, as well as Georgia's proposed one, seem pretty villainous to me.

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.23  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.19    one week ago
Really?  Fascinating.  I'm curious.  On what subjects should women probably defer to men? 

How exactly does pregnancy concern you if you are not trying to manage women's lives?  Is this a function of your Y chromosome or your religious beliefs?

 Until a man gets pregnant is it none of your business what women does with her bodies. Your wife isn't your possession so you cannot decide her medical decisions or life choices either.

 Can someone please explain to me why a conservative Christian doesn't have to bake a cake for an LGBT person but they can force you to carry the fetus of your rapist or your relative to full term, even if it is a danger to your health. Where in the Bible is this passage?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.21    one week ago
Do describe what you imagine my agenda to be.

            56

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago
I would say that claiming that "mansplaining" is rational men talking to emotional women would be a good example of that.  And of mansplaining, come to think of it.

    clapping_smiley_emoticon.gif~c200

 
 
 
Dulay
10.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @10.2.21    one week ago
Do describe what you imagine my agenda to be.

Judging from your comments, dismissiveness and obfuscation. 

 
 
 
Veronica
10.2.27  Veronica  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago

Awesome reply.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago

These 25 Republicans—All White Men—Just Voted To Ban Abortion In Alabama, Which Is Unconstitutional: 2 Republicans Did Not Vote (5/15/19)

The legislation makes abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, with the only exception for a serious threat to the health of the woman.

1. Tim Melson (white MALE Republican)
2. Tom Butler (white MALE Republican)
3. Arthru Orr (white MALE Republican)
4. Garlan Gudger (white MALE Republican)
5. Greg Reed (white MALE Republican)
6. Larry Stuts (white MALE Republican)
7. Sam Givhan (white MALE Republican)
8. Steve Livingston (white MALE Republican)
9. Clay Scofield (white MALE Republican)
10. Andrew Jones (white MALE Republican)
11. Jim McClendon (white MALE Republican)
12. Del Marsh (white MALE Republican)
13. Randy Price (white MALE Republican)
14. Cam Ward (white MALE Republican)
15. Dan Roberts (white MALE Republican)
16. Jabo Waggoner (white MALE Republican)
17. Shay Shelnutt (white MALE Republican)
21. Gerald Allen (white MALE Republican)
22. Greg Albritton (white MALE Republican)
25 Will Barfoot (white MALE Republican)
29. Donnie Chesteen (white MALE Republican)
30. Clyde Chambliss (white MALE Republican)
32. Chris Elliott (white MALE Republican)
34. Jack Williams (white MALE Republican)
35. David Sessions (white MALE Republican)

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one week ago

60113435_823172598051593_950794695775092
Josh A Cox

Deep quotes from some of our Republican hero's on rape..

 
 
 
Veronica
10.2.30  Veronica  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.29    one week ago

This just make me sick. As a survivor of sexual abuse as a child and rape as a college student this shit has me shaking with rage.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.29    one week ago
Deep quotes...

    tenor.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @10.2.30    one week ago

Every single one of them are scum.  

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.33  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.29    one week ago
Deep quotes from some of our Republican hero's on rape.

Does anyone want to guess what their religious beliefs are?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.3  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @10    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

The conservative dream of women going back to being  nothing more than broodmares is possibly coming true!

 
 
 
Veronica
12  Veronica    2 weeks ago

I just have to shake my head.  I just cannot wrap my head around some of these comments.  

"we want to protect life - UNLESS that life is an illegal alien, a sick child with no insurance, a pregnant women with no insurance, a hungry child... on & on"

"mansplaing is men using common sense to EXPLAIN to women how they feel"  What the FUCK is that? I do not need any man to explain to me how a woman's body works or how I feel.

Miscarriages are natural so they would not be issue - HOWEVER - to prove it was natural the woman would have to be investigated at one of the lowest points in her life.  "Did you drink alcohol? - YES - BOOM involuntary manslaughter".

"DID you drink coffee? - YES - BOOM involuntary manslaughter".

"DID you carry laundry downstairs? - YES - BOOM involuntary manslaughter".

"DID you pick up your toddler? - YES - BOOM involuntary manslaughter".

Insanity I was hoping would not be seen in my lifetime.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Veronica @12    2 weeks ago

Why "involontary"? In the world of fetal personhood, a woman who is active sexually (and therefore potentially pregnant), and carries laundry up a flight of stairs... is obviously foolish and inconsequential. She willfully takes risks with the life of the person she is carrying.

Should she prove to be effectively pregnant, and should she miscarry... the charge brought against her wouldn't be "involontary" manslaughter. It would be negligent manslaughter. A lot more serious.

 
 
 
Veronica
12.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1    2 weeks ago

I was just using the phrase that was mentioned earlier.  I just think the whole thing is horrendous.

 
 
 
charger 383
13  charger 383    2 weeks ago

To ensure fetal personhood will require spending great amounts of taxpayer money and be very limiting on individual rights, some examples: 

     Full free healthcare for mother, including proper diet, treating pre existing conditions, exercise program

     Paid leave from work and provide enough money for all expenses until child starts school

     Free daycare for any previous children

     Testing to determine where to start counting age, can't have the child buy a beer too early or retire too soon

     Program to ensure a female is healthy, well fed and ready to bear a child before she becomes pregnant

     Father must handle domestic chores during pregnancy

     An inspection program will have to be set up 

     A pregnant woman can not do anything potentially hazardous   

     and many other unintended consequences

And what are you going to do with those who don't follow the rules that will be required for Fetal Personhood?

   

     

     

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 weeks ago

Love your list

 
 
 
charger 383
13.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    2 weeks ago

thanks

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 weeks ago
     Father must handle domestic chores during pregnancy

I would add, "In the absence of a supporting father,* the government will provide this service."

*provided all attempts to identify the father and hold him responsible have failed to find him.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @13.2    one week ago

Thanks to modern technology it's getting easier to catch the weasels who try to escape responsibility

 
 
 
charger 383
14  charger 383    2 weeks ago

Comment number 200 is that an abortion is as much a right as a haircut, pedicure, or any medical procedure  

 
 
 
bbl-1
15  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Has anyone thought about or considered this?

In the event that a woman ( the mother ) dies as a result of childbirth---would it be prudent and within the realm of ( fetus personhood thinking ) that the fetus, now being a child, should be charged with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter? 

 
 
 
charger 383
15.1  charger 383  replied to  bbl-1 @15    2 weeks ago

That is a very good point 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
15.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  bbl-1 @15    one week ago

Countless more women suffer physical damage that is not fatal from pregnancy and childbirth - perineal tears, varicose veins, and umbilical hernias, as examples.  Should the fetus be charged for assault and battery resulting in injury?

 
 
 
bbl-1
15.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  sandy-2021492 @15.2    one week ago

I simply offered the question. 

On the other hand, in my opinion, any debate on pregnancy termination seems unfounded because the only people that are involved are those people who are involved.  And most certainly not politicians.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
15.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  bbl-1 @15.2.1    one week ago

I'm agreeing with and expanding on your question.

 
 
 
bbl-1
15.2.3  bbl-1  replied to  sandy-2021492 @15.2.2    one week ago

You did good.  Thank you.

 
 
 
LynneA
16  LynneA    one week ago

States continue to chip away at women's authority over their bodies with the guise of protecting life.  If this were truly a "life" issue where is the legislation to stop freezing embryos, end the death penalty, stop organ donation of those declared brain dead?  

 
 
 
Veronica
16.1  Veronica  replied to  LynneA @16    one week ago
If this were truly a "life" issue

I would like to know where the mandatory blood, organ and tissue donations are.  After all - a spare kidney can save a life, blood can save a life - but we don't force people to donate do we - even though lives will be saved.

 
 
 
LynneA
16.1.1  LynneA  replied to  Veronica @16.1    one week ago

Not only do we not force blood or organ donation, we declare a brain dead (heart still beating) person...dead.  Being a donor family, it sickens me reading the holier than thou contingent regarding abortion silent on other "life" issues.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
16.1.2  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  LynneA @16.1.1    one week ago

You will wait a long time (i.e., forever) before getting anything remotely resembling a moral consistency from these people.  It's hard enough for any of us  but they ping around like a pinball that can't find the exit.  

 
 
 
LynneA
16.1.3  LynneA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @16.1.2    one week ago

Agree!  I've waited years for those who take the morality high road to provide honest debate or justification for other life issues...crickets.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  LynneA @16.1.3    one week ago
provide honest debate

They cannot. They have no intellectual basis, either scientific or religious.

This is their own, invented, baseless morality, imposed on others.

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.1.4    one week ago

All they have is emotion and appeals to it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.5    one week ago

It's a bit more complicated than that.

"Save the babies" has become an article of faith on the right. Not being vociferously "pro-life" is seen as treason against the tribe. It is unacceptable to even ask what the scientific / religious basis might be.

The Unthinking Faithful TM have no need to understand why they must oppose abortion so vehemently. The Tribe b-e-l-i-e-v-e-s... and therefore each one of them must believe

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.1.6    one week ago
"Save the babies" has become an article of faith on the right.

Just more emotion based clap-trap. It's not complicated.

The Unthinking Faithful TM have no need to understand why they must oppose abortion so vehemently. The Tribe b-e-l-i-e-v-e-s... and therefore each one of them must believe 

Which only reinforces what I said.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.7    one week ago
Just more emotion based clap-trap.

Certainly. My point here is that the key emotion has nothing to do with babies. It is the overwhelming need to conform to Tribal Dogma.

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.1.8    one week ago
My point here is that the key emotion has nothing to do with babies. It is the overwhelming need to conform to Tribal Dogma.

Fair enough.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1.10  livefreeordie  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.1.8    one week ago

Nonsense. It’s based upon our firm conviction that innocent babies should not be murdered to satisfy someone’s lifestyle choices

 
 
 
epistte
16.1.11  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.10    one week ago

If you know of anyone who is murdering babies you need to call the police. Birth is the defining action that separates the two ideas.

A fetus is not a baby, despite your emotional claims.

fetus; an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

baby;

a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
"his wife's just had a baby"
 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1.12  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @16.1.11    one week ago

It is indeed a baby. Unfortunately the Supreme Court made abortion a form of legal murder

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @16.1.11    one week ago

[Trolling]

 
 
 
epistte
16.1.14  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.12    one week ago
It is indeed a baby. Unfortunately the Supreme Court made abortion a form of legal murder

Abortion has always been legal before Roe. That is what the decision was about. 

Your god said that we are only alive when we breathe air. Was he wrong?  Do you know more than your god?

Genesis 2:7 New International Version (NIV)

Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 
 
 
charger 383
16.1.15  charger 383  replied to  epistte @16.1.14    one week ago

It is in their book several places.

If there is a Judgement Day, let it be dealt with then, until then let people do what they think best suits them and their situation 

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.12    one week ago

It is neither a baby (until it's born) nor is abortion murder. Look it up!

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.10    one week ago

Your "conviction" applies only to you and no one else! You don't get to push your convictions on to anyone else! And no babies are murdered in an abortion. If that's your "conviction," then it is factually erroneous!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1.18  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @16.1.14    one week ago

You need a history lesson. Abortion was illegal prior to Roe

In 1803, Britain first passed antiabortion laws, which then became stricter throughout the century. The U.S. followed as individual states began to outlaw abortion. By 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those ``necessary to save the life of the woman.”

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

As to your verse it does not refute my point

”Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Luke 1:36-41 

i have watched a number of my grandchildren during sonograms during pregnancies, laugh, giggle, suck their thumbs, respond to probes, and other activities.   Just on time is enough to show most skeptics that it is indeed a baby in the womb.   It is a human being that deserves all the normal protections of life.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1.19  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.17    one week ago

I’ve said nothing about legislating my position.  I did hold that position as a pro life protester until the mid 80s when I concluded that abortions will end when mothers love their children more than their lifestyle choices and I stopped participating in those protests.

so I’m not seeking to force anyone.

 
 
 
charger 383
16.1.20  charger 383  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.19    one week ago
when I concluded that abortions will end when mothers love their children more than their lifestyle choice

That is true, a little harsh but true

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1.21  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.19    one week ago
abortions will end when mothers love their children more than their lifestyle choices

The majority of women who have abortions love the children they already have. 

 
 
 
charger 383
16.1.22  charger 383  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.19    one week ago

           " when I concluded that abortions will end when mothers love their children more than their lifestyle                   choices"

If the mother does not want or love the child and views it as a burden  the results probably won't be good, same if she does not have resources and ability  to properly care for child   

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  charger 383 @16.1.20    one week ago
That is true

It is garbage.

It might occasionally be true if the aborted fetus was a "child", but it is not.

This is typical of the save-the-babies fearmongers. They solicit our intense innate tendency to protect our young, and then try to shift that tendency from the born to the unborn.

It's dishonest. It's insidious. Don't fall for it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
16.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.18    one week ago
laugh, giggle,

In amniotic fluid?

 
 
 
Veronica
16.1.25  Veronica  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.18    one week ago

Abortion was not always illegal - you may want to brush up on your history.

https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/about-abortion/history-of-abortion/

 
 
 
livefreeordie
16.1.26  livefreeordie  replied to  Veronica @16.1.25    one week ago

I didn’t say it was always illegal.  The argument presented to me was that abortion was supposedly legal at the time of Roe which is untrue

 
 
 
Gordy327
16.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.19    one week ago
so I’m not seeking to force anyone.

That is good.

Abortion was illegal prior to Roe

Yes and no. Abortion was legal in the 19th century. But it became illegal due to the influx of immigrants into the country. Making abortion illegal was an attempt to "shore up the numbers" of natural born Americans compared to the number of immigrants.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
16.1.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @16.1.24    4 days ago

Once again we see the lack of basic science education

 
 
 
Don Overton
16.1.29  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @16.1.10    4 days ago

Pure BS

 
 
 
epistte
17  epistte    one week ago
States continue to chip away at women's authority over their bodies with the guise of protecting life.  If this were truly a "life" issue where is the legislation to stop freezing embryos, end the death penalty, stop organ donation of those declared brain dead?  

I might be missing a point but I see a lot of similarity between a person who is brain dead and their body is being kept alive by life support machines and a fetus at conception where conservatives are now claiming that it is a person with rights.  That fetus is not an independent person at that stage and cannot be self-supporting if removed from the womb, so why should it receive rights and have rights taken away from the mother when a brain dead person is removed from life support and permitted to die.

There are multiple people on this forum with professional medical training and if I am wrong I hope that they will point out my error(s). 

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1  LynneA  replied to  epistte @17    one week ago

Your point is spot on.   

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.1  epistte  replied to  LynneA @17.1    one week ago
Your point is spot on. 

I was cleaning last night and this idea came to me. I spent another hour pondering the various details because I was sure that I'd missed an important concept. I thought that I'd put the idea out there for others to consider and possibly find a flaw in my thinking.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  LynneA @17.1    one week ago

Epistte's points always are Lynne. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.3  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.2    one week ago
Epistte's points always are Lynne.

You give me far too much credit. I appreciate the very kind words, even if I do not feel that I deserve them much of the time. 

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.4  LynneA  replied to  epistte @17.1.1    one week ago

The similarities you speak of have been rolling in my brain for over 20 years.  I've asked in previous threads why a fetus without brain activity is considered a person with rights yet a person without brain activity is declared dead.  Recently asked a few family members if they viewed our decision to stop life support and donate our daughters organs as us killing her.  They were aghast.  Yet when I point out brain activity in my pro-choice stance juxtaposed their pro-life stance...silence.

Like many issues in life, talk is cheap, living personal realities much tougher.

If anyone has words of wisdom or perspective,  I'd embrace them all.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.1.3    one week ago

Credit where credit is due epistte. No more, no less jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.6  epistte  replied to  LynneA @17.1.4    one week ago
The similarities you speak of have been rolling in my brain for over 20 years.  I've asked in previous threads why a fetus without brain activity is considered a person with rights yet a person without brain activity is declared dead.  Recently asked a few family members if they viewed our decision to stop life support and donate our daughters organs as us killing her.  They were aghast.  Yet when I point out brain activity in my pro-choice stance juxtaposed their pro-life stance...silence.

Like many issues in life, talk is cheap, living personal realities much tougher.

If anyone has words of wisdom or perspective,  I'd embrace them all.

I've written them off because their arguments aren't logically based, but instead, are emotional. You cannot invoke logic to try to convince a person who thinks emotionally that they are wrong.  Logic is a foreign language to them and if you somehow do put forth an idea that they try to consider they tend to just shut down instead of admitting that you might be right.  If they would admit that you are correct then they would have to reconsider everything that they previously believed and most are unable to even ponder that possibility because of the fear that it creates.

I wish I was a better writer because it would be easier to explain the thoughts that I have, so please excuse my inability to write clearly.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  LynneA @17.1.4    one week ago

I'm sorry about your daughter Lynne. But I applaud and salute you for making the decision to donate. That is often a difficult decision, especially when family is involved. But your decision probably saved multiple lives. You are an example for the rest of us and clearly more "pro-life" than some. 

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.8  LynneA  replied to  epistte @17.1.6    one week ago

epistle, your words are not only heard, clearly understood.  No furtherance needed.  Thank you.

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.9  LynneA  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.7    one week ago

Thanks Gordy327. 

Many on this sight have said good-bye to a child, some to more than one.  While circumstances differ, the life event leaves us with questions, biases and perspectives. 

Get riled when reading the bullshit espoused by armchair pro-lifers.  I can only hope those who 'think' will do just that.

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.10  epistte  replied to  LynneA @17.1.8    one week ago

Please accept my condolences on the passing of your daughter. I would be a permanent wreck if I had to make that decision.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  LynneA @17.1.4    one week ago

It seems to me that we often examine the situation exclusively looking at the "questionable individual" - the fetus, the brain-dead, etc.

We are not  just observers - we are intimately involved.

There is no particular "moment of personhood" for a developing fetus. It goes through a long, continuous process, that goes on without interruption for decades after birth.

It is our perception that changes. Some people perceive a person at conception. This has nothing to do with the zygote, but everything to do with the observer.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.11    one week ago

The difference is, we are not involved with another person's fetus, family, loved one, ect. So we have no say in another's situation or choices. But many pro-lifers seem to think that they are.

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.13  LynneA  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.11    one week ago

Agree, perception is our reality until life events question our premise. 

I've learned how incorrect my personal assumptions have been regarding faith and morality by living 62 years.  My band wagon has changed over the years as life events challenged and ultimately changed my reality.  Still a work in progress!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  LynneA @17.1.13    one week ago
Still a work in progress!

As Ben Franklin said, "Consider the alternative!"

 
 
 
Veronica
17.1.15  Veronica  replied to  LynneA @17.1.4    one week ago

Lynne,

I am so sorry for what you have been through.  It is so hard when it comes to our children.  My daughter is chronically ill and had to make a life decision.  She chose life and has had an uphill battle all the way.  I did not help in this decision (and have been criticized for it daily) because she was 25 & it was her life.  She either had to choose to live sick the rest of her life (pain, physically ill, bi-monthly infusions) or let go.  It was not my decision but hers.  I do not know if I would have had the strength to do what you did.  You are a strong woman. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.16  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @17.1.6    one week ago

I’ll take your argument

most abortions occur after brain activity has begun. Our advances in science continue to push the clock on affirming life earlier and earlier

https://lozierinstitute.org/qa-with-the-scholars-fetal-brain-development-and-pain-capability/

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.17  livefreeordie  replied to  LynneA @17.1.4    one week ago

Sorry for your loss

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.18  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.16    one week ago

I’ll take your argument

most abortions occur after brain activity has begun. Our advances in science continue to push the clock on affirming life earlier and earlier

https://lozierinstitute.org/qa-with-the-scholars-fetal-brain-development-and-pain-capability/

The fetus is no more viable as a separate person at that stage (12 weeks) than a brain dead person is who is on life support.  Why should a woman be forced to be a prisoner when she is pregnant against her wishes because of your emotions? Why do you believe that you can inject your beliefs into the lives of others? Can I inject my beliefs into your medical decisions or is this a one-way street for your benefit?

What happened to your minarchist political ideas or are those not relevant when you are forcing your religious beliefs on women?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @17.1.18    one week ago
Why should a woman be forced to be a prisoner when she is pregnant against her wishes because of your emotions?

Because he's a man?

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.16    one week ago

The Lozier Institute? Seriously?  You're going to cite a known anti-abortion and biased organization to support your argument? You're as bad as KAG when it comes to citing BS organizations with an agenda. It's foolish of you to think no one will see right through that or that you have any credibility. 

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.21  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.20    one week ago

But he prayed about it.............

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.1.21    one week ago

Thanks for proving my point epistte jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.23  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @17.1.18    one week ago

I’ve said nothing about legislating my position.  I did hold that position as a pro life protester until the mid 80s when I concluded that abortions will end when mothers love their children more than their lifestyle choices and I stopped participating in those protests.

so I’m not seeking to force anyone.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.24  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.20    one week ago

Try a legitimate argument. Show me where you have the credentials to refute this Dr and Professor of Neuroscience who is the author of what I linked

“Katrina Furth, Ph.D., earned her doctorate in neuroscience at Boston University, performing her dissertation research at the National Institutes of Health. Since graduating, she has worked as an adjunct professor at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Furth enjoys educating scientists and non-scientists alike about brain development and leads seminars and talks about the neuroscience of the unborn. In this interview she discusses fetal neurological development.”

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.1.25  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.16    one week ago
Our advances in science continue to push the clock on affirming life earlier and earlier

I hate to burst your bubble, but the debate isn't about when "life" begins. Sperm are alive as are the eggs they fertilize. The fact that it's living tissue isn't in debate. What is in debate is when "viability" is reached, the stage a fetus can live outside the womb without its host.

What you're apparently trying to claim is that "brain activity" is some how is an indicator of "personhood". But the law doesn't give a crap about any of that as it shouldn't. It sets the law, effectively making the fetus a "person", at viability. Nothing the anti-choice proponent Katrina Furth has to say changes any of that. Having a brain is not the definition of being a person, being able to use it to survive outside the womb is.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.26  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.1.25    one week ago

Try to keep up. My post was in direct response to Epistte who said pro lifers are unable to respond to his challenge on the fetus lacking brain activity 

and viability has no meaning in the context of the debate as to whether the baby in the womb is or is not human life.

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.27  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.26    one week ago
Try to keep up. My post was in direct response to Epistte who said pro lifers are unable to respond to his challenge on the fetus lacking brain activity  and viability has no meaning in the context of the debate as to whether the baby in the womb is or is not human life.

That fetus would not and could not survive outside of the womb at that stage any more than a brain dead person will continue to live and breathe when removed from artificial life support.  This is where the 23 week standard of viability comes into play.

If you would instead focus on your own life and leave the lives of others alone you will have more than enough to do. Stop believing that you can manage the lives of others because of your religious beliefs or your Y chromosome. 

 
 
 
LynneA
17.1.28  LynneA  replied to  Veronica @17.1.15    one week ago

Veronica,

Thank you.  Life choices often come without a "how too" guide and we're left making the best decisions based on information we have at the time.  The second guessing seems to come after decisions are made, in the quiet and still of night (at least for me).  Didn't know harvesting organs would require a morphine IV, yet there it was on the final tally of her hospital stay.  Took a while to wrap my head around that, even after speaking to the surgeon. 

I'm sorry to hear your daughter suffers daily, the choice was hers to make.  I admire your ability to let her make it. 

Thankfully our daughter expressed her desire to be an organ donor upon getting her license...never imagined it'd come to pass.  Once she was declared brain dead, we acquiesced to her wishes to give life to others and we raised her 2 year old daughter.  Ah, life experiences often suck!

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.29  epistte  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.19    one week ago
Because he's a man?

I wasn't aware that constitutional rights are found in their Y chromosome or the bible. Thanks for informing me of my ignorance.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @17.1.29    one week ago
Thanks for informing me of my ignorance.

Guys are always gallant towards you fragile flowers...

... and you really should be grateful for it...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  LynneA @17.1.28    one week ago
Once she was declared brain dead, we acquiesced to her wishes to give life to others and we raised her 2 year old daughter.

What a brave and generous decision you made.

 
 
 
Veronica
17.1.32  Veronica  replied to  LynneA @17.1.28    one week ago

My heart aches for you.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.33  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @17.1.27    one week ago

Taking a moral rather than a legal position does none of what you accuse me of.  

But at least your misrepresentations are consistent, consistently wrong

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.34  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.33    one week ago
Taking a moral rather than a legal position does none of what you accuse me of.   But at least your misrepresentations are consistent, consistently wrong

What happened to your idea of being a minimal government minarchist?  Do those views also make room for your religious beliefs to be enforced by secular law?

The government isn't to be enforcing religious morality because there are as many ideas of who is moral as there are of what god or book that they hold to be sacred.  We lose our equal religious rights to believe and act as we choose according to our beliefs when the government begins to enforce the morality of one secular religion by political force.

 
 
 
epistte
17.1.35  epistte  replied to  epistte @17.1.34    one week ago
begins to enforce the morality of one secular religion by political force.

That should have read;

begins to enforce the morality of one religion or religious sect by political force.

I'm sorry for the confusing typo.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.24    one week ago
Try a legitimate argument. Show me where you have the credentials to refute this Dr and Professor of Neuroscience who is the author of what I linked

Try paying attention then! Fetal brain development is a continuous process throughout gestation. But early neuronal activity is just simple electrical impulses. There is no higher thought or brain function. During the 1st trimester, neuro activity is mostly autonomous in function and that's about it. It's essentially no different than a person being in a permanent vegetative state. It certainly does not indicate an actual person being there.

and viability has no meaning in the context of the debate as to whether the baby in the womb is or is not human life.

Viability has meaning in the context of whether abortion is allowed or not.

Taking a moral rather than a legal position does none of what you accuse me of.

Morality is subjective and is otherwise irrelevant to the abortion issue. There's a thin line between morality and sanctimony.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.37  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.20    5 days ago
You're as bad as KAG

As bad but not as relentlessly so as KAG.

 
 
 
Gordy327
17.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @17.1.37    5 days ago

Indeed.

 
 
 
Don Overton
17.1.39  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.16    4 days ago

Yet you use a pro life institute and expect people to believe anything they say

 
 
 
Kavika
18  Kavika     one week ago

I am sorry to hear about your daughter Lynne. It is a decision that had to be heart wrenching and I applaud you for making the decision to donate. 

Like many issues in life, talk is cheap, living personal realities much tougher.

Indeed Lynne, speaking in hypothetical terms isn't having to make a real decision with real people involved. 

You have lived it and for that your commentary is much more valuable/important than the hypothetical comment.

 
 
 
LynneA
19  LynneA    one week ago

Kavika, thank you.  It's my hope in shareing to bring reality to those who think they've the moral high ground.  I'm on a journey that needs no accolades or recognition, just others to learn from and love.

Peace to you and yours always.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20  author  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    one week ago

For those ant-choice NTers on this and other seeds who've been telling us that women who have spontaneous abortions don't have to worry about any legal consequences, this comment from one of the AL republican state senators who pushed this bill through should clear things up:

When asked how a woman who had a miscarriage could prove that she didn't have an abortion, [Clyde] Chambliss responded that "the burden of proof would be on the prosecution."

If that isn't an admission (likely unintentional, but this guy has already admitted that he's stupid despite that being obvious)  that women in that position certainly will have to worry about being investigated and possibly prosecuted.  What a relief it will be for them to know that the burden is on the prosecution!!!/s