# Banning Abortion- A fool's errand



## JoeB131

So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.  

Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.  

The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say. 

Okay, let's get real here.

For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.

How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.  

Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion. 

How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?  


Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


----------



## occupied

None of them have ever given a moment's thought to the aftermath of an abortion ban.


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> *For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.*
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).

It's about what's right and what's moral.

Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.

No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.

Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.

Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.

That's the whole point.


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


Progs believe utopia is of their agendas. The problem is there is no utopia. A peasant is either above or below the poverty line by their own actions or real privilege of how they are employed. Abortions have become a business industry. And it has made people more callous towards the human race's most important reason to live.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


As a very pro abortion conserv, I find this method of culling libturd offspring offensive and oppressive. It is needed to rid of us as many as humanly possible


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Sadly looking at biden voters, we needed abortion in 40 million of those cases'

The OP being the prime example of why abortion is so so so necessary


----------



## jillian

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.
> 
> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.
> 
> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage it in law either.
> 
> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.
> 
> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.


So funny that the my body my choice anti vaxxers are all about sending bounty hunters out to stop a legal activity.

do you think for a second that the drunk frat boy and the refugee from a handmaid’s tale would have exercised the same reasoning if NY legislated a similar law regarding gun owners?

they wouldn’t have. And we aren’t a theocracy and it’s not your or government’s place to enforce morality.


----------



## JoeB131

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.



Right and moral are subjective... and you can't enforce a law when the morality is in question. 

Murder, for instance, everyone agrees is wrong.  Therefore, you can arrest murderers, put them on trial and get convictions...    



Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.



Well, we've seen the foolishness of trying to outlaw drugs....  




Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage it in law either.



No, but when the illegality makes it more dangerous not so much.  




Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.



Except it won't stop any... women will just find a way to not be pregnant.  They'll throw themselves down stairs, they'll smuggle in abortion drugs and not take them safely.   




Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.



There's already a place that has the kinds of laws you want...  You know them, you love them, it's... 






Yes, the Philippines have the kinds of abortion laws you want...   

And they have 500,000 to 800,000 abortions a year. (More per capita than the US)   4200 Filipinas are hospitalized every year for complications from illegal abortions.   There are more than 1 million abandoned children living in the Philippines, and a lot of them end up being exploited in the sex and slave labor trade.  

Hard Pass.


----------



## jillian

Hang on sloopy said:


> As a very pro abortion conserv, I find this method of culling libturd offspring offensive and oppressive. It is needed to rid of us as many as humanly possible


Funny coming from a trumpkins cultist moron


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

^^^^^^^^^^^^^We need to teach swallowing and shooting it on the belly as another form of birth control taught in skewls


----------



## Anomalism

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.


Forcing the abortion market to go black will have horrifying consequences.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Anomalism said:


> Forcing the abortion market to go black will have horrifying consequences.


We need to provide home visit abortions on demnd


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

jillian said:


> So funny that the my body my choice anti vaxxers are all about sending bounty hunters out to stop a legal activity.
> 
> do you think for a second that the drunk frat boy and the refugee from a handmaid’s tale would have exercised the same reasoning if NY legislated a similar law regarding gun owners?
> 
> they wouldn’t have. And we aren’t a theocracy and it’s not your or government’s place to enforce morality.


I'm not an anti-Vaxer though. I believe everyone should get it. 

I'm not talking about sending out bounty hunters. Obviously shut down and jail people doing illegal abortions which are now against the law but as I said in the short-term it's about the message it sends out regards what's right and wrong.


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

JoeB131 said:


> Right and moral are subjective... and you can't enforce a law when the morality is in question.
> 
> Murder, for instance, everyone agrees is wrong.  Therefore, you can arrest murderers, put them on trial and get convictions...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've seen the foolishness of trying to outlaw drugs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but when the illegality makes it more dangerous not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it won't stop any... women will just find a way to not be pregnant.  They'll throw themselves down stairs, they'll smuggle in abortion drugs and not take them safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's already a place that has the kinds of laws you want...  You know them, you love them, it's...
> 
> View attachment 534418
> 
> Yes, the Philippines have the kinds of abortion laws you want...
> 
> And they have 500,000 to 800,000 abortions a year. (More per capita than the US)   4200 Filipinas are hospitalized every year for complications from illegal abortions.   There are more than 1 million abandoned children living in the Philippines, and a lot of them end up being exploited in the sex and slave labor trade.
> 
> Hard Pass.


All fair points, I've not got time to address them all atm and I know this will have consequences but I just think it always comes back to what's right.


----------



## Anomalism

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> it's about the message it sends out regards what's right and wrong.


Thank God we have this knob to remind us of the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

Anomalism said:


> Thank God we have this knob to remind us of the difference between right and wrong.


Well only oddities like you would think murdering a baby is right.

That says a lot more about you than you can ever say about me tbh.

Little hint for you - learn to debate your points like the guy above with me. All of his points were fair, whereas you come across as a bit of a sideshow at a circus.


----------



## Anomalism

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Well only oddities like you would think murdering a baby is right.
> 
> That says a lot more about you than you can ever say about me tbh.
> 
> Little hint for you - learn to debate your points like the guy above with me. All of his points were fair, whereas you come across as a bit of a sideshow at a circus.


You're not worthy of my effort. Make better posts if you want me to try.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


It may just have the opposite effect intended

Women do not know they are pregnant until four weeks and a missed period. With Texas setting the limit at six weeks, women have a two week window to decide their options.

Better rush into an abortion while you still can


----------



## Penelope

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Well only oddities like you would think murdering a baby is right.
> 
> That says a lot more about you than you can ever say about me tbh.
> 
> Little hint for you - learn to debate your points like the guy above with me. All of his points were fair, whereas you come across as a bit of a sideshow at a circus.


Is it your business what women have a abortion or not?? You don't give a rip about these women who want to have an abortion.  Many women who have an abortion go to church, and they receive the host.* I thought your God was all forgiving. *


----------



## Penelope

22lcidw said:


> Progs believe utopia is of their agendas. The problem is there is no utopia. A peasant is either above or below the poverty line by their own actions or real privilege of how they are employed. Abortions have become a business industry. And it has made people more callous towards the human race's most important reason to live.


So have guns.


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> It may just have the opposite effect intended
> 
> Women do not know they are pregnant until four weeks and a missed period. With Texas setting the limit at six weeks, women have a two week window to decide their options.
> 
> Better rush into an abortion while you still can


But they are so much smarter as what is forced on society.


----------



## Independentthinker

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


Maybe you could link to where the Supreme Court overturned RvW. I can't find it anywhere I have looked.


----------



## Oddball

Wow.....It's as though we've told Catholics that communion has been outlawed!


----------



## progressive hunter

JoeB131 perfect chance for someone to start a business promoting family planning through birth control,,


----------



## Oddball

Independentthinker said:


> Maybe you could link to where the Supreme Court overturned RvW. I can't find it anywhere I have looked.


Exactly....Their "choice" merely needs to be made in a timely manner.


----------



## Natural Citizen

The important and more relevant thing is removing federal jurisdiction from where it doesn't belong and where there are no 'just powers'

"Strictly limited"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.


Wrong. 

The right to privacy has long been acknowledged in Constitutional case law.

Also long established is the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The right to privacy has long been acknowledged in Constitutional case law.
> 
> Also long established is the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.


Roe is shit case law, according to a lot of _*DEMOCRAT*_ lawyers, sub-cretin.


----------



## jknowgood

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


Abortions will soon be outlawed all across our country. We know alot more about babies in the womb since 1973. They are operating on babies in the womb. Soon you loons will be considered Hitler like supporting the killing of babies.


----------



## jknowgood

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The right to privacy has long been acknowledged in Constitutional case law.
> 
> Also long established is the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.


Things are changing as the technology we had in 1973 has improved 100%. So soon abortion should be outlawed. If a woman has unprotected sex, she can take the morning after pill. No reason to wait until the baby has a heartbeat to kill it.


----------



## DrLove

This BS will backfire on Republicans in the midterms - Just you wait!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Penelope said:


> Is it your business what women have a abortion or not?? You don't give a rip about these women who want to have an abortion.  Many women who have an abortion go to church, and they receive the host.* I thought your God was all forgiving. *


You misunderstand the nature of his God. Have a look at the situation in Northern Ireland where his friends make women travel to Wales to get an abortion.
Their stance is all about punishing "sluts" and nothing else.
Texas now joins Ulster as one of the most backward parts of the world.
I would expect adults to step in pretty quickly to end this nonsense.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The right to privacy has long been acknowledged in Constitutional case law.
> 
> Also long established is the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.


clayton we've been over this,,

case not doesnt apply when the constitution is in play,,

so your premise is a lie,,


----------



## g5000

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


There is a prohibition on murder, yet we still have a lot of murders.

Using your TardLogic™, we should just legalize murder.


----------



## Jarlaxle

jknowgood said:


> Abortions will soon be outlawed all across our country. We know alot more about babies in the womb since 1973. They are operating on babies in the womb. Soon you loons will be considered Hitler like supporting the killing of babies.


This is satire...right?


----------



## jknowgood

Jarlaxle said:


> This is satire...right?


No Texas is just the start.


----------



## Jarlaxle

jknowgood said:


> No Texas is just the start.


You're delusional.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Texas sure caused leftist tears.

Don't go to Texas, simple


----------



## initforme

This law will encourage less women to have kids as they will take precautions.  That's a win for the nation....less births.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tommy Tainant said:


> You misunderstand the nature of his God. Have a look at the situation in Northern Ireland where his friends make women travel to Wales to get an abortion.
> Their stance is all about punishing "sluts" and nothing else.
> Texas now joins Ulster as one of the most backward parts of the world.
> I would expect adults to step in pretty quickly to end this nonsense.



Well hopefully Kookyfornians will stop flockiing there and infecting the great state


----------



## dblack

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.


Have you ever stopped to consider that the law can't right every wrong? And that often, it shouldn't try. That if it does it can make things far worse?

For example ....


Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.


Prohibition of drugs and alcohol have done far more harm than good.


Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.


Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's "encouraged".


Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.


Nope. If it only stops a handful of abortions, then it was a waste of time and money. Time and money that could have been spent persuading women to *not* get abortions.


Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.


That's delusional.

For me, the bottom line is the precedent that will be created. We should never grant the government jurisdiction over the contents of our bodies or our minds. Enforcing these laws will require a police state that I want no part of.


----------



## Jarlaxle

SassyIrishLass said:


> Texas sure caused leftist tears.
> 
> Don't go to Texas, simple


Texas also may have handed Democrats the 2022 elections.


----------



## dblack

Jarlaxle said:


> Texas also may have handed Democrats the 2022 elections.


Well, they're competing with Biden's fuckups. It'll be a toss up.

Maybe voters will grow up and stop falling for the two-party shitshow. 

LOL - who am I kidding? We'll "stay the course" to the bitter end.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Jarlaxle said:


> Texas also may have handed Democrats the 2022 elections.



Nót a chance. Biden and the Cackler will seal the dem chances


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

dblack said:


> Have you ever stopped to consider that the law can't right every wrong? And that often, it shouldn't try. That if it does it can make things far worse?
> 
> For example ....
> 
> Prohibition of drugs and alcohol have done far more harm than good.
> 
> Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's "encouraged".
> 
> Nope. If it only stops a handful of abortions, then it was a waste of time and money. Time and money that could have been spent persuading women to *not* get abortions.
> 
> That's delusional.
> 
> For me, the bottom line is the precedent that will be created. We should never grant the government jurisdiction over the contents of our bodies or our minds. Enforcing these laws will require a police state that I want no part of.


I've stopped and considered it in great detail, for many, many years and no - I still don't find it wrong (the outlawing of abortions).

In fact I find it the complete opposite of "wrong"

I find it correct both legally and morally that it's wrong to kill a baby.

You can sit there and do all the mental gymnastics in the world you want and make all the excuses you want to feel comfortable with yourself advocating murder.

It's you that has to sleep at night. I'm totally comfortable.


----------



## dblack

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> I've stopped and considered it in great detail, for many, many years and no - I still don't find it wrong (the outlawing of abortions).
> 
> In fact I find it the complete opposite of "wrong"
> 
> I find it correct both legally and morally that it's wrong to kill a baby.
> 
> You can sit there and do all the mental gymnastics in the world you want and make all the excuses you want to feel comfortable with yourself advocating murder.
> 
> It's you that has to sleep at night. I'm totally comfortable.


I'm not advocating murder - so, you know, fuck you for accusing me of such. I'm just not a fascist, so your police state wet dreams are unappealing.


----------



## g5000

jknowgood said:


> No Texas is just the start.





			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state


----------



## g5000

initforme said:


> This law will encourage less women to have kids as they will take precautions.  That's a win for the nation....less births.


We have a negative birth rate.  We need MORE babies to keep the economy growing.

Either that, or we need to allow in a lot more immigrants.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> Banning Abortion- A fool's errand


Or just fundamentally foolish and pointless.

As already correctly noted: women have been having abortions for thousands of years – and will continue to have abortions regardless un-Constitutional ‘bans’ enacted by the authoritarian right.

Big government conservatives enact these laws for purely partisan reasons, to keep the base energized and going to the polls, to use as a partisan weapon against opponents, and as ‘feel good’ measures so conservatives can believe they’re ‘doing something’ about abortion, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, the only thing the authoritarian right accomplishes is to further erode our civil rights, to increase the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## Lesh

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.
> 
> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.
> 
> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.
> 
> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.
> 
> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.


It’s about what’s right and moral… was what they said about Prohibition

How that work out?


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> We have a negative birth rate.  We need MORE babies to keep the economy growing.
> 
> Either that, or we need to allow in a lot more immigrants.


Then YOU pay the costs of those kids

Up for it?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

jillian said:


> So funny that the my body my choice anti vaxxers are all about sending bounty hunters out to stop a legal activity



So funny that the my body my choice abortionists are all about banning anti vaxxers from legal activities


----------



## g5000

Lesh said:


> It’s about what’s right and moral… was what they said about Prohibition
> 
> How that work out?


See post 34.


----------



## g5000

Lesh said:


> Then YOU pay the costs of those kids
> 
> Up for it?


Typical tactics of pro-abortionists.  Use the victims of rape and incest as human shields to protect the 99 percent of convenience abortions.  And make the threat, "Pay for my baby or I will kill it!"

You people are sick in the head.

Just so you know, I founded two  non-profit charities to help feed and house the hungry and homeless in my community.  I walk the walk.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.



Huge mistake.
The right to privacy has always existed, and is always about the single most important right.
The mistake you are making is the assumption that rights do not exist until there is specific legislation to defend them.
That is not the case and can never be the case because rights are infinite and can never be even enumerated, much less fully protected by specific legislation.
That is the whole point of executive and judicial discretion.
There are all these generic laws, like disorderly conduct, assault, etc. that are intentionally unspecific.
So the right to privacy always existed.

As far as when life begins, that is not relevant.
The point is life or not, no one can legally be forced to support the life of another.
If you have a rare blood type that would save the life of another, no one can demand you donate any of that blood.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> We have a negative birth rate.  We need MORE babies to keep the economy growing.
> 
> Either that, or we need to allow in a lot more immigrants.



NO!
We have limited resources, and fossil fuel is running out completely.
When that starts to happen in about 20 years, food production will drop by 75%.
We desperately need to cut the population by at least 2/3rds.


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> Typical tactics of pro-abortionists.  Use the victims of rape and incest as human shields to protect the 99 percent of convenience abortions.  And make the threat, "Pay for my baby or I will kill it!"
> 
> You people are sick in the head.
> 
> Just so you know, I founded two  non-profit charities to help feed and house the hungry and homeless in my community.  I walk the walk.


Good for you. That’s a drop in the bucket


----------



## Coyote

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.
> 
> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.
> 
> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.
> 
> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.
> 
> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.


It has zero to do with “right” and “moral”.

If it did, they would be demanding services to help pregnant women and women with children, they demanding access to affordable healthcare,  they would be asking why their legislatures keep cutting funding to help women and children, why they don’t make contraception readily available if not free…and at least should be asking what is “right” and “moral” about a 12 yr old incest victim being forced to bear a baby,


----------



## jasonnfree

Had republicans had their way and killed Obama Care, then millions of men, women, and children would have been without insurance, many would have died.  Looks like republican politicians didn't give a shit about human lives back then, and they sure don't care now.  That traitor Trump talked health care stuff while running against Hillary and talk was as far as it ever got.  I guess playing golf and pleasing the health insurance bandits were more important to him.








						Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, reaches the Supreme Court: What's at stake
					

If the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court, here's what could change.




					www.cnet.com


----------



## JoeB131

progressive hunter said:


> @JoeB131 perfect chance for someone to start a business promoting family planning through birth control,,



Birth control is only as smart as the person using it.  

I knew this girl when I was in the service.   Asian-American, college educated, devout Catholic, strict parents.  She was engaged to one of my fellow NCO's.   Well, she "forgot" to take birth control when her boyfriend wasn't following up on the marrying her part.  Then she had an abortion because she didn't want her parents to know that she wasn't still a virgin at 22.   

A year later, she hooked back up with the same guy and the same thing happened.  

We can scream birth control until we are blue in the face, but people will still make bad decisions.


----------



## progressive hunter

JoeB131 said:


> Birth control is only as smart as the person using it.
> 
> I knew this girl when I was in the service.   Asian-American, college educated, devout Catholic, strict parents.  She was engaged to one of my fellow NCO's.   Well, she "forgot" to take birth control when her boyfriend wasn't following up on the marrying her part.  Then she had an abortion because she didn't want her parents to know that she wasn't still a virgin at 22.
> 
> A year later, she hooked back up with the same guy and the same thing happened.
> 
> We can scream birth control until we are blue in the face, but people will still make bad decisions.


they will think twice now that options are limited,,,


----------



## Lesh

progressive hunter said:


> they will think twice now that options are limited,,,


Men however don't need to think at all though huh?

THEY can't get preggers


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Men however don't need to think at all though huh?
> 
> THEY can't get preggers


havent you heard??

men can now get preggers,,,
sucks to be a lefty and have your own delusions fuck you in the ass,,,


----------



## Lesh

progressive hunter said:


> havent you heard??
> 
> men can now get preggers,,,
> sucks to be a lefty and have your own delusions fuck you in the ass,,,


Men can unintentionally get pregnant?

You have some strange delusions


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Men can unintentionally get pregnant?
> 
> You have some strange delusions


thats what you lefties have been saying,,,


----------



## JoeB131

g5000 said:


> There is a prohibition on murder, yet we still have a lot of murders.
> 
> Using your TardLogic™, we should just legalize murder.



Okay, let's look at that.   We have 16,000 murders in this country a year.  It's ridiculously high compared to other industrialized countries, but you are unlikely to be murdered.  why? Because there is universal agreement that murder is wrong.   Police will investigate, juries will convict, etc. 

ON the other hand, 600,000 abortions performed every year.   Even when abortion was illegal, women were very rarely prosecuted for having them and providers were only prosecuted if they really screwed up and maimed someone.  

So the better analogy would be smoking pot, or prostitution... where the laws are there thanks to moral scolds, but no one takes them seriously.


----------



## JoeB131

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> So funny that the my body my choice abortionists are all about banning anti vaxxers from legal activities



If your aborted fetus was going around infecting people, we'd probably have to consider it.


----------



## Lesh

progressive hunter said:


> thats what you lefties have been saying,,,


Dude...what are you smoking?


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Dude...what are you smoking?


dont get mad at me,, its you lefties that have been saying it,,


----------



## JoeB131

progressive hunter said:


> they will think twice now that options are limited,,,



You are right. they'll put a lot more thought into how to get that abortion... but they'll still have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.


----------



## Dana7360

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The right to privacy has long been acknowledged in Constitutional case law.
> 
> Also long established is the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.




I will add that the constitution clearly says we have privacy with our bodies.

Which means the government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our own bodies. In fact, it's the first listed in the Amendment, houses, papers and effects come next in the Amendment. That's how important it was to our founders that the government keeps their noses out of our bodies.

Which is why Roe V. Wade was decided and established under the 4 Amendment right to privacy.


----------



## Dana7360

DrLove said:


> This BS will backfire on Republicans in the midterms - Just you wait!




Exactly.

Women will come out in droves to put a stop to this.

I will be extremely surprised if we don't see a repeat of 2018.

The stupid republicans just handed the next election to the democrats.

Almost all women are horrified by the Texas law. Especially the fact that there is no exception for rape and incest.

Even most anti abortion people agree with the exception for rape and incest.

So republican women will either not vote or vote for a democrat.

Democrat and Independent women will vote in droves to get rid of these republicans who take women's rights from us so callously.


----------



## progressive hunter

Dana7360 said:


> I will add that the constitution clearly says we have privacy with our bodies.
> 
> Which means the government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our own bodies. In fact, it's the first listed in the Amendment, houses, papers and effects come next in the Amendment. That's how important it was to our founders that the government keeps their noses out of our bodies.
> 
> Which is why Roe V. Wade was decided and established under the 4 Amendment right to privacy.


funny you didnt link to where in the constitution that is clearly written,,,


----------



## g5000

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.   We have 16,000 murders in this country a year.  It's ridiculously high compared to other industrialized countries, but you are unlikely to be murdered.  why? Because there is universal agreement that murder is wrong.   Police will investigate, juries will convict, etc.
> 
> ON the other hand, 600,000 abortions performed every year.   Even when abortion was illegal, women were very rarely prosecuted for having them and providers were only prosecuted if they really screwed up and maimed someone.
> 
> So the better analogy would be smoking pot, or prostitution... where the laws are there thanks to moral scolds, but no one takes them seriously.


There were 267,988 robberies in 2019. 









						Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. go unsolved
					

In 2015, 47% of the violent crimes and 35% of the property crimes tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics were reported to police.




					www.pewresearch.org
				




We should legalize robbery.


----------



## Penelope

progressive hunter said:


> havent you heard??
> 
> men can now get preggers,,,
> sucks to be a lefty and have your own delusions fuck you in the ass,,,


Is Caitlyn Marie Jenner Republican running for gov of CA too old?


----------



## Penelope

progressive hunter 
-----------------------
The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy. ... The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found in that the Constitution *guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via* penumbras located in the founding text.

Right to privacy - Wikipedia​


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> progressive hunter
> -----------------------
> The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy. ... The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found in that the Constitution *guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via* penumbras located in the founding text.
> Right to privacy - Wikipedia​


problem is with abortion its about killing another person not privacy,,

and please dont use wiki as a source,,


----------



## Penelope

progressive hunter said:


> problem is with abortion its about killing another person not privacy,,
> 
> and please dont use wiki as a source,,


Just follow the links.

Health Problems & Outcomes for 24-Week Old Preemies​In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent. 

Some infants are born before 24 weeks gestation and do survive. But these infants have a very high chance of severe long-term health problems. About 40 percent of these preemies will suffer long-term health complications because they were born prematurely.








						When Is It Safe to Deliver Your Baby?
					

At U of U Health, our knowledgeable providers will be with you every step of the way to ensure a safe and successful preterm birth.




					healthcare.utah.edu


----------



## Penelope

How many abortions does God do, too many!!

Up to 1 in 5 confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage before 20 weeks, but many other women miscarry without having realized they are pregnant.









						Miscarriage
					

A miscarriage is the loss of a baby, usually during the first three months or first trimester of pregnancy.




					www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


The legislature in TX passed the law as it is following the will of its constituents. I am actually pro choice and agree that people will just find other ways. But if this is what the voters in TX want it’s what they get.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Anomalism said:


> Forcing the abortion market to go black will have horrifying consequences.


Just like guns.


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> Just follow the links.
> 
> Health Problems & Outcomes for 24-Week Old Preemies​In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent.
> 
> Some infants are born before 24 weeks gestation and do survive. But these infants have a very high chance of severe long-term health problems. About 40 percent of these preemies will suffer long-term health complications because they were born prematurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Is It Safe to Deliver Your Baby?
> 
> 
> At U of U Health, our knowledgeable providers will be with you every step of the way to ensure a safe and successful preterm birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthcare.utah.edu


not seeing your point,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> How many abortions does God do, too many!!
> 
> Up to 1 in 5 confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage before 20 weeks, but many other women miscarry without having realized they are pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscarriage
> 
> 
> A miscarriage is the loss of a baby, usually during the first three months or first trimester of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au


got any proof god did that??

and didnt know you believed in god,,


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.




Just quit your Libtard whining.

You Liberal filth lost this.  Learn to live with it.

The children get to live for now.  That is  a good thing.

We human beings had to put up with you Libtard scum being able to kill the children for decades.

If it sucks for you filth not to be able to kill the children then you will just have to learn to embrace the suck.


----------



## Flash

The Liberal filth are pretending they are upset about this abortion ruling in Texas but they are lying to you.  They actually love it.

The asshole news media is talking about it night and day and they are not reporting on Potatohead's disaster in Afghanistan.

It takes the heat off the failure of the Democrats.  It is like manna from heaven for the Moon Bats.


----------



## DrLove

Dana7360 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Women will come out in droves to put a stop to this.
> 
> I will be extremely surprised if we don't see a repeat of 2018.
> 
> The stupid republicans just handed the next election to the democrats.
> 
> Almost all women are horrified by the Texas law. Especially the fact that there is no exception for rape and incest.
> 
> Even most anti abortion people agree with the exception for rape and incest.
> 
> So republican women will either not vote or vote for a democrat.
> 
> Democrat and Independent women will vote in droves to get rid of these republicans who take women's rights from us so callously.



Indeed - Two out of three American voters support a woman's right to abortion (in most or all cases) by a 2-1 margin. I can't find a poll on women only, but would bet even odds that the 66% figure goes to at leas 75%.

The TikTockers are sure certainly having fun with the Texas whistleblower site! 









						TikTokers flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports and porn
					

Critics of Texas’s new law have been filing hundreds of fake reports to the whistleblowing website in hopes of crashing it




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The legislature in TX passed the law as it is following the will of its constituents. I am actually pro choice and agree that people will just find other ways. But if this is what the voters in TX want it’s what they get.



I think you are jumping to conclusions about what Texas wants and the will of their constituents. 

Texas voters were questioned about was whether they support the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States. 57% agree with that ruling.​​Brown says that result puts Texans largely in line with the rest of the country. “They vote a little bit more conservatively,” he says, “but on something like Roe vs. Wade, they really come close to mirroring the national data.”​​Support for Roe v. Wade does shift along political lines though.​​Only 34% of Texas Republicans polled agree with the ruling.  That’s compared with 80% of Democrats and 67% of Independent voters.​








						News Roundup: Quinnipiac Poll Surveys Texas Voters On Greg Abbott, Roe Vs. Wade
					

Our daily look at headlines from around the state.




					www.texasstandard.org


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> I think you are jumping to conclusions about what Texas wants and the will of their constituents.
> 
> Texas voters were questioned about was whether they support the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States. 57% agree with that ruling.​​Brown says that result puts Texans largely in line with the rest of the country. “They vote a little bit more conservatively,” he says, “but on something like Roe vs. Wade, they really come close to mirroring the national data.”​​Support for Roe v. Wade does shift along political lines though.​​Only 34% of Texas Republicans polled agree with the ruling.  That’s compared with 80% of Democrats and 67% of Independent voters.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News Roundup: Quinnipiac Poll Surveys Texas Voters On Greg Abbott, Roe Vs. Wade
> 
> 
> Our daily look at headlines from around the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texasstandard.org


Then during the next election these legislators will lose their spots. Correct? What am I missing?


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Then during the next election these legislators will lose their spots. Correct? What am I missing?



You are missing the fact that Republican legislators are out of touch with their constituents on these 60-70% issues. And well, if you believe that a Republican in Texas is going to vote for a Democrat because they disagree with the Republican on certain issues - I have a bridge and some swamp land you'll love.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> You are missing the fact that Republican legislators are out of touch with their constituents on these 60-70% issues. And well, if you believe that a Republican in Texas is going to vote for a Democrat because they disagree with the Republican on certain issues - I have a bridge and some swamp land you'll love.


They can vote for more moderate Republicans? I get Zero representation in MA sans my Town. Zero. Every Congressperson is a leftist. Life goes on. If I dislike it, I either need to move or bitch here. LOL

The Democratic party doesn’t need nor want my vote.


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> They can vote for more moderate Republicans? I get Zero representation in MA sans my Town. Zero. Every Congressperson is a leftist. Life goes on. If I dislike it, I either need to move or bitch here. LOL
> 
> The Democratic party doesn’t need nor want my vote.



Trust me when I tell you that I know how you feel. I lived in purple-blue Boise for 20 years but considering the makeup of the rest of the state, my votes for US Senators and POTUS were meaningless (which is why popular vote should pick POTUS and not the EC).

I'll bet there are pockets of Boston that lean Republican. If you live in one of those, your vote absolutely matters in picking a Congressional candidate, state legislature, city council, etc etc.

But how often does a moderate Republican primary and beat a hard right Republican incumbent. Next to never?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> Trust me when I tell you that I know how you feel. I lived in purple-blue Boise for 20 years but considering the makeup of the rest of the state, my votes for US Senators and POTUS were meaningless (which is why popular vote should pick POTUS and not the EC).
> 
> I'll bet there are pockets of Boston that lean Republican. If you live in one of those, your vote absolutely matters in picking a Congressional candidate, state legislature, city council, etc etc.
> 
> But how often does a moderate Republican primary and beat a hard right Republican incumbent. Next to never?


We have zero even moderate congresspersons and our senators are embarrassing in Lizzy and fellow leftist Ed Markey.


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> We have zero even moderate congresspersons and our senators are embarrassing in Lizzy and fellow leftist Ed Markey.


Yea, well I had Jim Risch and Mike Crapo. Don't feel too bad.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> Yea, well I had Jim Risch and Mike Crapo. Don't feel too bad.


No idea who they are. What were their ills?


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> No idea who they are. What were their ills?


Crapo and Risch are US Senators from Idaho. Sheesh - I know who Warren and Markey are. Literally 90% of the pols in Idaho are independently wealthy farmers, ranchers and businessmen who live in very rural areas.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> Crapo and Risch are US Senators from Idaho. Sheesh - I know who Warren and Markey are. Literally 90% of the pols in Idaho are independently wealthy farmers, ranchers and businessmen who live in very rural areas.


Warren and Markey are famous. Warren ran for president. I cannot name every senator.


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Warren and Markey are famous. Warren ran for president. I cannot name every senator.


Fair point, but I think I could correctly pick 95 out of 100 if you put it in multiple choice format.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

DrLove said:


> Fair point, but I think I could correctly pick 95 out of 100 if you put it in multiple choice format.


Not I. Maybe 20%?

Are you a political junkie?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

progressive hunter said:


> got any proof god did that??
> 
> and didnt know you believed in god,,



No


----------



## DrLove

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Not I. Maybe 20%?
> 
> Are you a political junkie?


I'd give that question an affirmative.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The legislature in TX passed the law as it is following the will of its constituents. I am actually pro choice and agree that people will just find other ways. But if this is what the voters in TX want it’s what they get.



Except that most Texans don't agree with a law this extreme.   

And you can't talk about the Will of the Constiuients after supporting Trump... a guy who never won the popular vote.


----------



## JoeB131

Flash said:


> ust quit your Libtard whining.
> 
> You Liberal filth lost this. Learn to live with it.
> 
> The children get to live for now. That is a good thing.
> 
> We human beings had to put up with you Libtard scum being able to kill the children for decades.
> 
> If it sucks for you filth not to be able to kill the children then you will just have to learn to embrace the suck.


This law will not prevent one abortion from happening.  Women will just cross state lines or find a doctor who is discreet.


----------



## dblack

JoeB131 said:


> This law will not prevent one abortion from happening.  Women will just cross state lines or find a doctor who is discreet.


Does the law have any provisions to address that?


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> Huge mistake.
> The right to privacy has always existed, and is always about the single most important right.
> The mistake you are making is the assumption that rights do not exist until there is specific legislation to defend them.
> That is not the case and can never be the case because rights are infinite and can never be even enumerated, much less fully protected by specific legislation.
> That is the whole point of executive and judicial discretion.
> There are all these generic laws, like disorderly conduct, assault, etc. that are intentionally unspecific.
> So the right to privacy always existed.



Except we have a bunch of laws that don't.  Take Prostitution laws.   It's always been absurd that you can have sex with a stranger for free, but if you do it for money, it becomes a crime. Of course, the intent is good.  You are preventing women from being exploited, controlling the spread of STD's, etc.   Of course, those things could all be better accomplished by legalizing prostitution and regulating it. At the end of the day , it's a bunch of moral scolds wanting to control the population.  






Rigby5 said:


> As far as when life begins, that is not relevant.
> The point is life or not, no one can legally be forced to support the life of another.
> If you have a rare blood type that would save the life of another, no one can demand you donate any of that blood.


Except that's not a good analogy.  You can find SOMEONE to donate that blood. 

If you accept that a fetus is a person at some point in it's development, then you force a woman to carry it to term. 

Instead, we have this bizarre law where a woman can terminate a pregnancy at 8 months, but if someone unknowingly causes a woman to miscarry, he can be charged with murdering the fetus.  (Fetal Homicide Laws).  




Rigby5 said:


> NO!
> We have limited resources, and fossil fuel is running out completely.
> When that starts to happen in about 20 years, food production will drop by 75%.
> We desperately need to cut the population by at least 2/3rds.


That's just crazy talk.  The population bomb was predicting worldwide famine in the 1980's, and it never happened.


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> This law will not prevent one abortion from happening.  Women will just cross state lines or find a doctor who is discreet.




If it won't prevent the abortions then you assholes can continue to kill the children so what are you bitching about?


----------



## whitehall

The real COWARDS in the abortion argument are (mostly) liberal men who coerce or bully or threaten their wives, other wives, girlfriends, other girlfriends and significant and unsignificant others into hiring someone to kill the life inside them and abandoning them to a lifetime of PTSD symptoms and physical problems so they can erase their future responsibilities at the stroke of a scalpel.


----------



## progressive hunter

JoeB131 said:


> Except that most Texans don't agree with a law this extreme.
> 
> And you can't talk about the Will of the Constiuients after supporting Trump... a guy who never won the popular vote.


and being from the shithole of chicago you would know that how??


----------



## Coyote

Lesh said:


> Men however don't need to think at all though huh?
> 
> THEY can't get preggers


That is why, in Texas, they need to pass a law mandating forced sterilization of any man who impregnates a woman who is then forced to carry to term against her will.


----------



## Coyote

whitehall said:


> The real COWARDS in the abortion argument are (mostly) liberal men who coerce or bully or threaten their wives, other wives, girlfriends, other girlfriends and significant and unsignificant others into hiring someone to kill the life inside them and abandoning them to a lifetime of PTSD symptoms and physical problems so they can erase their future responsibilities at the stroke of a scalpel.


I dunno…I think the real cowards are the (mostly) conservative men who hide behind the laws they created to force pregnant women to bear an unwanted child then slash all the programs designed to help her raise that child.


----------



## JoeB131

whitehall said:


> he real COWARDS in the abortion argument are (mostly) liberal men who coerce or bully or threaten their wives, other wives, girlfriends, other girlfriends and significant and unsignificant others into hiring someone to kill the life inside them and abandoning them to a lifetime of PTSD symptoms and physical problems so they can erase their future responsibilities at the stroke of a scalpel.



I've known several women who have had abortions.  Not a one of them was coerced by the sperm donor.   Babies just weren't where they wanted to be at that point in their lives.  

Now, we actually DO have a cultural problem.   Used to be, you were considered an adult at 18.  You graduated high school, you went down to the Union Hall, got a good union job, married your High School Sweetheart and started a family.  Mom could stay home for a few years and jump back into the workforce in her late 20's after the kids started going to school.  

Today- it's kind of the opposite.  We don't really come into our own until we hit 26 or so, then we spend all our time building up  your careers.  We can't start families until all that student debt is paid down... both husband and wife need to work and OH MY GOD, My biological clock is about to run out, I'd better have a baby before all I am producing art Trig Palin-grade retards.


----------



## Jarlaxle

g5000 said:


> Typical tactics of pro-abortionists.  Use the victims of rape and incest as human shields to protect the 99 percent of convenience abortions.  And make the threat, "Pay for my baby or I will kill it!"
> 
> You people are sick in the head.
> 
> Just so you know, I founded two  non-profit charities to help feed and house the hungry and homeless in my community.  I walk the walk.


How many unwanted children have YOU adopted? Be honest.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Coyote said:


> It has zero to do with “right” and “moral”.
> 
> If it did, they would be demanding services to help pregnant women and women with children, they demanding access to affordable healthcare,  they would be asking why their legislatures keep cutting funding to help women and children, why they don’t make contraception readily available if not free…and at least should be asking what is “right” and “moral” about a 12 yr old incest victim being forced to bear a baby,


I'm in favor of cash payouts for sterilization, sterilization of both parents before collecting any sort of welfare, and probably contraceptives in the water supply.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Penelope said:


> Just follow the links.
> 
> Health Problems & Outcomes for 24-Week Old Preemies​In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent.
> 
> Some infants are born before 24 weeks gestation and do survive. But these infants have a very high chance of severe long-term health problems. About 40 percent of these preemies will suffer long-term health complications because they were born prematurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Is It Safe to Deliver Your Baby?
> 
> 
> At U of U Health, our knowledgeable providers will be with you every step of the way to ensure a safe and successful preterm birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthcare.utah.edu


My brother was born at 25 or 26 weeks. He spent 5 weeks in the neonatal ICU.

35 years later, he has no long term health problems, and never really did except for always being the shortest student in his grade at school. (As an adult, he's 5'3".)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm in favor of cash payouts for sterilization, sterilization of both parents before collecting any sort of welfare, and probably contraceptives in the water supply.


Good to hear from someone who values freedom, privacy and self determination and who has such a deep understanding of the social and economic forces that drive unwanted pregnancy and the desire for abortion. Your compassion overwhelmes me. You are truely a gem.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good to hear from someone who values freedom, privacy and self determination and who has such a deep understanding of the social and economic forces that drive unwanted pregnancy and the desire for abortion. You are truely a gem.


Naah, I'm a fairly nasty piece of work.


----------



## Death Angel

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


Cant stop murder, rape or kidnapping. 
Might as well legalize it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Jarlaxle said:


> Naah, I'm a fairly nasty piece of work.


No shit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> Cant stop murder, rape or kidnapping.
> Might as well legalize it


What does that have to do with reproductive and privacy rights?


----------



## Death Angel

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What does that have to do with reproductive and privacy rights?


Rapist, kidnappers and murderers deserve privacy rights.

Who told you you dont have the right to reproduce -- as long as you can find a willing partner


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> Rapist, kidnappers and murderers deserve privacy rights.
> 
> Who told you you dont have the right to reproduce -- as long as you can find a willing partner


Are you really so stupid that you think that reproductive rights only  means the right to reproduce?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> It's about what's right and what's moral.


No, it’s not.

It’s about the state not dictating what is ‘right’ or ‘moral.’

Individuals alone determine what's right and what's moral, not government, safeguarded by the right to privacy limiting government authority to interfere in private, personal matters.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring


No, the red herring is trying to conflate two completely unrelated issues: personal beliefs and perceptions concerning abortion and government excess and overreach at the expense of individual liberty.

It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to both oppose abortion while recognizing and defending a woman’s right to privacy and the limit that right places on government authority.

Those opposed to abortion need to seek out a solution consistent with the Constitution; more government in violation of citizens’ rights is not a ‘solution.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The legislature in TX passed the law as it is following the will of its constituents.


The legislature in New York passed the Safe Act as it is following the will of its constituents.

Yet conservatives have sought to have that law overturned as un-Constitutional contrary to the will of the people of New York.

So which is paramount – the will of the people or the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The legislature in New York passed the Safe Act as it is following the will of its constituents.
> 
> Yet conservatives have sought to have that law overturned as un-Constitutional contrary to the will of the people of New York.
> 
> So which is paramount – the will of the people or the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


OK. So you want to have one way conversations I see. That law remains in place. You are a parasite


----------



## JoeB131

Death Angel said:


> Cant stop murder, rape or kidnapping.
> Might as well legalize it



No, we can't stop it, but we can punish it. 

Even when abortion was illegal, no one was ever charged with having one, and few people were convicted of performing them, unless they seriously maimed a woman.  

Here's the problem... no one is ever going to get CONVICTED of doing an illegal abortion. 

I tell you what, you ever put me on an abortion jury, I wouldn't care if you had film of the provider tossing the bloody fetus across the room for a three-pointer into the Medical Waste Container, I'd still vote to acquit.  So will a lot of other people.


----------



## Mr Natural

It’s all about making the pro lifers feel better about living in a country that prohibits abortion.

They could give a shit less about the fetus  or the woman.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 hahhahahahahh--MORE babble shit from you
..your analogy of drugs and alcohol is ridiculous = ANYONE can drink alcohol and take drugs.....not many people can perform an abortion ---*DUH*


----------



## Aletheia4u

Well if they don't want a living being that produces green house gases inside of them. That there is away to prevent that. and that is by getting their tubes cut or an hysterectomy. 
 And if they decide sometime in the future to start a family. All they have to do is get a vagina transplant or get a artificial womb and grow their own green house gases problem, that looks like a plant aquarium or a chicken incubator, so that they will not have to be embarrassed about the doctor delivery their child from a funky womb that smell like death. . . 






__





						One moment, please...
					





					www.quotescosmos.com


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> @JoeB131 hahhahahahahh--MORE babble shit from you
> ..your analogy of drugs and alcohol is ridiculous = ANYONE can drink alcohol and take drugs.....not many people can perform an abortion ---*DUH*



not many people can own a distillery or a brewery or a meth lab...  So you kind of miss the point.  

If you want to go there, let's look at Prohibition, and why it didn't work.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


Personally, I feel this is, and always should have been a state issue.  Just like it was prior to Roe vs Wade.


----------



## JoeB131

Meister said:


> Personally, I feel this is, and always should have been a state issue. Just like it was prior to Roe vs Wade.



No, it shouldn't be a state issue. 

The only people involved should be the woman and her doctor. Period.  Full stop.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> No, it shouldn't be a state issue.
> 
> The only people involved should be the woman and her doctor. Period.  Full stop.


Thank you for your opinion, joe.  I'll keep my own opinion


----------



## JoeB131

Meister said:


> Thank you for your opinion, joe. I'll keep my own opinion



Okay... Maybe you should read up on what abortion was like before Roe v. Wade....  

Shady operators, badly enforced laws, women getting maimed.   

The funny thing.  The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.  So no babies were actually saved by these laws.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... Maybe you should read up on what abortion was like before Roe v. Wade....
> 
> Shady operators, badly enforced laws, women getting maimed.
> 
> The funny thing.  The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.  So no babies were actually saved by these laws.


Could have gone to Nevada where it was legal.


----------



## Meister

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... Maybe you should read up on what abortion was like before Roe v. Wade....
> 
> Shady operators, badly enforced laws, women getting maimed.
> 
> The funny thing.  The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.  So no babies were actually saved by these laws.


Today there would be several states open to the idea of murdering unborn babies. Not the same as the 60's


----------



## Lesh

Abortion was legal in several states back then but that doesn't do much for poor folks.

Of course for wealthier ones...yea a vacation was in order


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> I tell you what, you ever put me on an abortion jury, I wouldn't care if you had film of the provider tossing the bloody fetus across the room for a three-pointer into the Medical Waste Container, I'd still vote to acquit. So will a lot of other people.


See that's the problem,
 you have been forced to show your true colors on the matter but the vast majority of the pro-choice crowd  [like the ones you claim feel the way you do] are hiding behind "the welfare of the mother" claims when all they really care about is  what you describe above, being able to throw it in the garbage for convenience sake...
KUDOS to you for coming clean joe and shame on those who still pretend that for them it is anything else but what joe said it is


----------



## Rogue AI

How is this not in conspiracy theories forum? Abortion has not been banned by the Supreme Court.


----------



## g5000

occupied said:


> None of them have ever given a moment's thought to the aftermath of an abortion ban.


I most certainly have.  Stop making shit up.

This is a subject I have studied extensively.  In fact, I have pointed out that prior to Roe v. Wade, there were about as many legal abortions back then as there are today.  And that would be the case were Roe v. Wade overturned.  It would have almost no impact on the number of legal abortions.

But as a matter of moral and constitutional principle, Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision to legalize or outlaw abortion (and to what degree) should be left to the individual states.


----------



## g5000

JoeB131 said:


> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?


Horrible flawed logic.

Since I consider abortion to be murder, let's take another ban.

We outlaw murder and yet there are still murders.  Should we allow murder to be a matter of personal choice on demand?


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> See that's the problem,
> you have been forced to show your true colors on the matter but the vast majority of the pro-choice crowd  [like the ones you claim feel the way you do] are hiding behind "the welfare of the mother" claims when all they really care about is  what you describe above, being able to throw it in the garbage for convenience sake...
> KUDOS to you for coming clean joe and shame on those who still pretend that for them it is anything else but what joe said it is



That is because a fetus is not sentient.
It has no feelings, concerns, identity, self awareness, etc.
It is just cells, like a finger nail or hair.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> I most certainly have.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> This is a subject I have studied extensively.  In fact, I have pointed out that prior to Roe v. Wade, there were about as many legal abortions back then as there are today.  And that would be the case were Roe v. Wade overturned.  It would have almost no impact on the number of legal abortions.
> 
> But as a matter of moral and constitutional principle, Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision to legalize or outlaw abortion (and to what degree) should be left to the individual states.



No, when it comes to the Constitution, that includes the amendments, and the 14th amendment forces the federal government to protect individual rights from abuse by states.
And attempting to restrict abortion is abuse of individual rights.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> Horrible flawed logic.
> 
> Since I consider abortion to be murder, let's take another ban.
> 
> We outlaw murder and yet there are still murders.  Should we allow murder to be a matter of personal choice on demand?



Wrong.
Murder is the violation of the rights of a separate. conscious, and independent individual.
And abortion is just removing some mindless mass of parasitic cells.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> See that's the problem,
> you have been forced to show your true colors on the matter but the vast majority of the pro-choice crowd [like the ones you claim feel the way you do] are hiding behind "the welfare of the mother" claims when all they really care about is what you describe above, being able to throw it in the garbage for convenience sake...
> KUDOS to you for coming clean joe and shame on those who still pretend that for them it is anything else but what joe said it is



It's still about the welfare of the mother, dummy.  

I was just pointing out how hard it would be to get a conviction on this law. 



g5000 said:


> Horrible flawed logic.
> 
> Since I consider abortion to be murder, let's take another ban.
> 
> We outlaw murder and yet there are still murders. Should we allow murder to be a matter of personal choice on demand?



We can outlaw murder because there is universal agreement that murder is bad.  

Cops will arrest. 
Prosecutors will indict
Juries will convict.  

The thing was, even before Roe, none of that was happening with illegal abortion providers.  These were laws on the books that were more like the prostitution laws. They were there, people regularly ignored them. 

Let's start with the cops.  Unlike a murder of an actual person, which leaves a body, the fetus could be easily flushed down a toilet in a home abortion clinic. They probably wouldn't be bothered. 

Prosecutors in urban areas will be unlikely to indict, even if they are in the middle of a big old red state full of God-Botherers.  

And as I said, you pick a jury of 12 people, you'll always have one who will refuse to convict.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> That is because a fetus is not sentient.
> It has no feelings, concerns, identity, self awareness, etc.
> It is just cells, like a finger nail or hair.


What does this have to do with my post? it was about white liberals hiding from the reason you just gave and pretending it is about compassion...but, in fairness to you, you deserve credit for telling the truth about the real reason.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> It's still about the welfare of the mother, dummy.


Sure it is, I can see how slam dunking a fetus in a waste basket has the mothers best interests at heart.



JoeB131 said:


> I was just pointing out how hard it would be to get a conviction on this law.



what happen joe? truth slip out?...It's OK joe, you dispelled the compassion lie, that's a good thing


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> What does this have to do with my post? it was about white liberals hiding from the reason you just gave and pretending it is about compassion...but, in fairness to you, you deserve credit for telling the truth about the real reason.



You said abortion is murder, and its not.
When you kill humans cells, like removing some skin cells in plastic surgery, that is not murder.
Human cells do not constitute anything we care about.
The ONLY thing we care about is what makes a human sentient, conscious, or self aware, in the brain.
And since a fetus is not yet sentient, conscious, or self aware, is it is just a bunch of cells that no one should care about at all.


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> Sure it is, I can see how slam dunking a fetus in a waste basket has the mothers best interests at heart.
> 
> 
> 
> what happen joe? truth slip out?...It's OK joe, you dispelled the compassion lie, that's a good thing



Yes it is, because we have too many people already, and if a family has too many children or before they can be properly supported, it condemns the whole family into a lifetime of poverty and economic desperation.
It is better to raise fewer children better than to raise lots of children badly.
And the fetus does not care.
Anyone claiming it is awful to terminate a fetus is crazy, because no fetus cares about anything.
It does not yet have the ability to care.
And it is usually much better to dump early fetuses when a family is young and poor, so that they can delay and cherish a fetus that comes along latter.

What people do not seem to understand is that abortions do not end anything.
You are just trading an unplanned accidental fetus for one you will intentionally create later.
There will be the same number of children.
But if you delay when you decide to let fetuses mature, you have a happier family and society.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> You said abortion is murder, and its not.


No lie is too big for the  white liberal to tell...show everybody where I said that, my guess is you'll tell another lie,
and I am pro-choice, abortion should remain legal but it has nothing to do with compassion just convenience



Rigby5 said:


> When you kill humans cells, like removing some skin cells in plastic surgery, that is not murder.


nor is it compassion


Rigby5 said:


> Human cells do not constitute anything we care about.


except when you want insurance companies to cover pregnancies, then thats all white liberals care about



Rigby5 said:


> The ONLY thing we care about is what makes a human sentient, conscious, or self aware, in the brain.


well now we know what the problem is


Rigby5 said:


> And since a fetus is not yet sentient, conscious, or self aware, is it is just a bunch of cells that no one should care about at all.


Like I said, the welfare of the mother has nothing to do with white liberals and abortion, you just keep making that point for me and act like it was me that got this wrong.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> What people do not seem to understand is that abortions do not end anything.
> You are just trading an unplanned accidental fetus for one you will intentionally create later.
> There will be the same number of children.


So the number of abortions in ones life directly corresponds to the number of children he/she ends up having? in other words eleven abortions now = eleven children later? did I get your math right?



Rigby5 said:


> But if you delay when you decide to let fetuses mature, you have a happier family and society.


plus ya get to slam dunk the little buggers right?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> It is just cells, like a finger nail or hair.


So should insurance companies cover manicures, haircuts and pregnancies?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> Murder is the violation of the rights of a separate. conscious, and independent individual.


does it have to be all three of those things or just a mix and match or just one of them? where would an overdeveloped fetus outside the womb, fast asleep with an ankle monitor [or in prison] fit into that scenario?



Rigby5 said:


> And abortion is just removing some mindless mass of parasitic cells.


Like banning white liberals from the forum


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> Yes it is, because we have too many people already,


and according to you abortion has no way of correcting that


Rigby5 said:


> What people do not seem to understand is that abortions do not end anything.
> You are just trading an unplanned accidental fetus for one you will intentionally create later.


proof that the first claim is just more white liberal lies pretending abortion is anything but convenient


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> No lie is too big for the  white liberal to tell...show everybody where I said that, my guess is you'll tell another lie,
> and I am pro-choice, abortion should remain legal but it has nothing to do with compassion just convenience
> 
> 
> nor is it compassion
> 
> except when you want insurance companies to cover pregnancies, then thats all white liberals care about
> 
> 
> well now we know what the problem is
> 
> Like I said, the welfare of the mother has nothing to do with white liberals and abortion, you just keep making that point for me and act like it was me that got this wrong.



It is you have got this wrong.
There is no reason to insist every ovum that accidentally gets fertilized, should be given rights.
It is almost always better for everyone if pregnancies are delayed until one has their economics stabilized.
If you have the same number of children, but you simply pass on the first one and have one later, that does not at all change anything.
Mindless cells can't be "murdered".


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> So the number of abortions in ones life directly corresponds to the number of children he/she ends up having? in other words eleven abortions now = eleven children later? did I get your math right?
> 
> 
> plus ya get to slam dunk the little buggers right?



No, what I said is that the number of lives you deliver is all that counts.
It does not matter if you abort 11 first or not.
If you never get pregnant, the are just as dead as if you had them aborted.
The point is to not have one early that screws up the lives of everyone.


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> does it have to be all three of those things or just a mix and match or just one of them? where would an overdeveloped fetus outside the womb, fast asleep with an ankle monitor [or in prison] fit into that scenario?
> 
> 
> Like banning white liberals from the forum



If a being is outside the womb, then the woman no longer has the jurisdiction to decide, because they are not burdening her.
A sleeping person is still conscious.  The proof is they dream.
A person in prison is still an independent individual.  The prison just reduces their choices, but they still have independent choices.


----------



## Rigby5

Frankeneinstein said:


> and according to you abortion has no way of correcting that
> 
> proof that the first claim is just more white liberal lies pretending abortion is anything but convenient



Wrong.
If we delay pregnancies, then we have more time to ensure they are not a burden.
Overpopulation is not just a total number, but the degree the next generation becomes a burden.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> Sure it is, I can see how slam dunking a fetus in a waste basket has the mothers best interests at heart.



Obviously, sarcasm is lost on you.  



Frankeneinstein said:


> what happen joe? truth slip out?...It's OK joe, you dispelled the compassion lie, that's a good thing



Quite the contrary, I never really claimed it was about "compassion".  I point out it is because of pragmatism.  

If you outlaw abortions, you will either have to establish a police state regulating Gyno-Americans to second class citizenship, or you will have largely unworkable laws that no one obey.   Using history as a guide, including extreme examples like the Philippines and Romania under Ceausescu (where he tried to outlaw all contraception to force Romania to increase her population) the latter is more likely to be the case.  

So the question becomes, how many women do you want to maim to show your moral outrage about fetuses ending up in medical waste containers?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> It is you have got this wrong.
> There is no reason to insist every ovum that accidentally gets fertilized, should be given rights.
> It is almost always better for everyone if pregnancies are delayed until one has their economics stabilized.


Once again, what does this have to do with my claim that this has nothing to do with the welfare of the mother? other than to make my point for me that is.



Rigby5 said:


> If you have the same number of children, but you simply pass on the first one and have one later, that does not at all change anything.


dodge, pretzel logic...you saw the enormous obvious contradictions in your last post and are hoping to crawl out from underneath them by using words to saying nothing this time




Rigby5 said:


> Mindless cells can't be "murdered".


Ahhhh unfortunately so true,...we wouldn't need a left wing curriculum in our schools if it weren't


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> If a being is outside the womb, then the woman no longer has the jurisdiction to decide, because they are not burdening her.


not if they are viewed as just an overdeveloped mass of cells


Rigby5 said:


> A sleeping person is still conscious.


It is easy to see why you are so confused


Rigby5 said:


> The proof is they dream.


not consciously, otherwise they could manipulate their dreams at will like a daydreamer who actually is conscious




Rigby5 said:


> A person in prison is still an independent individual. The prison just reduces their choices, but they still have independent choices.


That is a very poor semantical dodge but OK, what about conjoined twins?...lol


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


 you again prove me right, see next quote for proof



Rigby5 said:


> If we delay pregnancies, then we have more time to ensure they are not a burden.


which proves my claim that this not about the welfare of the mother



Rigby5 said:


> Overpopulation is not just a total number,


then why did you even bother to bring it up



Rigby5 said:


> but the degree the next generation becomes a burden.


well put


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Quite the contrary, I never really claimed it was about "compassion". I point out it is because of pragmatism.


and I was pointing out that you were offering up proof that the white liberals were lying about their reason and even thanked you for outing them



JoeB131 said:


> If you outlaw abortions, you will either have to establish a police state regulating Gyno-Americans to second class citizenship, or you will have largely unworkable laws that no one obey. Using history as a guide, including extreme examples like the Philippines and Romania under Ceausescu (where he tried to outlaw all contraception to force Romania to increase her population) the latter is more likely to be the case.


And why are you telling me this?



JoeB131 said:


> So the question becomes, how many women do you want to maim to show your moral outrage about fetuses ending up in medical waste containers?


Depends on how many games of fetus basketball you want to play I guess...give me an example of my moral outrage joe, The outrage is all on you and I'm pro choice so you know there is nothing moral involved in my position


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> and I was pointing out that you were offering up proof that the white liberals were lying about their reason and even thanked you for outing them



I'm sure a lot of white liberals do support it for compassionate reasons.  I'm not a liberal, I'm a pragmatist. I used to vote Republican until the religious zealots, gun fetishists and libertarian children took over the party. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> And why are you telling me this?


Oh, I don't know, trying to actual reason with you, Corky.   But we've established you have a learning disability, so that might be pointless. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> Depends on how many games of fetus basketball you want to play I guess...give me an example of my moral outrage joe, The outrage is all on you and I'm pro choice so you know there is nothing moral involved in my position



Really, I thought you were upset that your fellow retards were being aborted.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure a lot of white liberals do support it for compassionate reasons.


Even though you have proved otherwise



JoeB131 said:


> I'm not a liberal,


We suppose to believe all that lunacy is just an act?



JoeB131 said:


> I'm a pragmatist. I used to vote Republican until the religious zealots, gun fetishists and libertarian children took over the party.



when was that joe? now ya hand out hypodermic needles and preach the evil of balloons like the sane folk do?


JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I don't know, trying to actual reason with you, Corky.


keep trying you'll figure it out joe



JoeB131 said:


> But we've established you have a learning disability, so that might be pointless.


I see you are now entering into your field of expertise


JoeB131 said:


> Really, I thought you were upset that your fellow retards were being aborted.


joe, just go to the doctor and have that coat hanger removed from your head, you'll feel better.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> when was that joe? now ya hand out hypodermic needles and preach the evil of balloons like the sane folk do?



I'd ask what the fuck you are talking about, Corky, but it's clear you are trolling.  

Anyone else want to have a sensible conversation on this topic?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


We have a prohibition on murder, yet people murder... 


Your logic is fucking idiotic like normal meth head Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> We have a prohibition on murder, yet people murder...
> 
> 
> Your logic is fucking idiotic like normal meth head Joe.



Put down the bottle.  

Murders are actually RARE.  Only 20,000 a year in a bad year.  

The reason why murder laws work is that there is UNIVERSAL agreement murder is bad.   People will report a murder, cops will investigate and arrest, prosecutors will prosecute and juries will convict.  

The same cannot be said of abortion.  Therefore, any prohibition on abortion would be unenforceable. 

Citizens won't report, cops won't investigate, prosecutors won't indict and juries won't convict.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> I'd ask what the fuck you are talking about, Corky, but it's clear you are trolling.


TRANSLATION: OUCH! Good point


JoeB131 said:


> Anyone else want to have a sensible conversation on this topic?


lol...lemme know how many takers ya get...
not many sensible folks are polished in the art of slam dunking babies joe


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> lol...lemme know how many takers ya get...
> not many sensible folks are polished in the art of slam dunking babies joe



Aborted Fetuses aren't babies... they are medical waste. 





THREE POINTS!!!!


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> Put down the bottle.
> 
> Murders are actually RARE.  Only 20,000 a year in a bad year.
> 
> The reason why murder laws work is that there is UNIVERSAL agreement murder is bad.   People will report a murder, cops will investigate and arrest, prosecutors will prosecute and juries will convict.
> 
> The same cannot be said of abortion.  Therefore, any prohibition on abortion would be unenforceable.
> 
> Citizens won't report, cops won't investigate, prosecutors won't indict and juries won't convict.


Lmfao Asshole Chicago alone averages about 600 murders  a fucking year


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Aborted Fetuses aren't babies... they are medical waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THREE POINTS!!!!


The sensible folks should be flooding in now joe...


JoeB131 said:


>









Liberal tupperware.."don't be caught dead without it!"


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Wyatt earp said:


> Lmfao Asshole Chicago alone averages about 600 murders a fucking year


In the liberal world that qualifies as rare


----------



## Wyatt earp

Frankeneinstein said:


> In the liberal world that qualifies as rare


The odds of being murdered in the USA 1 in 19,000 and meth head Joe says it's rare


No wonder why the left is so bad at economics and math


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> Lmfao Asshole Chicago alone averages about 600 murders a fucking year





Frankeneinstein said:


> In the liberal world that qualifies as rare



600 murders out of 3 million people. 

As opposed to one out of three pregnancies ending in abortion.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> 600 murders out of 3 million people.
> 
> As opposed to one out of three pregnancies ending in abortion.


That works out to 28 people being killed per 100,000 that's not rare shit for brains, it's so common it doesn't even get air time on the nightly news


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> That works out to 28 people being killed per 100,000 that's not rare shit for brains, it's so common it doesn't even get air time on the nightly news



The point is, it's not as common as abortion.  If we need to spend X to prosecute murders, even though there are only 20K of them, how are you going to prevent/punish 800,000 abortions?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> The point is, it's not as common as abortion.  If we need to spend X to prosecute murders, even though there are only 20K of them, how are you going to prevent/punish 800,000 abortions?


No one is going to do that except maybe in Mayberry, and abortion won't be illegal in the USA only at the state level.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> 600 murders out of 3 million people.
> 
> 
> As opposed to one out of three pregnancies ending in abortion.



So no big deal to you?


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> So no big deal to you?



Not sure why I'll try to engage your trolling. 

Yup, murder is a big deal.  Which is why we need sensible gun control, poverty relief programs, treating addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal one, etc.  

Abortion, not a big deal because at the end of the day, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> Not sure why I'll try to engage your trolling.
> 
> Yup, murder is a big deal.  Which is why we need sensible gun control, poverty relief programs, treating addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal one, etc.
> 
> Abortion, not a big deal because at the end of the day, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.


So you think killing the next Micheal Jordan or Einstein is no big deal?


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> So you think killing the next Micheal Jordan or Einstein is no big deal?



We could also be killing the Next Hitler or Charlie Manson...  So no big deal.  We might even be killing the next Urkel.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Not sure why I'll try to engage your trolling.


Trolling or not I cannot see why you keep coming back for more after the beatings you take...surrender was your best option



JoeB131 said:


> Yup, murder is a big deal. Which is why we need sensible gun control, poverty relief programs, treating addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal one, etc.


Those are specious arguments..."gun control" is just another attempt of/at left wing end runs around the constitution, [thats why the left never calls it 'gun control that does not infringe or violate']...
...And "welfare" is a poverty relief program that works exactly the way its critics said it would...
...and "treating addiction as a medical condition" is just another way the 60's liberal mentality perpetuates drug use in America for a condition they created, should we be making needles easier or harder for addicts to get their hands on joe?
[personally I do think people should be able to get high if they want, but it's all on them and those who advocate for their destructive addictive behavior not the rest of us]




JoeB131 said:


> Abortion, not a big deal because at the end of the day, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.


Sounds like the perfect argument for those who oppose abortion


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> We could also be killing the Next Hitler or Charlie Manson...  So no big deal.  We might even be killing the next Urkel.
> 
> View attachment 600979


Yup you have no problem killing the return of Jesus don't you?


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> Those are specious arguments..."gun control" is just another attempt of/at left wing end runs around the constitution, [thats why the left never calls it 'gun control that does not infringe or violate']...


The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and the Second Amendment is about Well-Regulated Militias. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> ...And "welfare" is a poverty relief program that works exactly the way its critics said it would...


Not at all.  Welfare has massively reduced poverty in this country.  



Frankeneinstein said:


> ...and "treating addiction as a medical condition" is just another way the 60's liberal mentality perpetuates drug use in America for a condition they created, should we be making needles easier or harder for addicts to get their hands on joe?



We made needles easier to get so that drug users wouldn't spread diseaes like HIV< and it worked.  What we need to do is make sure addicts can get into rehab. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> Sounds like the perfect argument for those who oppose abortion



Quite the opposite, but you are kind of slow.  



Wyatt earp said:


> Yup you have no problem killing the return of Jesus don't you?



Well, considering if Jesus actually "returned" that would be the end of the world, aborting him would be a good thing, we can keep on living.  

Of course, Jesus never existed, so he can't come back.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> The constitution isn't a suicide pact,


and that includes the right to bear arms



JoeB131 said:


> and the Second Amendment is about Well-Regulated Militias.


...And why the right to bear arms is so important in maintaining them...and how infringing on that is a great big NO-NO, but what it really is is a red flag amendment to alert the citizenry when the tyrants have come for it and them


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> ...And why the right to bear arms is so important in maintaining them...and how infringing on that is a great big NO-NO, but what it really is is a red flag amendment to alert the citizenry when the tyrants have come for it and them



Bullshit.  You owning a gun does not prevent tyranny.  It just makes it easier to kill your neighbor over the dog shitting on your lawn, and that happens way too often. 

The government has tanks and bombers.  They win.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Not at all. Welfare has massively reduced poverty in this country.


problem solved


JoeB131 said:


> We made needles easier to get so that drug users wouldn't spread diseaes like HIV<  and it worked.


I won't deny it helps prevent disease, but the drug users and proponents of drug use are themselves responsible for those diseases and are the ones that should be held accountable for its expenses, not those who are smart enough to see the folly of giving addicts needles and then pretending it does not make rehab less desirable



JoeB131 said:


> What we need to do is make sure addicts can get into rehab.


and making needles easier to get will surely make them want to get into rehab, right?...and its not what "WE" need to do but what the users and advocates need to do themselves.



JoeB131 said:


> Quite the opposite, but you are kind of slow.


what is quite opposite joe?


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> I won't deny it helps prevent disease, but the drug users and proponents of drug use are themselves responsible for those diseases and are the ones that should be held accountable for its expenses, not those who are smart enough to see the folly of giving addicts needles and then pretending it does not make rehab less desirable



Or they could spread it to their partners... that's the point. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> and making needles easier to get will surely make them want to get into rehab, right?...and its not what "WE" need to do but what the users and advocates need to do themselves.



Two separate issues.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and the Second Amendment is about Well-Regulated Militias.
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Welfare has massively reduced poverty in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> We made needles easier to get so that drug users wouldn't spread diseaes like HIV< and it worked.  What we need to do is make sure addicts can get into rehab.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite, but you are kind of slow.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering if Jesus actually "returned" that would be the end of the world, aborting him would be a good thing, we can keep on living.
> 
> Of course, Jesus never existed, so he can't come back.


Just the end of Satanic worshipers like you...


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> Just the end of Satanic worshipers like you...



The sad thing is you think "Satan" is real.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> The sad thing is you think "Satan" is real.


Uhm he is every time you look in the mirror


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit. You owning a gun does not prevent tyranny. It just makes it easier to kill your neighbor over the dog shitting on your lawn, and that happens way too often.


Has absolutely nothing to do with my post, sounds just like a keyboard pounding rant from someone tired of being on the losing end of every argument he/she has ever been in...
My post was about an amendment that was designed to raise red flags when the tyrants show up and for the purpose of taking action politically in the hopes of making fighting unnecessary...
and joe, that dog spitting thing, that doesn't happen, that's just an old fascists tale



JoeB131 said:


> The government has tanks and bombers. They win.


why would they win joe?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Or they could spread it to their partners... that's the point.


really, so "getting them into rehab" was not the point then? just some clever ruse of yours to keep me from seeing it was their partners you were/was talking about?   every time you get shot down/caught in a lie, you try to pretend something else was the point


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Two separate issues.


yeah, that way you don't have to address the contradiction that once again has tripped you up


----------



## Colin norris

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> This is a massive red herring and missing the point entirely (the part in bold).
> 
> It's about what's right and what's moral.
> 
> Drugs and certain types of weapons are illegal and outlawed too but if there's a demand for it people will always get it - but again it's about what's right.
> 
> No-one's stupid. Back street abortions will still happen, that doesn't mean you encourage abortions in law either.
> 
> Even in the short-term if this new law stops even just a small handful of abortions then it's done good right away.
> 
> Medium to longer term it will encourage folk to be more responsible and in time this flippant attitude of using abortion as a form of contraception will vanish.
> 
> That's the whole point.


That is not the point.  It's filthy religion which is forcing them to be anti abortion. You are not pro life. You are pro birth because you think God has told you so. In fact God does not exist. 
Only now You are bellowing about your freedoms towards vacinne mandates. 
Where's  the freedom for women to control their bodies without some filthy religion interfering? Make no mistake. That's where the majority of the criticism comes from. 
What happens when a godbotherers teenager gets pregnant? They don't mind abortions then be ause they like to look pure to the community. 
What about religious women who get pregnant and don't want the child? Abortions are ok then also. 
Religious women have abortion at the same rate as atheists women because God isn't really watching. You just like to scare the shit out of young girls with that crap.  
You're hypocrisy on this subject is breathtaking.  
Absolutely disgusting of a modern society. It's not as if this religious stuff has ever altered a society for the better.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> My post was about an amendment that was designed to raise red flags when the tyrants show up and for the purpose of taking action politically in the hopes of making fighting unnecessary...



Actually, it was about an amendment to keep white slave owners armed to keep the darkies in line.  The Founding Slave Rapists never intended for universal gun proliferation...that would be crazy.  




Frankeneinstein said:


> and joe, that dog spitting thing, that doesn't happen, that's just an old fascists tale



Really? So you are saying an incident over some gun nut shooting a neighbor over a dispute about dog poop never happens.  

Well, here's one.  









						Former NASA exec found guilty of killing neighbor over dog poop, noise and trash complaints
					

Michael Hetle, 54, of Springfield, Virginia, was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder in the March 3, 2020, death of 24-year-old Javon Malik Prather. The deadly shooting and its aftermath were captured on Hetle's doorbell camera.




					www.kiro7.com
				




FAIRFAX, Va. — Michael Hetle was an executive at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. His neighbor, Javon Prather, worked at a grocery store and was a member of the Maryland National Guard.

Years of disputes between the two men over dog feces, noise and trash ended in gunfire last March. On Thursday, Hetle, 54, of Springfield, Virginia, was convicted of first-degree murder in Prather’s death.

Wait, here's another one. 









						‘Like a war zone’: Florida man, 82, fatally shoots neighbor, 11-year-old girl
					

An 82-year-old Florida man fatally shot a neighbor and his 11-year-old daughter after a dispute over a dog, authorities said Tuesday.




					www.fox23.com
				





Hold on, here's another one. 









						Georgia man confesses to fatally shooting neighbor over dog poop in his yard
					

A Georgia man told police officers that he shot and killed his neighbor because he was tired of the man's dog leaving poop in his yard.




					www.nydailynews.com
				




A Georgia man allegedly told police officers that he shot and killed his neighbor because he was tired of the man's dog pooping in his yard.
Larry Bates was arrested last month for the murder of Paul Wilson, who lived across the street from him. *Bates also shot and killed one of the dogs Wilson was walking*.


----------



## Dayton3

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.



This is one of the absolutely stupid suggestions that comes up.    We don't use such methods to prevent any other crimes.   Why would it be different for abortion?


----------



## JoeB131

Dayton3 said:


> This is one of the absolutely stupid suggestions that comes up. We don't use such methods to prevent any other crimes. Why would it be different for abortion?



Actually, we have. 

Read up on prohibition some time, dummy.  The religious nutters got alcohol banned by convincing stupid people that those dirty German immigrants were doing something nefarious for the Kaiser in the local tavern.   

Then when they actually banned alcohol... nobody obeyed the law.  Alcohol consumption was 70% of what it was pre-prohibition by the time the 21st Amendment was passed 

In short, they realized the law was unworkable and changed it.


----------



## LuckyDuck

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


All I can do is address where I stand on the issues, personally.  I'm male, widowed, elderly and don't consider myself an old geezer mentally.
Abortion:  I recommend ample education in schools about pregnancy, STD's, prophylactics to prevent pregnancy and the lifetime responsibilities and costs associated with having children. Any and all kids you have, are yours and yours for "life."  To be a decent responsible parent, you don't just pawn them off on your own parents.  Just because you've raised them to adulthood, doesn't mean they are not going to be dependent upon you in adulthood.  I know, I'm living it.  If you have chosen to ignore all that you've learned in those sex education classes and do get pregnant, there should be options available for you to end the pregnancy, but only early on, not once the child has a heartbeat and is formed.  Once that stage is reached you should make plans for the child to be turned over to an agency that will find suitable parents for the child, or you should take on the responsibility of raising him/her (I'm not going to get into the gender nonsense on this topic) yourself.  An exception to aborting the child in the late term should only be done if the birth will be severely dangerous to the mother, or the child has some genetic abnormality that would leave him/her with no decent quality of life (I'm not talking Down's Syndrome or some other moderate form of abnormality).
You brought in the topic of "prostitution."  On that totally different subject, I see no problem with prostitution if it is like what goes on in Nevada.  A structured environment where the women and clients are NOT minors, can be shown to be in it voluntarily and take regular examinations, adequate protections against STD's, pregnancy and ensure that the clients have been tested ahead of time shortly before using the services offered.  Such an establishment should be professional and taxed like any other business.  Frankly, there are some people out there who, because they are physically unpleasant to look at, couldn't get a legitimate date to save their lives, so they should have an outlet for their personal needs, not be denied physical pleasures because of their appearance.  So, let it be legal, as it brings in revenue.  
As to the "war on drugs," sorry, on that I draw a line in the sand.  In order to obtain the same "high" one achieved through Heroin's initial use, the dosage must continue to be gradually increased and thus the financial and physical costs continue to go up.  Eventually, you have an individual who is suffering from "drug-induced psychosis," which is not reversable and he or she is mentally "out-of-it" from then on.   Crack Cocaine is also very addictive and the cost of achieving the high just continues to escalate.  In both scenarios, the addicted need to steal from others to afford their addiction.  Making the substance legal wouldn't change their need and need to steal to afford the drug(s).  PCP, well people on that have gone on to kill others while high on it.  Rohypnol, the rape drug, shouldn't be legal for obvious reasons.   Fentanyl killed 75,672 people last year alone.  Some states have made it legal, but for me, it's just the god-awful smell that I don't like and the fact that apparently, once the users heard it was legal, they think they can smoke it and drive too.


----------



## Dayton3

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we have.
> 
> Read up on prohibition some time, dummy.  The religious nutters got alcohol banned by convincing stupid people that those dirty German immigrants were doing something nefarious for the Kaiser in the local tavern.
> 
> Then when they actually banned alcohol... nobody obeyed the law.  Alcohol consumption was 70% of what it was pre-prohibition by the time the 21st Amendment was passed



That's a 30% drop right there.     Sounds like prohibition was pretty successful. 

Do you have a source on that so I can use it in future debates?


----------



## JoeB131

Dayton3 said:


> That's a 30% drop right there. Sounds like prohibition was pretty successful.
> 
> Do you have a source on that so I can use it in future debates?



Uh, no, it wasn't.  In exchange for that 30% decrease, you enabled organized crime, thousands of people were poisoned when moonshiners used industrial alcohol to make products, you put hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs by dismantling the fifth largest industry in the US, and cost the government billions in revenue.


----------



## JoeB131

LuckyDuck said:


> Abortion: I recommend ample education in schools about pregnancy, STD's, prophylactics to prevent pregnancy and the lifetime responsibilities and costs associated with having children. Any and all kids you have, are yours and yours for "life." To be a decent responsible parent, you don't just pawn them off on your own parents. Just because you've raised them to adulthood, doesn't mean they are not going to be dependent upon you in adulthood. I know, I'm living it. If you have chosen to ignore all that you've learned in those sex education classes and do get pregnant, there should be options available for you to end the pregnancy, but only early on, not once the child has a heartbeat and is formed. Once that stage is reached you should make plans for the child to be turned over to an agency that will find suitable parents for the child, or you should take on the responsibility of raising him/her (I'm not going to get into the gender nonsense on this topic) yourself. An exception to aborting the child in the late term should only be done if the birth will be severely dangerous to the mother, or the child has some genetic abnormality that would leave him/her with no decent quality of life (I'm not talking Down's Syndrome or some other moderate form of abnormality).



Or.  You let the woman and her doctor decide and mind your own fucking business.  Wow. That was simple.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it was about an amendment to keep white slave owners armed to keep the darkies in line.


and then they used the first amendment to cover it up?
like all of todays white liberals you can no longer hide your disdain for the constitution,
 and once again as soon as it becomes apparent that the white liberal cause in the debate has been clearly and cleanly debunked mighty whitey inserts his minority du jour between himself and whoever it is that has clobbered him/her this time around


JoeB131 said:


> The Founding Slave Rapists


Who formed what has become your wing of the party joe [todays white liberals]...


JoeB131 said:


> never intended for universal gun proliferation...that would be crazy.


did they intend that the people have the right to bear arms and that that right should not be infringed upon?



JoeB131 said:


> FAIRFAX, Va. — Michael Hetle was an executive at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. His neighbor, Javon Prather, worked at a grocery store and was a member of the Maryland National Guard.
> 
> Years of disputes between the two men over dog feces, noise and trash ended in gunfire last March. On Thursday, Hetle, 54, of Springfield, Virginia, was convicted of first-degree murder in Prather’s death.
> 
> Wait, here's another one.


It says there that the cause was dog feces, noise and trash not guns joe...blaming the guns is what makes it an old fascists tale


JoeB131 said:


> ‘Like a war zone’: Florida man, 82, fatally shoots neighbor, 11-year-old girl
> 
> 
> An 82-year-old Florida man fatally shot a neighbor and his 11-year-old daughter after a dispute over a dog, authorities said Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fox23.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on, here's another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia man confesses to fatally shooting neighbor over dog poop in his yard
> 
> 
> A Georgia man told police officers that he shot and killed his neighbor because he was tired of the man's dog leaving poop in his yard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nydailynews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Georgia man allegedly told police officers that he shot and killed his neighbor because he was tired of the man's dog pooping in his yard.
> Larry Bates was arrested last month for the murder of Paul Wilson, who lived across the street from him. *Bates also shot and killed one of the dogs Wilson was walking*.


what do they mean by "ALLEGEDLY" joe? if they knew what he actually said to police they would not have used the word alegedly now would they?

Joe, would banning dogs have prevented these things? would you be for that if it helped?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it was about an amendment to keep white slave owners armed to keep the darkies in line. The Founding Slave Rapists never intended for universal gun proliferation...that would be crazy.


For one those "white slave owners and rapists" went on to form your wing of the party that supported lynching right up to the 1950's and only gave it up then because a new medical procedure that was far more  efficient   was just around the corner,
 not only could and would it greatly increase the numbers of minorities dispatched but they could now pat themselves on the back for a job well done while pretending that those who disagreed were the racists.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

We had fewer abortions when abortion was legal.  We has something worse.  We had a social cost.  The family of such a woman would turn her out in the street.  She had no friends, no church would permit her entry.  No store would sell to her.  For the rest of her life.  Women that killed their children could only move to somewhere she was unknown and hope no one found out.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Frankeneinstein said:


> For one those "white slave owners and rapists" went on to form your wing of the party that supported lynching right up to the 1950's and only gave it up then because a new medical procedure that was far more  efficient   was just around the corner,
> not only could and would it greatly increase the numbers of minorities dispatched but they could now pat themselves on the back for a job well done while pretending that those who disagreed were the racists.


The white slave owners and rapists didn't do a good enough job.  We are stuck with 12.4% of their mistake.


----------



## Colin norris

Tipsycatlover said:


> The white slave owners and rapists didn't do a good enough job.  We are stuck with 12.4% of their mistake.


No racism there old darling. And you call yourself a Christian.


----------



## LuckyDuck

JoeB131 said:


> Or.  You let the woman and her doctor decide and mind your own fucking business.  Wow. That was simple.


Once the fetus has a heartbeat and fully formed, it can actually be considered a "baby."  So, if killing babies is acceptable to you just because they haven't been spit out yet, or by some advocates, even after they've been officially born, by your reasoning, there's no reason we can't kill them well after they are out, even into childhood.  They are a definite financial burden after all.  Hitler would definitely like you.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Colin norris said:


> No racism there old darling. And you call yourself a Christian.


Gotcha!   I just love pulling chains and watching the flush.
By the way.  You wouldn't  mind finding the post where I called myself a Christian, would you?  Now be a good boy and run along.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

LuckyDuck said:


> Once the fetus has a heartbeat and fully formed, it can actually be considered a "baby."  So, if killing babies is acceptable to you just because they haven't been spit out yet, or by some advocates, even after they've been officially born, by your reasoning, there's no reason we can't kill them well after they are out, even into childhood.  They are a definite financial burden after all.  Hitler would definitely like you.


If you consider abortion killing children, and it is, conduct your life accordingly.   Abortion is part of the reason that 12.4% percentage of blacks isn't 13% by now.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> did they intend that the people have the right to bear arms and that that right should not be infringed upon?


When the Founding Slave Rapists said, "the People" they meant white, property owning males.  Guns in Colonial times were expensive and not really practical for much. Which is why only the elite owned them. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> For one those "white slave owners and rapists" went on to form your wing of the party that supported lynching right up to the 1950's and only gave it up then because a new medical procedure that was far more efficient was just around the corner,



Bullshit.  Abortion happens because WOMEN want it to happen. THere isn't an abortion truck snatching ladies off the streets making them get abortions.  

Also, women have been having abortions throughout history.


----------



## JoeB131

LuckyDuck said:


> Once the fetus has a heartbeat and fully formed, it can actually be considered a "baby." So, if killing babies is acceptable to you just because they haven't been spit out yet, or by some advocates, even after they've been officially born, by your reasoning, there's no reason we can't kill them well after they are out, even into childhood. They are a definite financial burden after all. Hitler would definitely like you.



Given the light sentences women are given for Post Partum Murder, six of one, half dozen of the other.  

Fetuses still aren't babies. 



Tipsycatlover said:


> We had fewer abortions when abortion was legal. We has something worse. We had a social cost. The family of such a woman would turn her out in the street. She had no friends, no church would permit her entry. No store would sell to her. For the rest of her life. Women that killed their children could only move to somewhere she was unknown and hope no one found out.



When was this magic time?  
Here's what actually happened.  

Women got abortions from providers... no one else knew about it and they got on with their lives.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> It says there that the cause was dog feces, noise and trash not guns joe...blaming the guns is what makes it an old fascists tale



No, the cause was, "some asshole had a gun and his anger made him do something he ended up regretting for the rest of his life in prison."


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> That is not the point.  It's filthy religion which is forcing them to be anti abortion. You are not pro life. You are pro birth because you think God has told you so. In fact God does not exist.
> Only now You are bellowing about your freedoms towards vacinne mandates.
> Where's  the freedom for women to control their bodies without some filthy religion interfering? Make no mistake. That's where the majority of the criticism comes from.
> What happens when a godbotherers teenager gets pregnant? They don't mind abortions then be ause they like to look pure to the community.
> What about religious women who get pregnant and don't want the child? Abortions are ok then also.
> Religious women have abortion at the same rate as atheists women because God isn't really watching. You just like to scare the shit out of young girls with that crap.
> You're hypocrisy on this subject is breathtaking.
> Absolutely disgusting of a modern society. It's not as if this religious stuff has ever altered a society for the better.


So you think people are born with out knowing right from wrong?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> Given the light sentences women are given for Post Partum Murder, six of one, half dozen of the other.
> 
> Fetuses still aren't babies.
> 
> 
> 
> When was this magic time?
> Here's what actually happened.
> 
> Women got abortions from providers... no one else knew about it and they got on with their lives.


According two the law in most jurisdictions its double homicide meth head Joe, if you murder a pregnant woman it's double homicide 


So it is a baby


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> Given the light sentences women are given for Post Partum Murder, six of one, half dozen of the other.
> 
> Fetuses still aren't babies.
> 
> 
> 
> When was this magic time?
> Here's what actually happened.
> 
> Women got abortions from providers... no one else knew about it and they got on with their lives.


Gads you have a stellar opinion of gossip.  If a woman had an understanding family she went away, quietly had an abortion and returned after a period of studying abroad.  If a woman did not have an understanding family she was put out on the street to end up doing laundry at a home for unwed mothers.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> When the Founding Slave Rapists said, "the People" they meant white, property owning males.  Guns in Colonial times were expensive and not really practical for much. Which is why only the elite owned them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Abortion happens because WOMEN want it to happen. THere isn't an abortion truck snatching ladies off the streets making them get abortions.
> 
> Also, women have been having abortions throughout history.


Everyone owned a gun.  If you didn't have a gun you didn't eat.  By age 11 boys were expected to be able to hunt and put food on the family table.


----------



## Colin norris

Wyatt earp said:


> So you think people are born with out knowing right from wrong?


A just born foetus doesn't even know it's alive for months. How could it possibly know that? 

It's religion which drives the abortion drbate and you know it.  The godbotherers think they are doing gods work after they think they received permission from him. It's bullshit.


----------



## Seymour Flops

If you want to talk about abortion, you should have a firm answer to the question as to when "life begins."  Here's mine:

A new and living human being is created as soon as an egg is fertilized.  That human being has separate DNA from both the father and the mother, and cannot said to be merely a part of either of them.  Yes, it is a "clump of cells."  So am I.

Abortion takes a human life.

That said, as a libertarian, I oppose banning abortion, for two main reasons:

The fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being does not give it the right to force its mother to carry it to term.

Banning abortion is ineffective in stopping abortion, just like banning gambling, banning drugs, banning prostitution, and banning deviant sex.  Driving an activity underground does not get rid of it.  It only makes it far less safe, and far more open to exploitation of children. 

Helping women who are pregnant and not wanting to be to have their child and put it up for adoption is far more productive.

Not all libertarians oppose banning abortion.  Many see unborn children as the littlest freedom seeking humans, and want to protect them.


----------



## Colin norris

Seymour Flops said:


> If you want to talk about abortion, you should have a firm answer to the question as to when "life begins."  Here's mine:
> 
> A new and living human being is created as soon as an egg is fertilized.


No.  It doesn't have the capacity to think etc and cannot survive with care for years. 
A bunch of cells cannot be given the status. 


Seymour Flops said:


> That human being has separate DNA from both the father and the mother, and cannot said to be merely a part of either of them.  Yes, it is a "clump of cells."  So am I.


You are a human being. Nothong like a miniscule foetus. 
When an egg is fertiliser, approximately 80 to 100 can fit inside the eye of a needle hole. That is not a human being  


Seymour Flops said:


> Abortion takes a human life.


Not in my opinion. 


Seymour Flops said:


> That said, as a libertarian, I oppose banning abortion, for two main reasons:
> 
> The fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being does not give it the right to force its mother to carry it to term.


I agree


Seymour Flops said:


> Banning abortion is ineffective in stopping abortion, just like banning gambling, banning drugs, banning prostitution, and banning deviant sex.  Driving an activity underground does not get rid of it.  It only makes it far less safe, and far more open to exploitation of children.


I agree


Seymour Flops said:


> Helping women who are pregnant and not wanting to be to have their child and put it up for adoption is far more productive.


Exactly but all those who protest outside clinics have never adopted one child. They are not pro life.  They are pro birth. 


Seymour Flops said:


> Not all libertarians oppose banning abortion.  Many see unborn children as the littlest freedom seeking humans, and want to protect them.


Quite a noble gesture.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Tipsycatlover said:


> If you consider abortion killing children, and it is, conduct your life accordingly.   Abortion is part of the reason that 12.4% percentage of blacks isn't 13% by now.


The most quoted figure for the black population has been 14.8%.  As for black abortions, the avowed racist Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), made it clear that she wanted to exterminate blacks and thus placed the clinics in black neighborhoods to kill off black fetuses.
Personally, I have no problem with abortion for any person, regardless of race, providing the abortion is early in the pregnancy.


----------



## JoeB131

Wyatt earp said:


> According two the law in most jurisdictions its double homicide meth head Joe, if you murder a pregnant woman it's double homicide
> 
> 
> So it is a baby



Actually, these laws are stupid and have already been abused to go after women who have had miscarriages.  Look up the case of Purvi Patel in Indiana. 



Tipsycatlover said:


> Gads you have a stellar opinion of gossip. If a woman had an understanding family she went away, quietly had an abortion and returned after a period of studying abroad. If a woman did not have an understanding family she was put out on the street to end up doing laundry at a home for unwed mothers.



Nope.  Never happened.  At least not in my lifetime, and I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  

It was also considered acceptable to beat your wife... we have evolved since then.  



Tipsycatlover said:


> Everyone owned a gun. If you didn't have a gun you didn't eat. By age 11 boys were expected to be able to hunt and put food on the family table.



Nope, they really didn't.  muskets were kind of useless for hunting. People either ate domesticated animals or if they did kill wild animals, they used traps.  

In fact, the reason why the National Rifle Association was formed was because an ex-Union General was horrified by how little American men knew about guns before the Civil War.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> If you want to talk about abortion, you should have a firm answer to the question as to when "life begins." Here's mine:
> 
> A new and living human being is created as soon as an egg is fertilized. That human being has separate DNA from both the father and the mother, and cannot said to be merely a part of either of them. Yes, it is a "clump of cells." So am I.
> 
> Abortion takes a human life.



Here's the problem.  2/3rds of Zygote don't attach to the uterine wall.   But we don't hold funerals for tampons. 

200,000 pregnancies that do attach miscarry. We don't treat every miscarriage as a murder investigation. 



Seymour Flops said:


> That said, as a libertarian, I oppose banning abortion, for two main reasons:
> 
> The fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being does not give it the right to force its mother to carry it to term.



we force people to do things all the time.  Not a valid argument. 



Seymour Flops said:


> Banning abortion is ineffective in stopping abortion, just like banning gambling, banning drugs, banning prostitution, and banning deviant sex. Driving an activity underground does not get rid of it. It only makes it far less safe, and far more open to exploitation of children.
> 
> Helping women who are pregnant and not wanting to be to have their child and put it up for adoption is far more productive.
> 
> Not all libertarians oppose banning abortion. Many see unborn children as the littlest freedom seeking humans, and want to protect them.



The problem "libertarians" have is that they have thrown in with the religious crazies in the GOP Big Tent.


----------



## JoeB131

LuckyDuck said:


> The most quoted figure for the black population has been 14.8%. As for black abortions, the avowed racist Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), made it clear that she wanted to exterminate blacks and thus placed the clinics in black neighborhoods to kill off black fetuses.
> Personally, I have no problem with abortion for any person, regardless of race, providing the abortion is early in the pregnancy.



Two major problems with this statement. 

The first is that Sanger didn't support legal abortion.  Abortion in the 1920's was a fairly dangerous proposition before anti-biotics were invented. 

Sanger supported contraception, which isn't really even controversial at this point, unless you are a bible thumping moron who owns Hobby Lobby.  

Second, Sanger's efforts to provide contraception services to the black community was WELCOMED by black leaders.  Because they understood unwanted pregnancies was an economic burden.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> A just born foetus doesn't even know it's alive for months. How could it possibly know that?
> 
> It's religion which drives the abortion drbate and you know it.  The godbotherers think they are doing gods work after they think they received permission from him. It's bullshit.


No your post implies a person doesn't know right from wrong unless taught


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, these laws are stupid and have already been abused to go after women who have had miscarriages.  Look up the case of Purvi Patel in Indiana.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Never happened.  At least not in my lifetime, and I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.
> 
> It was also considered acceptable to beat your wife... we have evolved since then.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they really didn't.  muskets were kind of useless for hunting. People either ate domesticated animals or if they did kill wild animals, they used traps.
> 
> In fact, the reason why the National Rifle Association was formed was because an ex-Union General was horrified by how little American men knew about guns before the Civil War.


And we get back to where we began, a complete circle you think murder laws are stupid and it should be legal


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Wyatt earp said:


> And we get back to where we began, a complete circle you think murder laws are stupid and it should be legal


They just think murder should be legal under certain sincerely held opinions.  Killing babies should be legal.  Killing whites and Asians should be legal.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> When the Founding Slave Rapists said, "the People" they meant white, property owning males.


^this/that^ is what happens when the TV is allowed to think for you joe...it is your wing of the party that has pretended to embrace that document, especially when it was couched in "constitutional rights" that  you/they do not believe in to advance the ideals you attribute to the framers [you even pretended you didn't view it as a "suicide note"]...

As I said earlier, white liberals have a disdain for the constitution and you have just shown yours...

hey joe, does the ACLU do a good job in protecting the principles and ideals of the constitution?




JoeB131 said:


> Guns in Colonial times were expensive and not really practical for much.


joe, move away from the TV... most everyone hunted back then making them not only practical but by extension necessary...how much did a gun cost anyway joe? [pretty sure that wasn't on your TV so i'm gonna guess no price will be forth coming]



JoeB131 said:


> Which is why only the elite owned them


and without the second Amendment that would actually be true this time around


JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit. Abortion happens because WOMEN want it to happen.



which is how we know the white liberal MEN who are gung-ho on the issue have another use for it



JoeB131 said:


> THere isn't an abortion truck snatching ladies off the streets making them get abortions.


unless of course some lefty feels the need for a slam dunk contest


JoeB131 said:


> Also, women have been having abortions throughout history.


But only since the fifties have white liberals found its "proper" use in minority communities!


----------



## Seymour Flops

Colin norris said:


> No.  It doesn't have the capacity to think etc and cannot survive with care for years.
> A bunch of cells cannot be given the status.
> 
> You are a human being. Nothong like a miniscule foetus.
> When an egg is fertiliser, approximately 80 to 100 can fit inside the eye of a needle hole. That is not a human being
> 
> Not in my opinion.
> 
> I agree
> 
> I agree
> 
> Exactly but all those who protest outside clinics have never adopted one child. They are not pro life.  They are pro birth.
> 
> Quite a noble gesture.


My point is that one must state when a human life begins in order to be intellectually honest in a discussion of abortion.

Just saying you disagree with my opinion of when life begins isn't the start of a rational debate.

Plenty of abortion protesters would love to adopt a baby. Many Americans go to foreign countries due to the abortion fueled shortage of adoptable babies. That's not a valid argument at all.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> No, the cause was, "some asshole had a gun and his anger made him do something he ended up regretting for the rest of his life in prison."


That is not what your link says, your link debunks your claim and says it was caused by dog feces, noise and trash,


even you make that claim in the post:


JoeB131 said:


> It just makes it easier to kill your neighbor over the dog shitting on your lawn


so why did he/she kill the neighbor joe?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> When the Founding Slave Rapists said, "the People" they meant white, property owning males.


^this/that^ is what happens when the TV is allowed to think for you joe...it is your wing of the party that has pretended to embrace that document, especially when it was to advance the ideals of the framers [you even pretended you didn't view it as a "suicide note"]...

As I said earlier, white liberals have a disdain for the constitution and you have just shown yours...

hey joe, does the ACLU do a good job in protecting the principles and ideals of the constitution?




JoeB131 said:


> Guns in Colonial times were expensive and not really practical for much.


joe, move away from the TV... most everyone hunted back then making not only practical and by extension necessary...jow much did a gun cost anyway joe? [pretty sure that wasn't on your TV so i'm gonna guess no price will be forth coming]



JoeB131 said:


> Which is why only the elite owned them


and without the second Amendment that will actually be true this time around


JoeB131 said:


> Bullshit. Abortion happens because WOMEN want it to happen.


which is how we know the white liberal MEN who are gung-ho on the issue have another use for it



JoeB131 said:


> THere isn't an abortion truck snatching ladies off the streets making them get abortions.


would you convict anyone who did do that? or do you draw the line at fetus basketball?


JoeB131 said:


> Also, women have been having abortions throughout history.


of course they have, cuz men like you needed basketballs


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> The first is that Sanger didn't support legal abortion. Abortion in the 1920's was a fairly dangerous proposition before anti-biotics were invented.


sangar believed that abortion was "the taking of a life" and that is why she did not support it as a form of birth control


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> The first is that Sanger didn't support legal abortion. Abortion in the 1920's was a fairly dangerous proposition before anti-biotics were invented.


The taking of a life...by Margaret Sangar


> Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime.[134]: 36–37 [23]: 125  In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent."[135]: 155  Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."[16]: 217  Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.[136] Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.[13


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem.  2/3rds of Zygote don't attach to the uterine wall.   But we don't hold funerals for tampons.
> 
> 200,000 pregnancies that do attach miscarry. We don't treat every miscarriage as a murder investigation.


That doesn't tell me when you think a human life begins.


JoeB131 said:


> we force people to do things all the time.  Not a valid argument.


Countries commit genocide "all the time."  Frequent occurrence doesn't make wrong into right.


JoeB131 said:


> The problem "libertarians" have is that they have thrown in with the religious crazies in the GOP Big Tent.


Not this one.

When does a new human life begin?


----------



## Colin norris

Seymour Flops said:


> My point is that one must state when a human life begins in order to be intellectually honest in a discussion of abortion.
> 
> Just saying you disagree with my opinion of when life begins isn't the start of a rational debate.
> 
> Plenty of abortion protesters would love to adopt a baby. Many Americans go to foreign countries due to the abortion fueled shortage of adoptable babies. That's not a valid argument at all.


I don't care what you think. When they rely on religion as justification for doing anything it is wrong from the start and has no validity.  
I suspect you might be a godbotherer also and have the  same justifications. 

The hypocrisy of it all is they are pro birth not pro life.  A unwanted child grows up in poverty, the teenager is ridiculed by the likes of Republican Jesus junkies for not having a job etc, frowned upon by society.  You don't care about the kid or parent immediately after the birth except for what's stated above.  
Are you happy with the millions of unwanted children in Africa because they do not have access tobsbortion and their hideous religion will not allow contraception? 
Where's your compassion for pro life there you hypocrit? 
Then republicans usually ridicule Gates for financing vacinnes to help save them by suggesting he us depopulating the world.  You brain dead  idiots. 

How's that for a valid argument? Put your religious spin on  that and see how you go.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Colin norris said:


> I don't care what you think. When they rely on religion as justification for doing anything it is wrong from the start and has no validity.
> I suspect you might be a godbotherer also and have the  same justifications.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Colin norris

Wyatt earp said:


> No your post implies a person doesn't know right from wrong unless taught


Read it again dickhead. It says a foetus.  
You godbotherers think morals are a gift from God.  If there were no religions, what would be your  first act of violence because you weren't gifted morals? 
You probably wouldn't change a thing because mmorals are inherited.  
A foetus doesn't know it's alive for months, has no expectations, no fear, has no morals or principles. 

Keep your religion out of the debate.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> Read it again dickhead. It says a foetus.
> You godbotherers think morals are a gift from God.  If there were no religions, what would be your  first act of violence because you weren't gifted morals?
> You probably wouldn't change a thing because mmorals are inherited.
> A foetus doesn't know it's alive for months, has no expectations, no fear, has no morals or principles.
> 
> Keep your religion out of the debate.


I keep asking you the same question and you want to deflect, again sir, do you think people are born with out knowing right from wrong?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> Read it again dickhead. It says a foetus.
> You godbotherers think morals are a gift from God.  If there were no religions, what would be your  first act of violence because you weren't gifted morals?
> You probably wouldn't change a thing because mmorals are inherited.
> A foetus doesn't know it's alive for months, has no expectations, no fear, has no morals or principles.
> 
> Keep your religion out of the debate.


Wait so you do think people are born with out morals, nope people know from birth killing is wrong


----------



## Colin norris

Wyatt earp said:


> Wait so you do think people are born with out morals, nope people know from birth killing is wrong


A foetus is born without knowing  what attributes he possesses if any. 
I've never heard of an adult teaching the evil of killing to a newborn. Is that what youre saying? 

Religion has atrophied your brain. Stick with your filthy bible.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Colin norris said:


> I don't care what you think. When they rely on religion as justification for doing anything it is wrong from the start and has no validity.
> I suspect you might be a godbotherer also and have the  same justifications.
> 
> The hypocrisy of it all is they are pro birth not pro life.  A unwanted child grows up in poverty, the teenager is ridiculed by the likes of Republican Jesus junkies for not having a job etc, frowned upon by society.  You don't care about the kid or parent immediately after the birth except for what's stated above.
> Are you happy with the millions of unwanted children in Africa because they do not have access tobsbortion and their hideous religion will not allow contraception?
> Where's your compassion for pro life there you hypocrit?
> Then republicans usually ridicule Gates for financing vacinnes to help save them by suggesting he us depopulating the world.  You brain dead  idiots.
> 
> How's that for a valid argument? Put your religious spin on  that and see how you go.


That was a lot of words when you could have just said "no, I'm not intellectually honest enough to say when a human life begins."

In the US, there are far too many people waiting to adopt babies to speak honestly of "unwanted children."


----------



## Colin norris

Seymour Flops said:


> That was a lot of words when you could have just said "no, I'm not intellectually honest enough to say when a human life begins."
> 
> In the US, there are far too many people waiting to adopt babies to speak honestly of "unwanted children."


Rubbish.  There's no evidence if that  and those pius sanctamonious bitches wouldn't rear a child from a Democrat background and from poverty.  They'd  rather picket the clinic and make hypocrits of themselves.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Colin norris said:


> Read it again dickhead. It says a foetus.
> You godbotherers think morals are a gift from God.  If there were no religions, what would be your  first act of violence because you weren't gifted morals?
> You probably wouldn't change a thing because mmorals are inherited.
> A foetus doesn't know it's alive for months, has no expectations, no fear, has no morals or principles.
> Keep your religion out of the debate.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Colin norris said:


> A foetus is born without knowing  what attributes he possesses if any.
> I've never heard of an adult teaching the evil of killing to a newborn. Is that what youre saying?
> Religion has atrophied your brain. Stick with your filthy bible.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Well, people want to control other people's bodies with covid Vax, so why not control abortions.


----------



## Colin norris

Captain Caveman said:


> Well, people want to control other people's bodies with covid Vax, so why not control abortions.


You're right but they had their freedom to reject the offer.  now we find the God botherers want roe  v wade overturned to make abortions illegal. 
Where  is women's freedoms in that? 
Why shouldn't they have the same right  over their bodies as any one else?


----------



## Seymour Flops

Colin norris said:


> Rubbish.  There's no evidence if that  and those pius sanctamonious bitches wouldn't rear a child from a Democrat background and from poverty.  They'd  rather picket the clinic and make hypocrits of themselves.


So, now I have two reasons to stop trying to have a debate with you.

*While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.*





__





						American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?
					

As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.



					www.americanadoptions.com
				




Your answer is to personally attack those waiting to adopt?  With no evidence whatsoever?

Exactly what I might expect from someone too intellectually dishonest to state when he believes that human life begins.

Not sure why that is such a scary question.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The number of children without families in Africa has nothing to do with abortion access.  The causes are the numerous wars.  The horrific rape and murder of women and an ongoing AIDS crisis still spreading and killing.   Children die easily in Africa, it would be surprising if abortion was even an issue.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> ^this/that^ is what happens when the TV



Wow, I'm sorry you wasted so much time trolling for me to ignore it all because you added nothing to the conversation. 




Seymour Flops said:


> That doesn't tell me when you think a human life begins.



That's an easy one.   Life began billions of years ago and is an ongoing process.   



Seymour Flops said:


> Countries commit genocide "all the time." Frequent occurrence doesn't make wrong into right.



You are one of these LIbertarian Children who thinks people are only evil when they have governments, aren't you?


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> That's an easy one.   Life began billions of years ago and is an ongoing process.


Right, which is why I specifically asked "when does a human life begin?"

When you make up your own questions to answer, you obviously cannot answer the real question.


JoeB131 said:


> You are one of these LIbertarian Children who thinks people are only evil when they have governments, aren't you?


No, I think that excessive government allows people's evil more power, while reducing the power of people's good.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Right, which is why I specifically asked "when does a human life begin?"
> 
> When you make up your own questions to answer, you obviously cannot answer the real question.



Okay, Human life began 7 million years ago... depending which species you want to count as the first humans...  Do we just go with Genus Homo, or do we also include the Australopithecus

Human life begins at birth...  that's when we issue a CERTIFICATE saying a human life has started.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, Human life began 7 million years ago... depending which species you want to count as the first humans...  Do we just go with Genus Homo, or do we also include the Australopithecus
> 
> Human life begins at birth...  that's when we issue a CERTIFICATE saying a human life has started.


At least you were finally honest enough to give a straight answer.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Colin norris said:


> A foetus is born without knowing  what attributes he possesses if any.
> I've never heard of an adult teaching the evil of killing to a newborn. Is that what youre saying?
> 
> Religion has atrophied your brain. Stick with your filthy bible.


All you talk about is fucking religion no one needs to listen to some priest to know that murder, stealing, lying, raping is fucking wrong


----------



## Colin norris

Wyatt earp said:


> All you talk about is fucking religion no one needs to listen to some priest to know that murder, stealing, lying, raping is fucking wrong


Good. Tell those religious bigots atheists have all those qualities that believers do without the crutch of a celestial dictatorship


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, I'm sorry you wasted so much time trolling for me to ignore it all because you added nothing to the conversation.


Even your surrenders are like a trainwreck


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> Even your surrenders are like a trainwreck



Are you still here, you black hole of emotional need?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, I'm sorry you wasted so much time trolling for me to ignore it all because you added nothing to the conversation.


v did I mention how you continuously contradict yourself ?v


JoeB131 said:


> Are you still here, you black hole of emotional need?


Like I said, it's a mystery as to how you can keep coming back for more after the brutality of verbal assaults the forum levels against you, if your return isn't emotional then that just leaves mental!


----------



## Captain Caveman

Colin norris said:


> You're right but they had their freedom to reject the offer.  now we find the God botherers want roe  v wade overturned to make abortions illegal.
> Where  is women's freedoms in that?
> Why shouldn't they have the same right  over their bodies as any one else?


They do have a choice and freedom, and they should exercise their freedom and choice before conceiving as opposed to, "What the fuck have I done". 

If you want freedom and choices, you need to be responsible in using them, when you can't, they're restricted. Then they have the audacity to blame others because they couldn't be responsible.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Colin norris , do you want kids? If you're a bloke, talk to a female who would like a kid and have intercourse. If you're a female, talk to a male who would like a kid and have intercourse.

If you both want  sex , but don't want a kid, either use one or two protections (pill and condom), or choose an alternative orifice. Why not just practice mutual oral (69), and flip a coin to see who gets the best view.

Is there any part of that that you think a rational adult would struggle with?


----------



## Colin norris

Captain Caveman said:


> Colin norris , do you want kids? If you're a bloke, talk to a female who would like a kid and have intercourse. If you're a female, talk to a male who would like a kid and have intercourse.
> 
> If you both want  sex , but don't want a kid, either use one or two protections (pill and condom), or choose an alternative orifice. Why not just practice mutual oral (69), and flip a coin to see who gets the best view.
> 
> Is there any part of that that you think a rational adult would struggle with?


Oh dear.  Now you've relied on sex education as a defence. 
Your ignorance qualified you for retrospective abortion


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Human life begins at the moment of conception.  Abortion, as the taking of human life is nothing else but murder.  It doesn't make you a bad person to be agreeable to this particular form of murder.  It doesn't turn murder into something else.    Slapping a different word on the act doesn't change the act.  If we meant business we would put an abortion clinic on every corner in the inner city of every city.  Put them up along the border to pop those bellies as they come across.  The only other change to be made is adding a snip at the same time as the abortion.  Sterilize them at the same time.


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> Like I said, it's a



Soooo needy...   

Did no one hug you as a child? 



Captain Caveman said:


> They do have a choice and freedom, and they should exercise their freedom and choice before conceiving as opposed to, "What the fuck have I done".
> 
> If you want freedom and choices, you need to be responsible in using them, when you can't, they're restricted. Then they have the audacity to blame others because they couldn't be responsible.



Women who have abortions are being responsible.  They are realizing they aren't ready to be parents and taking care of the little problem. 



Captain Caveman said:


> @Colin norris , do you want kids? If you're a bloke, talk to a female who would like a kid and have intercourse. If you're a female, talk to a male who would like a kid and have intercourse.
> 
> If you both want sex , but don't want a kid, either use one or two protections (pill and condom), or choose an alternative orifice. Why not just practice mutual oral (69), and flip a coin to see who gets the best view.
> 
> Is there any part of that that you think a rational adult would struggle with?



Here's the thing.  Most people aren't being "Rational" when they are copulating, which is why unwanted pregnancies and STD's are a thing.  

I knew a gal, when I was in the service.  College educated, Asian-American, from a traditional family.   She was involved with one of my fellow NCO's, and when he wasn't making good on his promise to marry her, she decided to "forget" to take birth control.   When the Cad didn't make good on the promise to marry her, she got an abortion.  Lesson learned, right?  Nope.  A year and half later, she got back with the same guy and got knocked up again.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Human life begins at the moment of conception. Abortion, as the taking of human life is nothing else but murder. It doesn't make you a bad person to be agreeable to this particular form of murder. It doesn't turn murder into something else. Slapping a different word on the act doesn't change the act. If we meant business we would put an abortion clinic on every corner in the inner city of every city. Put them up along the border to pop those bellies as they come across. The only other change to be made is adding a snip at the same time as the abortion. Sterilize them at the same time.



Get professional help!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> Get professional help!


Yet you are very agreeable to this form of taking human life.   Just as long as it's not called human life.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Yet you are very agreeable to this form of taking human life. Just as long as it's not called human life.



It isn't human life because it isn't viable outside of the womb.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> It isn't human life because it isn't viable outside of the womb.


Of course it's human life because it isn't anything else.  It isn't an independent species.  If so, what species is it?   A zygote or fetus is a stage of development of human beings, not something else.  It feels good to call it non human.  It makes killing it not so bad.  It is just a fiction that you find necessary to justify your opinion.

You don't need anything to justify your opinions.  They stand on their own merit.  Technically it's not murder.  Murder is an unlawful killing.  Abortion at present is a lawful killing. It would be a homicide.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Soooo needy
> Jeez joe
> I
> 
> Did no one hug you as a child?


Jeez joe
It appears the Margaret Sangar revelation knocked the argument completely out of you.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> Of course it's human life because it isn't anything else. It isn't an independent species. If so, what species is it? A zygote or fetus is a stage of development of human beings, not something else. It feels good to call it non human. It makes killing it not so bad. It is just a fiction that you find necessary to justify your opinion.



OH, please, you wingnuts spend every day trying to take food out of the mouths of poor kids to give tax breaks to billionaires, please don't tell me you suddenly "care" about kids.  

It's not life because it's not viable.  Or to make it simple for you. 









Tipsycatlover said:


> You don't need anything to justify your opinions. They stand on their own merit. Technically it's not murder. Murder is an unlawful killing. Abortion at present is a lawful killing. It would be a homicide.



Well, no, it wouldn't be, because it never was, even when abortion was illegal.  When abortion was illegal, no one was charged with murder, women were never charged with a crime for having one, and the only time the providers got charged was when they messed up and killed or maimed the woman.  



Frankeneinstein said:


> Jeez joe
> It appears the Margaret Sangar revelation knocked the argument completely out of you.



OH, sorry, did you repeat the same historically inaccurate information about Sanger the Right Wing loves?  Because I kind of tune you out...  

Here's a hint.  Sanger opposed legal abortion.  Not because she thought fetuses were people, but because getting an abortion in the oldy days before anti-biotics was a risky proposition


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> OH, sorry, did you repeat the same historically inaccurate information about Sanger the Right Wing loves? Because I kind of tune you out...


I see you've picked yourself up off the canvas from the sanger saga...could be why you feel all zeroed out joe


JoeB131 said:


> Here's a hint. Sanger opposed legal abortion. Not because she thought fetuses were people, but because getting an abortion in the oldy days before anti-biotics was a risky proposition


Now here's how it really happened:
Sanger calls abortion a crime:


> Abortion​Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime.[134]: 36–37 [23]: 125  In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent."[135]: 155  Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."[16]: 217  Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.[136] Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement


Get back to me when ya come to joe


----------



## JoeB131

Frankeneinstein said:


> I see you've picked


Nope, I back to ignoring you.  In fact I am actually going to put you on ignore so you don't clutter up my thread.. 

Good-bye.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, I back to ignoring you. In fact I am actually going to put you on ignore so you don't clutter up my thread..


Right after the sanger uppercut again



JoeB131 said:


> Good-bye.


Thats what ya get for leading with your chin joe


----------



## JoeB131




----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


>


There is an upside to being knocked cold eh joe


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> OH, please, you wingnuts spend every day trying to take food out of the mouths of poor kids to give tax breaks to billionaires, please don't tell me you suddenly "care" about kids.
> 
> It's not life because it's not viable.  Or to make it simple for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 602834
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, it wouldn't be, because it never was, even when abortion was illegal.  When abortion was illegal, no one was charged with murder, women were never charged with a crime for having one, and the only time the providers got charged was when they messed up and killed or maimed the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> OH, sorry, did you repeat the same historically inaccurate information about Sanger the Right Wing loves?  Because I kind of tune you out...
> 
> Here's a hint.  Sanger opposed legal abortion.  Not because she thought fetuses were people, but because getting an abortion in the oldy days before anti-biotics was a risky proposition


I never said I cared about kids.  We don't abort enough kids.  We need more chop shops.    I'm not scared enough to think it's not killing a human being.


----------



## Stann

JoeB131 said:


> So the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade in the most cowardly way possible.
> 
> Of course, Roe was always based on some legal jiggery-pokery, in that it found a "right to privacy" that never really existed without addressing the issue of when life begins.
> 
> The reason why the court did this was because they knew the laws on the books in most states in 1973 were unworkable and had to go, because no one was following them.   But like all failed ideas, this time will be different, the advocates say.
> 
> Okay, let's get real here.
> 
> For the anti-abortion crowd, what is your real solution? Are you going to put pregnant women under house arrest to make sure they don't get abortions? Or are you just going to overturn Roe v. Wade and pretend you accomplished something.
> 
> How about prostitution? Prostitution is illegal in 49 states. Yet it is believed that there are 1 million working prostitutes in the United States today, and you can find massage parlors, strip joints and escort services pretty easily.
> 
> Okay, how about alcohol? Remember prohibition? (Well, even I'm not *that* old.) Well guess what, that didn't stop people from drinking. People found all sorts of imaginative ways to get around that law, Al Capone was pretty much openly smuggling alcohol into the country or making it illegally and the only way the government actually got him was on income tax evasion.
> 
> How's that war on drugs working out for you? Well, not so well. According to estimates, 19.1 million Americans over the age of 12 have used drugs within the last 30 days. "Just Say No (not today)" We spend billions on it, lock up more people than any country in the world. Hey, how many drug users are you going to want to cut loose to make room for the abortion patients?
> 
> 
> Now, taking all of these factors into account- Exactly what mechanism are you guys going to use to ban abortion? Because none of these other prohibitions seem to work terribly well, especially when law enforcement is already stretched pretty thin.


It is encouraging people to break the law, which holds less and less credence because of it's flagrant disregard for the truth.


----------



## JoeB131

EvilCat Breath said:


> never said I cared about kids. We don't abort enough kids. We need more chop shops. I'm not scared enough to think it's not killing a human being.



Wow, you changed your name.   You still need professional help. 



Stann said:


> It is encouraging people to break the law, which holds less and less credence because of it's flagrant disregard for the truth.



True.  of course, the problem is we have so many laws you can't take a walk without breaking one.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Colin norris said:


> Oh dear.  Now you've relied on sex education as a defence.
> Your ignorance qualified you for retrospective abortion


There you go, if they understand basic sex education, there goes the abortion problem.


----------



## Colin norris

Captain Caveman said:


> There you go, if they understand basic sex education, there goes the abortion problem.


I have no knowledge of the massive reservoir you have.  Breathtaking outbursts of massive researched documentation like that blow me away. 
I'm sorry I engaged you forcing you to divulge your inner most  talents. 
You are simply outstanding.(in many ways)


----------



## Captain Caveman

Colin norris said:


> I have no knowledge of the massive reservoir you have.  Breathtaking outbursts of massive researched documentation like that blow me away.
> I'm sorry I engaged you forcing you to divulge your inner most  talents.
> You are simply outstanding.(in many ways)


Listen idiot, contraception and sex education is very simple. Thickos of this need abortions. So wind your neck in and go out and try to educate the thickos where babies come from. And the result from their retardism, a baby.

Those who can't grasp this, go and get your reproductive parts cut off because you haven't got the brains to be fucking responsible with them.

So quit your fucking lofty shite, blame the brain dead that they can't grasp fucking basic sex education at school.

It's annoying ***** like you where we wished your parents used contraception.


----------

