A woman faces a murder charge in Texas over an alleged self-induced abortion

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives are not anarchists. We recognize the need and legitimacy of government, when applied to certain purposes, and that among the most essential of these purposes is the protection of innocent human beings from those who would murder them in cold blood.

It is telling that you are such an evil, murderous, subhuman piece of shit that you see it as “more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty” and “neo-fascist authoritarian” that we should desire for government to carry out this most basic duty.

Conservatives seek more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – indeed, the neo-fascist authoritarian right is willing to go as far as subjecting women to criminal prosecution for no other reason than exercising their right to privacy.

 

[JoeB131]

If you didn't take the Bible out of context you wouldn't doubt it so readily.

Still waiting for you to give Magic Abortion Potion a context where it isn't just as awful as it sounds.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Conservatives seek more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – indeed, the neo-fascist authoritarian right is willing to go as far as subjecting women to criminal prosecution for no other reason than exercising their right to privacy.

You're one projectionist bitch

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But the problem is, the government can't carry out this "duty" without eliminating freedom.

Libertinism is not viable.

Where one person's “freedom” results needlessly and unjustifiably in death of another, that is a point where government has a duty to step in and suppress that “freedom”.

 

[JoeB131]

Libertinism is not viable.

Where one person's “freedom” results needlessly and unjustifiably in death of another, that is a point where government has a duty to step in and suppress that “freedom”.

So libertinism is "bad" and libertarianism is "good".

So really, the left and right are pretty much in agreement that some activities should be suppressed, they are just in disagreements about which ones.

By your own logic, if a "Freedom" results needlessly and justifiably in deaths of others, you should be 100% for banning private gun ownership, which results in 43,000 deaths every year in this country.

But just like the left uses the 14th Amendment to find an imaginary right to abortion, the right uses the Militia amendment to find an imaginary right to unrestricted gun ownership.

Now, I used to be anti-abortion. It was one of the last bits of vestigial Catholicism I hung on to. Then I realized as a practical matter, you can't really practically outlaw abortions. Just ask the Filipinos, who have the kinds of laws you want and still have 500K+ abortions a year. I also realized that the right has been playing the religious zealots for years.

Ever wonder why Roe has stood for 50 years, but the rich always get their tax cuts when Republicans are in charge, no matter what the economic conditions are?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By your own logic, if a "Freedom" results needlessly and justifiably in deaths of others, you should be 100% for banning private gun ownership, which results in 43,000 deaths every year in this country.

The overwhelming vast majority of privately, owned guns are never used to commit any act of violence against any human beings. The overwhelming vast majority of those who own guns never commit any significant crimes. By a great stretch, you're claiming guns to be involved in 43,000 deaths every year.

By contrast, every single abortion results in the tragic death of an innocent human being. Everyone who has any willing part in an abortion is a murderer, or at least a willing accomplice to a murderer. And thousands of the very most precious and innocent of all human beings are murdered this way in cold blood, every day. Tens of thousands each month; millions each year.

It is telling that you wish to deny human beings an important tool to protect ourselves form subhuman criminals shit, yet you openly, unabashedly take the side of the very lowest, the very worst of murderers.

You defend abortion as a “freedom”, but not the right to keep and bear arms.

This only goes to show what an evil, depraved, insane, soulless piece of shit you truly are.

 

[JoeB131]

The overwhelming vast majority of privately, owned guns are never used to commit any act of violence against any human beings. The overwhelming vast majority of those who own guns never commit any significant crimes. By a great stretch, you're claiming guns to be involved in 43,000 deaths every year.

Not a great stretch at all, those are the CDC's numbers.

By contrast, every single abortion results in the tragic death of an innocent human being. Everyone who has any willing part in an abortion is a murderer, or at least a willing accomplice to a murderer. And thousands of the very most precious and innocent of all human beings are murdered this way in cold blood, every day. Tens of thousands each month; millions each year.

Only if you accept fetuses are people, which the law, medical science and even your own bible says they are not.

It is telling that you wish to deny human beings an important tool to protect ourselves form subhuman criminals shit, yet you openly, unabashedly take the side of the very lowest, the very worst of murderers.

Except the vast majority of those who die from gun violence are suicides and domestic violence... not at the hands of criminals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By contrast, every single abortion results in the tragic death of an innocent human being. Everyone who has any willing part in an abortion is a murderer, or at least a willing accomplice to a murderer. And thousands of the very most precious and innocent of all human beings are murdered this way in cold blood, every day. Tens of thousands each month; millions each year.

Only if you accept fetuses are people, which the law, medical science and even your own bible says they are not.

By that logic, then, the Nazis did no wrong when they exterminated millions of Untermenschen, which, by the laws in effect in Germany at the time, were not recognized fully as people either. And our own ancestors did nothing wrong by abducting what they did not fully recognize as legal human beings from Africa, to bring here to be used as farm animals.

Hard science refutes your lies. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception; and denying their humanity, and on that basis, denying them the most essential of human rights, to the point of denying them even the right to live, makes you no better than the Nazis or the Communists or the slave traders or all the other villains throughout history who have used the same excuse to justify horrendous abuses of other humans, up to the point of mass murder.

Except the vast majority of those who die from gun violence are suicides and domestic violence... not at the hands of criminals.

Committing a crime against a family member does not make one any less a criminal than committing a crime against a stranger.

 

[JoeB131]

By that logic, then, the Nazis did no wrong when they exterminated millions of Untermenschen, which, by the laws in effect in Germany at the time, were not recognized fully as people either. And our own ancestors did nothing wrong by abducting what they did not fully recognize as legal human beings from Africa, to bring here to be used as farm animals.

Except the law NEVER recognized fetuses as people, even when abortion was illegal.

Nazis didn't change the laws to exterminate the Jews, they just ignored the laws. There was never a "Kill the Jews" Law passed in the German Reichstag.

Hard science refutes your lies. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception; and denying their humanity, and on that basis, denying them the most essential of human rights, to the point of denying them even the right to live, makes you no better than the Nazis or the Communists or the slave traders or all the other villains throughout history who have used the same excuse to justify horrendous abuses of other humans, up to the point of mass murder.

Oh, please stop being a Drama Queen. Medical science recognizes a fetus as being a person when it is viable. They kind of have to, 2/3rd of eggs conceived never attach to the Uterine Wall. 6% of pregnancies' are ectopic (the egg attaches to the wall of the fallopian tube and has to be removed. ) 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Now, it would seem to me if these were real people, we'd be a lot more upset about them. Nope. Doctors just treat them and we don't have funerals for the medical waste.

Again, I'd take your side a lot more seriously on this issue, if you weren't constantly trying to cut aid to poor children to give tax breaks to rich people. No Dressage Horse left behind.

Committing a crime against a family member does not make one any less a criminal than committing a crime against a stranger.

Except they didn't become a "criminal" until they committed that crime. A crime the wouldn't be able to commit if a gun wasn't in the house during an argument that got out of hand.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Committing a crime against a family member does not make one any less a criminal than committing a crime against a stranger.

Except they didn't become a "criminal" until they committed that crime.

No different from any other crime. No human being becomes a criminal until that moment when he makes the choice to forfeit his humanity and commit a crime.

Whether that first crime is against a family member, or against a stranger, has no bearing at all on this.

A crime the wouldn't be able to commit if a gun wasn't in the house during an argument that got out of hand.

Plenty of domestic violence, up to and including murder, takes place without any kind of firearm being involved.

The gun is not the problem. The former human being, who has chosen to forfeit his humanity, is the problem.

Of course, you always take the side of criminals against the side of human beings. Always. This puts the lie to everything that you ever have to say about crime, or what do do about it.

 

[JoeB131]

No different from any other crime. No human being becomes a criminal until that moment when he makes the choice to forfeit his humanity and commit a crime.

Whether that first crime is against a family member, or against a stranger, has no bearing at all on this.

Except there wouldn't have been a crime if a gun hadn't been available.

Plenty of domestic violence, up to and including murder, takes place without any kind of firearm being involved.

The gun is not the problem. The former human being, who has chosen to forfeit his humanity, is the problem.

Of course, you always take the side of criminals against the side of human beings. Always. This puts the lie to everything that you ever have to say about crime, or what do do about it.

Uh, guy, given your temper issues, I think you should probably be a little more understanding. You sound like you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Uh, guy, given your temper issues, I think you should probably be a little more understanding. You sound like you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 635637

I'm not the one who goes around fantasizing about murdering women like you do, Mormon Bob.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not the one who goes around fantasizing about murdering women like you do, Mormon Bob.

You support the murder of innocent children. And your false accusation against me of “…fantasizing about murdering women” is based on me wanting those who murder children to be brought to proper justice.

Just one more datum showing just how morally- and ethically fucked-up you truly are, that you support he murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and oppose any kind of justice for them, to the degree that you characterize justice itself as “murder”.

Just a small part of your broader character of always taking the side of subhuman criminal; shit against the side of human beings. The more extreme end of it, in fact, where you take the side of the very worst of murderers against that of the very most innocent and precious of all human beings.

 

[JoeB131]

You support the murder of innocent children. And your false accusation against me of “…fantasizing about murdering women” is based on me wanting those who murder children to be brought to proper justice.

Only sociopaths support the death penalty...
And that you want to murder a woman for getting rid of a kidney bean sized fetus shows you are a totally fucked up cultist.

Except even your cult isn't that fucked up. The Mormon position on Choice is actually, not unreasonable.

Surprise! The LDS Church can be seen as more âpro-choiceâ than âpro-lifeâ on abortion. Hereâs why.

It may seem counterintuitive to some, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leans more toward “pro-choice” on abortion than strictly “pro-life” — and even many devout members don’t fully grasp that.

www.sltrib.com

Just one more datum showing just how morally- and ethically fucked-up you truly are, that you support he murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and oppose any kind of justice for them, to the degree that you characterize justice itself as “murder”.

Capital punishment isn't "justice", it's revenge.

There's a main reason I oppose Capital punishment in general. People make mistakes. Cops lie, prosecutors want to keep their convictions rates up, lab techs make mistakes.

Unlike life in prison, once you've executed someone by mistake, you can't fix the mistake.

I should also point out that NO COUNTRY has ever executed women for having abortions. The closest we ever got is Nazi Germany and it's puppet regimes executed abortion providers (The religious nuts who ran Vichy France, for instance). So this is the kind of company you are keeping. Nazis and religious nuts.

Me. I like living in a free country. I might not approve of a woman who uses abortion as contraception, but I also realize she is probably going to do so.

Just a small part of your broader character of always taking the side of subhuman criminal; shit against the side of human beings. The more extreme end of it, in fact, where you take the side of the very worst of murderers against that of the very most innocent and precious of all human beings.

Yeah, guy, here's the thing... even the other anti-abortion nuts shy away from punishing the women, much less murdering them. Trump tried to take the hard line stance and completely walked it back hours later.

I frankly wish your side would make "Executing women who have abortions" a plank on your platform, so everyone can see how crazy you are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There's a main reason I oppose Capital punishment in general.

Your reason is clear enough.

You are openly on the side of subhuman criminal shit, including murderers, and against the side of human beings.

Every position that you have ever taken having anything to do with this, reflects this ethical inversion.

Given a clear choice between good and evil, between reason and madness, you always stand on the side of evil and madness. Always.

 

[JoeB131]

Your reason is clear enough.

You are openly on the side of subhuman criminal shit, including murderers, and against the side of human beings.

Every position that you have ever taken having anything to do with this, reflects this ethical inversion.

Given a clear choice between good and evil, between reason and madness, you always stand on the side of evil and madness. Always.

Uh, guy, here's the thing. Europe doesn't have the kinds of crime problems we have... because they treat the underlying causes.

You ignore the racism, the poverty and the untreated mental illness, and then try to treat crime as a "moral" problem. There's a moral problem, but it's society's moral problem.

True, you will always have the sociopath, even in a utopian society... but we are far from utopian.

 

[busybee01]

Libertinism is not viable.

Where one person's “freedom” results needlessly and unjustifiably in death of another, that is a point where government has a duty to step in and suppress that “freedom”.

When does a fetus become a person? The chances of a fetus living outside of the womb is very low up until the 25th week of pregnancy. What you want to do is play God. That is between the woman and God. Not right wing fanatics like you.

 

[busybee01]

By that logic, then, the Nazis did no wrong when they exterminated millions of Untermenschen, which, by the laws in effect in Germany at the time, were not recognized fully as people either. And our own ancestors did nothing wrong by abducting what they did not fully recognize as legal human beings from Africa, to bring here to be used as farm animals.

Hard science refutes your lies. A human being is a human being from the moment of conception; and denying their humanity, and on that basis, denying them the most essential of human rights, to the point of denying them even the right to live, makes you no better than the Nazis or the Communists or the slave traders or all the other villains throughout history who have used the same excuse to justify horrendous abuses of other humans, up to the point of mass murder.



Committing a crime against a family member does not make one any less a criminal than committing a crime against a stranger.

That is massive stupidity on your part. They clearly were people. When does a fetus become s person when it cannot exist outside of the womb. This has nothing to do with the Nazis, You clearly are a right wing loon. You are no different than the mullahs in Iran who impose their religious beliefs on others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When does a fetus become a person? The chances of a fetus living outside of the womb is very low up until the 25th week of pregnancy. What you want to do is play God. That is between the woman and God. Not right wing fanatics like you.

Set a two-year-old out to fend for himself, with no care from adults, and how long will he survive?

It's a hard fact of life about humans, that it takes many years for us to mature to the point of being able to care for ourselves. It may be fair to say that for many of us, perhaps most of us, we never reach a point of being able to survive without the help of others. At best, most of us, I think, reach a point where we can contribute enough to others to balance out what others must contribute to allow us to survive.

Of course, none of us achieve that before birth. None of us achieve that until many years after birth.

Your argument for denying the right of a gestating human to life would be just as valid as an argument for denying any child the right to life, up to the point where that child gains the ability to contribute as much to others as he requires to be contributed by others to his own survival.