California's Brown Signs Bill Permitting Non-Physician Abortions

[koshergrl]

I think the people who think other people should die should take the first hit.

I think that anyway, but if it diverts them from their fixed intent to commit infanticide and, incidentally, to treat women like shit...well, I'm for it.

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Who are you to decide when people shouldn't be having sex? Or telling them what to do with their bodies?

Hey, here's a whacky idea. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

 

[Sallow]

and some physicians, arguing that it amounted to legalizing back-alley abortions for profit.

Good for Brown.... he hit the right nerve. -

its not back ally when the physician puts the gal in bankruptcy ...

.

yep dead babies tend to "hit a nerve" with normal people

What dead babies?

 

[Sallow]

I think the people who think other people should die should take the first hit.

I think that anyway, but if it diverts them from their fixed intent to commit infanticide and, incidentally, to treat women like shit...well, I'm for it.

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.
This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Sure it does.

If it didn't, then she'd have no right to kill disease..which is a form of life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

 

[koshergrl]

Brilliant. Run with that. Babies are a disease.

 

[Sallow]

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Who are you to decide when people shouldn't be having sex? Or telling them what to do with their bodies?

Hey, here's a whacky idea. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

There's that.

And the fact that humans are as driven to have sex..as they are to eat.

It's a hard wired thing..and if it wasn't?

There'd be no more humans.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, okay. So you maintain we have no control over our sexual impulses.

Got it. That's the same argument that depraved individuals who want to legalize things like rape and sex with animals say.

 

[Jroc]

Good for Brown.... he hit the right nerve. -

its not back ally when the physician puts the gal in bankruptcy ...

.

yep dead babies tend to "hit a nerve" with normal people

What dead babies?

This baby can be killed in California

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZsAwnd4Msg]24 week premature baby - Toby's journey - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Oh, okay. So you maintain we have no control over our sexual impulses.

Got it. That's the same argument that depraved individuals who want to legalize things like rape and sex with animals say.

There's rules about eating too.

Look it up.

 

[kaz]

Who needs a doctor when youi're killing babies?..Women's rights?

Just so you know, women are not prevented from seeing a doctor...

The idea that government has the right to tell anyone ever who they are allowed to get medical care from is an abomination of liberty.

the abomination of liberty is lowering the standards of care in order to lower the costs.

All hail the great government God who is protecting us from making our own decisions about our own wallets and our own bodies.

 

[kaz]

ok, if abortion is really a solution to a problem, how about this. We abort all anchor babies. that would solve a problem

Abortion, when government suddenly becomes the decision maker...

It's a woman's body. I am entitled to my opinion, I am not entitled to make her decision for her. Either way.

except it is NOT a woman's body. It is murder of a human being.

Do you want to get government off prosecution of murdering human beings - let's say in 12 trimester? i

should we return to the ancient times? women and children at ANY stage of development were not considered human as well and no government involvement in killing a child or a woman? precious liberty - do you want to return to such a one?
NO?
WHY?
What is the difference?

Strawmen aside, the baby does not have a right to the woman's body. Which is why your strawmen were strawmen. I am not talking about what is the right and wrong decision, I'm talking about who makes the decision. That you want politicians and bureaucrats to tell the woman under what circumstances she makes choices over her body and when they do is wrong.

You have plenty of options though under liberty. Information campaigns, providing her with choices by spending your own time and money helping her or contributing to a charity to do it. But to run to government and tell them you want them to use the power of guns to do it for you is pathetic. Grow a pair and do something about it, don't ask other people to use force to do it for you.

 

[kaz]

I think the people who think other people should die should take the first hit.

I think that anyway, but if it diverts them from their fixed intent to commit infanticide and, incidentally, to treat women like shit...well, I'm for it.

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

"I" am sanctimonious. LOL.

 

[kaz]

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.
This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Sure it does.

If it didn't, then she'd have no right to kill disease..which is a form of life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

What a stupid argument. I hate when liberals argue on my side, it's enough work already...

 

[koshergrl]

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

"I" am sanctimonious. LOL.

Yes, "you" are. When "you" presume to advise me on whether or not I can do better, and how I should better couch my argument.

Maybe condescending is a better term. Either way, it's annoying and does not bode well for you in your interactions with me.

 

[kaz]

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

"I" am sanctimonious. LOL.

Yes, "you" are. When "you" presume to advise me on whether or not I can do better, and how I should better couch my argument.

Maybe condescending is a better term. Either way, it's annoying and does not bode well for you in your interactions with me.

I see, but you saying I "think other people should die" and have an "intent" to commit infanticide is reasonable debate. What I said was that the baby does not have a right to another person's body.

It makes no difference to your interactions with me because you're not capable of getting to me. But your double standard is worthy of the liberals at their "best."

Maybe if you tried effective solutions on your own rather than running to government with guns to force their will on women who don't recognize government's rights over their bodies, you would find your campaign against abortion to be a lot more effective. You do that, and I'll donate. I'd love you to persuade and offer women to not get abortions effectively. Force won't work.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say you thought other people should die.

So much for that. I didn't read any further.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the people who think other people should die should take the first hit.

I think that anyway, but if it diverts them from their fixed intent to commit infanticide and, incidentally, to treat women like shit...well, I'm for it.

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Ignorant nonsense.

All persons are guaranteed the right to privacy by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments in the context of substantive due process. See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Consequently, the state is prohibited from placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to access an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, where such measures would result in a violation of that right to privacy.

This case law neither ‘condones’ abortion nor ‘compels’ others to have an abortion, it simply prohibits the state from crossing into the personal, private realm of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution, and in no way preempts citizens from pursuing other means to bring about the end of the practice.

Moreover, not all pregnancies result from consensual sex and pregnancy can also result from intercourse where the woman has made a good faith effort to prevent pregnancy where contraception methods have unexpectedly failed.

Last, “this whole thing’ is simply about the right of individuals to be free from unwanted and unwarranted government interference concerning matters both personal and private. That you ‘disapprove’ of how adults might conduct their private lives is thankfully irrelevant, and we have the Constitution and its case law to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you manifest.

 

[kaz]

All persons are guaranteed the right to privacy by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments

Actually the working one here is the 10th amendment. I know liberals don't like to use that one since you consider it road kill. That is why Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Even though I'm clearly pro-choice, unlike Republicans and Democrats, I have intellectual integrity. And the Feds overstepping their authority is a far greater threat to our liberty than any freedom they support. That which they can give, they can take away. The Feds have no say on abortion either to enable or ban it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All persons are guaranteed the right to privacy by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments

Actually the working one here is the 10th amendment. I know liberals don't like to use that one since you consider it road kill. That is why Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Even though I'm clearly pro-choice, unlike Republicans and Democrats, I have intellectual integrity. And the Feds overstepping their authority is a far greater threat to our liberty than any freedom they support. That which they can give, they can take away. The Feds have no say on abortion either to enable or ban it.

States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution protects the right of privacy.

States can thus not pass laws that violate the right of privacy.

 

[koshergrl]

Arguing like a liberal is beneath you. I know you're smarter than that.

To believe a woman has a right to her body isn't believing other people should die or having a fixed intent to commit infanticide.

I'll tell you what I tell liberals when they do that. Your inability to accurately address my actual view doesn't speak well for your conviction in the truth of your own argument.

Don't tell me how to argue, you sanctimonious twit. A woman's *right to her body* doesn't extend to destroying the life that is dependent upon her body for protection and sustenance.

This whole thing is simply about protecting the *choice* of people to have sex when they shouldn't be having sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. You don't HAVE to have sex. You CHOOSE to have sex. And at the time you CHOOSE to have sex, you also CHOOSE whether or not you are prepared to deal with the chance that you may create another life. THAT is the choice you need to be looking at. Not the CHOICE to kill another life, when you made a stupid choice earlier.

Ignorant nonsense.

All persons are guaranteed the right to privacy by the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments in the context of substantive due process. See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Consequently, the state is prohibited from placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to access an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, where such measures would result in a violation of that right to privacy.

This case law neither ‘condones’ abortion nor ‘compels’ others to have an abortion, it simply prohibits the state from crossing into the personal, private realm of individual liberty safeguarded by the Constitution, and in no way preempts citizens from pursuing other means to bring about the end of the practice.

Moreover, not all pregnancies result from consensual sex and pregnancy can also result from intercourse where the woman has made a good faith effort to prevent pregnancy where contraception methods have unexpectedly failed.

Last, “this whole thing’ is simply about the right of individuals to be free from unwanted and unwarranted government interference concerning matters both personal and private. That you ‘disapprove’ of how adults might conduct their private lives is thankfully irrelevant, and we have the Constitution and its case law to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you manifest.

The right to privacy and the right to kill your child are not the same.

So let's review..who's ignorant again? Can you provide me the definition of "privacy" that includes "abortion"or "murder" as acts that are protected by "privacy" laws?

Is burglary also protected by "privacy" laws? I mean, if nobody sees it, it's nobody's business, right? It's not like the homeowner FEELS anything when the back door gets kicked in and the tv yanked from the wall..