Can Reps modify abortion stance?

Show were your religious bias changes abortion to murder, please.

No deflection.

ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER

There, I just changed abortion to murder. What ya' going to do about it? Anything? I'll be waiting. Want to see it again? I can type it 100 more times...if you'd like.

CG, your religious bias will not control the law.

Here, here's some more info which proves you wrong.

UTAH

Refusal to Provide Medical Services

ABORTION REFUSAL CLAUSE

Utah allows certain individuals and organizations to refuse to provide abortion services.

To whom does the refusal clause apply? Health-care facilities, including hospitals, hospices, nursing-care facilities, residential assisted-living facilities, birthing centers, ambulatory surgical facilities, and facilities owned or operated by health-maintenance organizations, as well as individuals associated with health-care facilities.

What does the refusal clause allow? A health-care provider or organization may, on religious or moral ground, refuse to provide or participate in abortion services, or refuse to admit a patient for abortion care. The refusal to participate may not be a basis for damages, disciplinary action, or other recriminatory action. Moral or religious objections to abortion may not be a basis for discrimination in hiring in the state.

Does the law require the refusing entity to notify the persons affected? No.

Are there circumstances under which a refusal clause may not be exercised? Maybe.

Does the law require the refusing individual or entity to provide medically and factually accurate information or provide a referral for abortion services? No.

Does the law provide a mechanism for women to otherwise obtain specific reproductive-health services, information, or referrals if an individual and/or entity exercises a refusal clause? No.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-306 (Original Statute Enacted 1973; Repealed and Reenacted 1974; Last Amended 2011).

Utah :: NARAL Pro-Choice America

So, what was that you were saying about what...controlling what...again?
[/QUOTE]
 
I have never seen so many assbite old people in one place before.

You are quite possibly the most ignorant nut I have ever seen.

It's both stunning and disheartening that such a nasty bit of misogynistic propaganda has actually become part of some people's belief system.

Let's let go of the fairy tales and inject some hard, cold reality into your closed, controlling, blind minds.

First of all, abortion's been around since the dawn of civilization. So has birth control. So have fertility methods. Abortions happened in the holy land during the biblical eras.

Why is there religious, selfish, and right wing "outrage" over abortion? The religious argument is simple - breed more and there will be more of us, we will outnumber them and their armies. We can eventually control the world! Go team us!!

The selfish argument is equally simple - a woman is unable to have children, so she tries to forcibly project onto other women - they HAVE to want to have babies as much as she does!

The right wing argument is a bit more complex - and deeply hateful.

First of all, in a patriarchal society, it's easier to keep women "out of the way" if they're constantly pregnant, recovering from childbirth, nursing, or chasing after little ones. So let's keep 'em barefoot and pregnant.

In a patriarchal society gone full-blown mysoginistic, it's okay for a man to screw around, but if a woman does it she's a slut, a whore. He's cool, she's evil. And what better way to prove she's a whore than to force her to carry a child like a watermelon-sized scarlet letter?

If a woman remains single, by her choice or by the baby's father's choice, then she's extra bad for refusing to bring the child up in a two-parent household. It doesn't matter if she was raped, she's bad for staying single.

And that's exactly the way it would be if the lunatic fringe had their way. This poor creature would have to publicly explain herself and her situation to everyone that gazed upon her and called out, "Shame! Shame!"

A single or married woman with a child is more likely to have to work part-time, and more likely to be called away from work if the child gets sick. In the old days it was an excuse used by employers (including several that I worked for) to not hire women or to refuse to pay or promote them fairly.

When women started having fewer kids and were better able to work full time the boys-only he-man club went bonkers. The worked overtime spreading all sorts of lies about abortions.

And you fuckwits bought into those lies.
 
Well in just this thread there are you, Joe, and Jake and Grandma...and the only time the 4 of you are ever happy is when you think of dead babies filling up the bio-hazard dumpsters.

Pro abortionists are sick puppies who support the killing of millions of human beings by calling them fetus, as if they are not living human beings (scientifically incorrect). They do this with the same self righteous attitude that allowed whites to legally kill black Americans by calling them ni**ers, as if they were less than complete human beings too...end of story.

Nobody is pro-abortion...end of story.
 
You have not shown that abortion is murder by legal authority, except 3rd-party interference in a pregnant women's life, which is assault resulting in death. No abortion by itself is not murder.

The GOP will expand the abortion plank to include rape and incest exceptions.
Murder is a legal matter, not your opinion.

I already showed you what the legal matter concerning the death of an unborn child or attempted death of an unborn child is. Ask the guy who was charged with murder when he killed a woman's unborn child because he was drinking and driving what the legal matter is. Ask the guy who attempted to kill a woman's unborn child by stomping on her stomach and was brought up on attempted murder charges what the legal matter is.

And, besides, the fact of the matter is this. I can sit here can call it "murder" all day long and there isn't squat you can do about it except repeat your talking points per verbatim until you're blue in the face. So, yes, murder IS a matter of my opinion and, when I decide I'm going to say a woman -- when getting an abortion -- is "murdering" her child, that's what I'm going to say and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop me. You repeating like a broken record, "Murder is a legal matter, not your opinion" isn't going to stop me from saying it's "murder". Got it...Chuck? I mean, really, what is it you think you're going to do about it if I claim a woman aborting her child is a "murderer", who committed "murder"? Anything? I can type "Abortion is murder" here on this thread as many times as I desire and all you can do is just simply say, "Murder is a legal matter, not your opinion" or some variation thereof...nothing more. Too bad...so sad...eh? Want to see something cool? Watch.

ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER
ABORTION IS MURDER

Wow, would you look at that? I said it seven times. So, now, what are you going to do about it?

CG, your religious bias will not control the law.

What's alleged religious bias got to do with anything? You trying to say one has to be religious, to be opposed to murder? And, you have no authority in telling me what controls what. And, besides, my alleged religious bias already does control the law. In my state, one has to wait 72 hours before they can get an abortion. It was the religious bias of Utahns, as well as those biased against murder, which compelled this law. Oops...laughs on you...isn't it? So, we'll see who and what controls what.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Roo, are you a Christian? Simple question.

Well in just this thread there are you, Joe, and Jake and Grandma...and the only time the 4 of you are ever happy is when you think of dead babies filling up the bio-hazard dumpsters.

Pro abortionists are sick puppies who support the killing of millions of human beings by calling them fetus, as if they are not living human beings (scientifically incorrect). They do this with the same self righteous attitude that allowed whites to legally kill black Americans by calling them ni**ers, as if they were less than complete human beings too...end of story.

Nobody is pro-abortion...end of story.
 
He never claimed it was murder by legal authority. In fact he claimed he viewed it as murder...and I have pointed out that when it comes to human rights offenses, the current law in which the offenses are committed will not protect you later.
 
I am smart enough to understand that human life begins at conception.

It can't be a horse, or a pig , or a cow.

Its a human.

I have no need of mental gymnastics to justify its death.

Now, abortion is the law of the land, so be it.

But you aren't killing a fetus, or a zygote, you are killing a baby.

Its just that simple.
 
Roo, if you are not a Christian, that's fine. A question is not an assumption.

You are entitled to your opinions concerning abortion, but you will see the GOP party platform include exceptions for rape and incest in 2016.
 
Thats fine, but abortion will not break up the party.


Roo, if you are not a Christian, that's fine. A question is not an assumption.

You are entitled to your opinions concerning abortion, but you will see the GOP party platform include exceptions for rape and incest in 2016.
 
I dearly hope you are correct about the far right. We can get the Presidency and keep the House without the far right, but we need to take the Senate as well. We need the women, the Hispanics, and the far right for that.

Thats fine, but abortion will not break up the party.
Roo, if you are not a Christian, that's fine. A question is not an assumption. You are entitled to your opinions concerning abortion, but you will see the GOP party platform include exceptions for rape and incest in 2016.
 
I gave you your answer. There is no such thing as "pro abortion", there is only pro choice. .



The issue you need to come to terms with is why you have such a hard time accepting that YOUR position is PRO ABORTION.

No, the issue they all need to come to terms with is WHY "nobody is ever pro-abortion" and WHY "abortion is no big deal". Hear anyone rushing to volunteer to answer these questions? Fuck no, because they know it reveals them for the evil pieces of shit they know they are, rather than the warm, fuzzy, nice people their therapists tell them they are.
 
Truthfully, there aren't any conditions that I'm aware of in which having a baby is a death sentence. I think diabetes is potentially dangerous for both mother and child, but I know a lot of diabetics who have had healthy babies and who didn't die themselves. Toxemia is potentially life threatening, but generally doesn't show up until the end of the pregnancy, and most women opt to carry the child anyway.

So what are all these "conditions" which result in pregnancy being a death sentence?

Usually, it's something like her being diagnosed with cancer and needing radiation or chemo, and not wanting to take a chance on waiting until after the baby is born.

And, of course, they do love to hide behind things like ectopic pregnancies, as though any pro-lifer who knows what an ectopic pregnancy is considers it to be truly under the "abortion" heading. Yes, of course it falls under the medical heading of abortion, but it's not what we're talking about, and it's disingenuous for them to pretend that it is.

The Association of Pro-Life Physicians maintains that there are no cases when the intentional killing of an unborn child is medically necessary or justified. Agree with their abortion stance or not, but no one here can argue that they don't know more about medicine than a bunch of yahoos on a message board.
 
Truthfully, there aren't any conditions that I'm aware of in which having a baby is a death sentence. I think diabetes is potentially dangerous for both mother and child, but I know a lot of diabetics who have had healthy babies and who didn't die themselves. Toxemia is potentially life threatening, but generally doesn't show up until the end of the pregnancy, and most women opt to carry the child anyway.

So what are all these "conditions" which result in pregnancy being a death sentence?

An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.[1] With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the mother, since internal haemorrhage is a life-threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

SOURCE: Ectopic pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, if Wikipedia says it, it MUST be true. Because everyone knows that Wikipedia is only written by experts, and rigorously fact-checked. :rolleyes:

Here's what the Association of Pro-Life Physicians says about ectopic pregnancies:

The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.

What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.

However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.

A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.

One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.

However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.

Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.

It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.


I think perhaps we can agree that they MIGHT know a bit more about medicine than Wikipedia.
 
I will define yours: all of your posts together clearly reflect "no abortion under any condition".



That's #2.


Fakey the dimwit literally CANNOT post anything but one of his three (and only three) responses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is that nobody is pro abortion. People may support a woman's right to control her own body, but that does not mean they are "pro" abortion. Nobody is out there saying "rah, rah, lets all get an abortion".

Who EVER said "abortion is no big deal"?

"Nobody is pro-abortion because nobody is pro-abortion" is not an answer. It's an admission that you're a poltroon and full of shit.

Not that we didn't all know that about you, but thanks for admitting that you actually do know it, as well. And thank you also for embracing the title of "pro-abortion".

Tuck tail and run away now, pro-abortion coward. Come back if you ever have the guts to answer the question.

I gave you your answer. There is no such thing as "pro abortion", there is only pro choice. That you don't like the answer is your hang up not mine.

Correct.

No one is ‘pro abortion.’

The issue centers on the solution.

Those of us who are opposed to abortion are opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; such measures will simply drive the practice underground.

Those of us who are opposed to abortion are opposed to laws banning abortion because these laws would violate the Constitutional right to privacy. Moreover, these laws would grant unwarranted power to the state to interfere in citizens’ personal lives.

The conflict centers on how to end the practice, or at least reduce its occurrence as much as possible, not that abortion is wrong or immoral – which it clearly is.
 
I gave you your answer. There is no such thing as "pro abortion", there is only pro choice. That you don't like the answer is your hang up not mine.

Since my question was NOT "Is there such a thing as 'pro-abortion'", that cannot possibly be the answer. Reading for comprehension is fun. Try it sometime.

That you can't answer means you're pro-abortion and embracing it. That you don't like that is YOUR hangup, not mine. Unlike you, I was able to read and understand my post.

You're finished here, pro-abortion coward. Buh bye.

You would like to attribute to me your views of my views on abortion. It does't work, but you can keep trying. It's the conservative thing to do after all.

I attribute to you those views on abortion that YOU have expressed, and in this series of posts, I haven't really "attributed" much of anything to you. I've simply labeled YOUR OWN WORDS in a way that you don't like, because it's too accurate.

There's no attribution involved in trying to get you to answer questions. If you don't like the fact that your own twisting and dodging and evading reveals you too clearly, that's not my fault. Just answer the questions, and then we'll all know for sure, won't we?

If you're NOT going to answer the questions, though, I'd appreciate it if you stop wasting my time trying to rationalize yourself, Pro-Abortion. That's really an issue for you and your therapist.
 
Truthfully, there aren't any conditions that I'm aware of in which having a baby is a death sentence. I think diabetes is potentially dangerous for both mother and child, but I know a lot of diabetics who have had healthy babies and who didn't die themselves. Toxemia is potentially life threatening, but generally doesn't show up until the end of the pregnancy, and most women opt to carry the child anyway.

So what are all these "conditions" which result in pregnancy being a death sentence?

Pregnancy is the most dangerous thing most women ever encounter in their lives.

http://globalhealth.duke.edu/documents/ABC_Challenge_Maternal_Health_Facts.pdf

Aside from crossing a street in a major metropolitan area.

Living life is risky. You can't do it wrapped in cotton batting. That's no reason for you pro-abortionists to treat pregnancy as though it's a diagnosis of stage three pancreatic cancer.
 
"Nobody is pro-abortion because nobody is pro-abortion" is not an answer. It's an admission that you're a poltroon and full of shit.

Not that we didn't all know that about you, but thanks for admitting that you actually do know it, as well. And thank you also for embracing the title of "pro-abortion".

Tuck tail and run away now, pro-abortion coward. Come back if you ever have the guts to answer the question.

I gave you your answer. There is no such thing as "pro abortion", there is only pro choice. That you don't like the answer is your hang up not mine.

Correct.

No one is ‘pro abortion.’

The issue centers on the solution.

Those of us who are opposed to abortion are opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; such measures will simply drive the practice underground.

Those of us who are opposed to abortion are opposed to laws banning abortion because these laws would violate the Constitutional right to privacy. Moreover, these laws would grant unwarranted power to the state to interfere in citizens’ personal lives.

The conflict centers on how to end the practice, or at least reduce its occurrence as much as possible, not that abortion is wrong or immoral – which it clearly is.

You can kiss up and pander to her all you want. You're still not going to get laid.

Meanwhile, no one asked you to define "the issue" for us, and I would think by now you would have learned that no one WANTS you to define it, or intends to allow you to define it. We could all save a lot of time and energy if you pro-abortionists would quit bloviating endlessly on the wonders of your worldview and just answered the fucking questions you work so hard to evade.

Just because you're stupid enough to think no one notices that you never answer the question doesn't mean WE'RE stupid enough not to notice.

So see if your next post can contain something vaguely replicating an answer to these questions, Pro-Abortion:

You claim "nobody is ever 'pro-abortion'. Why not? What's wrong with it, that you so strenuously resist being labeled as being in favor of it? If it's no big deal, as your rhetoric makes it seem, what's the problem with openly supporting it? And if it IS a big deal, as Pro-Abortionist Seawych claimed before running away again like a scalded bitch, WHY is it a big deal?

For the record, I don't think you'll answer. I think you're a chickenshit little pussy who likes to give grand speeches to impress the "wimmens", but your balls crawl up inside you and hide at the idea of ever having to really explore the reasons behind what you profess and explain them to others and yourself.

Amuse us all and prove me wrong about what a lame little poltroon I believe you to be. Give me a real shock and man up for once.

Yeah, right. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top