Heartbeat act fails in Nebraska

[Mr. Friscus]

No you're not.

Because YOU do not pull people over and tell them not to speed do you?

And your analogies fail because speeding and murder aren't things that can be done to a person's own body by the person that owns that body.

What a person does to his or her own body is their business and theirs alone.

Not if what they do affects another life besides hers.

It’s like a woman putting a bomb in her abdomen and running into a crowd. After the destruction and multiple corpses emerge, you’d be there saying “ Hey.. it’s her business what she did to her body, not yours!”

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You are pathetic. Not worth talking to. I can't help you, you are obstinate and super- critical of others, which is unreasonable. Sorry Life isn't just about you and your desires. Others do exist, get over yourself.

I’m sure the fiction you’ve contrived tells you all of this is true. I don’t get why you’ve suddenly ceased discussing the issues and just tossing straw men and baseless slanders. It’s like a rage-quit in action, so uncompeling. Hey do what you want, it makes no difference to me. I can discuss the issue without being so triggered and emotional like you are. But if you can’t.. I’d say yeah you should probably stop. No need to get angry all day from a message board.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not pro-abortion.

PRO CHOICE

This doesn’t add up.

1. If you’re advocating for a specific procedure, just call it that. You’re like some corporation trying to use fluffy language. What I say is accurate.

2. If there’s nothing wrong with the procedure (as you seem to conclude), why are you hiding from claiming it?

So is it that you know it’s not good, but want to support it politically by changing what you call it? That’s quite Orwellian

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Blues Man said:
Not pro-abortion.
PRO CHOICE

This doesn’t add up.

1. If you’re advocating for a specific procedure, just call it that. You’re like some corporation trying to use fluffy language…

2. If there’s nothing wrong with the procedure (as you seem to conclude), why are you hiding from claiming it?

So is it that you know it’s not good, but want to support it politically by changing what you call it? That’s quite Orwellian

If I may I’d like to jump in here….

I think saying one is not pro-abortion, or that one is personally conflicted about abortion in certain circumstances, while remaining strongly pro-choice, is not at all “fluffy language” and certainly not “Orwellian” — it is precisely human and humane language that expresses what the great majority of women and Americans do today believe!

I would like to remind you, Mr. Friscus, that you yourself have sometimes accused “pro-abortion people” or some “3rd stage feminist movement” (whatever that is) of being unable to acknowledge conflicted human feelings about abortion — especially supposedly “elective” very late abortions in the last trimester of a healthy woman’s pregnancy.

Supporting a woman’s right to choose abortion, and at the same time recognizing that this is a personal decision that can be difficult and will not be appropriate for many … is perfectly normal. This is why we emphasize the civic and political “right to choose.”

That is the right that is in fact now being blocked, obstructed and restricted in a thousand ways by MAGA Republican state laws and new attempts to block abortion nationally. Together these amount to a “war on women” and modern American family life (not just “sexual freedom”) and an impossible attempt to turn the clock back to a time and a value system before contraception was widely used or even legal.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

If I may I’d like to jump in here….

I think saying one is not pro-abortion, or that one is personally conflicted about abortion in certain circumstances, while remaining strongly pro-choice

Is a steaming crock of shit and a blatantly dishonest euphemism, pro-abort. You lot are usually leftoids who are diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom of choice outside of hiring someone to kill the human beings you hate and want dead.

it is precisely human and humane language that expresses what the great majority of women and Americans do today believe

There is nothing humane about your barbarism, pro-abort filth.

At best you merely promote inhumanity, but you may well practice it by doing more that giving verbal support to this human rights abuse.

Together these amount to a “war on women”

I don’t want you attacking others either dude. I guess that means I want a war on you?

 

[Blues Man]

What does that have to do with anything, are the free or not to do as they wish. Their Body is not the one being extinguished

You don't want women to be free to control their own bodies as you have repeated countless times.

 

[Blues Man]

This doesn’t add up.

1. If you’re advocating for a specific procedure, just call it that. You’re like some corporation trying to use fluffy language. What I say is accurate.

2. If there’s nothing wrong with the procedure (as you seem to conclude), why are you hiding from claiming it?

So is it that you know it’s not good, but want to support it politically by changing what you call it? That’s quite Orwellian

I am not advocating for anyone to get an abortion and I never have. If you think I am then quote the post where I have advocated that anyone get an abortion.

If some women don't want the option they can CHOOSE not to get one. Some women may CHOOSE to get an abortion.

In either case the choice is not yours to make.

 

[Blues Man]

Not if what they do affects another life besides hers.

It’s like a woman putting a bomb in her abdomen and running into a crowd. After the destruction and multiple corpses emerge, you’d be there saying “ Hey.. it’s her business what she did to her body, not yours!”

All human cells are human life but not all human cells are persons.

Most abortions occur before week 12 of a pregnancy when the fetus is in no sense a person as there is no sentience, no consciousness and no real nervous system to speak of which is why I do not and never will have a problem with the most common form of abortion which is used today as it is nothing but an induced miscarriage

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I am not advocating for anyone to get an abortion and I never have. If you think I am then quote the post where I have advocated that anyone get an abortion.

If some women don't want the option they can CHOOSE not to get one. Some women may CHOOSE to get an abortion.

In either case the choice is not yours to make.

To me this is just a moral cop out

If I said “I’m not saying I support stealing, but I don’t have the right to tell anyone that it’s wrong”… well, I’d be pro-stealing. By actively stepping aside to allow it to happen, you’re indirectly supporting it.

So I think you need to stop the tap dance and just own your indirect support for abortion. Whether it’s seen as a good or a bad, you don’t get to remove yourself here..

 

[Stann]

To me this is just a moral cop out

If I said “I’m not saying I support stealing, but I don’t have the right to tell anyone that it’s wrong”… well, I’d be pro-stealing. By actively stepping aside to allow it to happen, you’re indirectly supporting it.

So I think you need to stop the tap dance and just own your indirect support for abortion. Whether it’s seen as a good or a bad, you don’t get to remove yourself here..

You said it yourself, " To me..." You cannot speak for everyone and you shouldn't be judging everyone. That's just the way you come across. I'll say it once more, what you and I think or believe about a woman having any abortion DOESN'T matter, it's her decision in the end. I wouldn't want other people making my choices for me, no sane person would.

 

[Blues Man]

To me this is just a moral cop out

If I said “I’m not saying I support stealing, but I don’t have the right to tell anyone that it’s wrong”… well, I’d be pro-stealing. By actively stepping aside to allow it to happen, you’re indirectly supporting it.

So I think you need to stop the tap dance and just own your indirect support for abortion.

Right and wrong are relative and subjective terms and always have been. Morals are subjective and always have been.

And I can't help it if you are incapable of understanding that I am neither pro not anti abortion and the only thing I am for is allowing people to make their own choices when it comes to their own bodies.

I don't consider any fetus that is not viable outside of the womb a person but only a potential person because until it is viable outside the womb it is incapable of functioning as a wholly separate being. The definition of the word person is simultaneously legal. philosophical and metaphysical and we disagree on all counts.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

All human cells are human life but not all human cells are persons.

Most abortions occur before week 12 of a pregnancy when the fetus is in no sense a person as there is no sentience, no consciousness and no real nervous system to speak of which is why I do not and never will have a problem with the most common form of abortion which is used today as it is nothing but an induced miscarriage

So you ignore the philosophy.. which is a major aspect to how the human race defines what a human is.

A fair argument is: if two people participate in the act to create an entirely new, unique, individual fertilized embryo with its own DNA that, when left to natural processes, would become a human… why isn’t that protected? The abortionists dehumanize it entirely but the philosophy stands. The cold choice by those who advocate for abortion seems like a desperate grasp on a technicality while willfully putting blinders on to far greater and necessary concerns.

If I mix some cake mix, eggs, milk, etc., (aka all the things one does to make a cake), and I put it in the oven.. and then my wife comes home, rips it out of the oven, and throws it all over the floor… am I not allowed to be angry that she ruined my cake? It was going to be a cake if she didn’t destroy it. Your logic seems to say I wouldn’t be allowed to say she ruined my cake, because it was still batter in the oven. That’s a poor technicality to cling to. Everyone knows she’d have ruined my cake, and it was a cake.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Right and wrong are relative and subjective terms and always have been. Morals are subjective and always have been.

Absolutely not. If I come up and knife you to death, that is evil. It doesn’t matter if a person thinks it’s fine, it doesn’t matter if a culture thinks it’s fine. It is a cosmic, defined evil to do that. You moral relativists leave the door open for the worst things to happen and go unchallenged. You really ought to know better

 

[Blues Man]

So you ignore the philosophy.. which is a major aspect to how the human race defines what a human is.

A fair argument is: if two people participate in the act to create an entirely new, unique, individual fertilized embryo with its own DNA that, when left to natural processes, would become a human… why isn’t that protected? The abortionists dehumanize it entirely but the philosophy stands. The cold choice by those who advocate for abortion seems like a desperate grasp on a technicality while willfully putting blinders on to far greater and necessary concerns.

If I mix some cake mix, eggs, milk, etc., (aka all the things one does to make a cake), and I put it in the oven.. and then my wife comes home, rips it out of the oven, and throws it all over the floor… am I not allowed to be angry that she ruined my cake? It was going to be a cake if she didn’t destroy it. Your logic seems to say I wouldn’t be allowed to say she ruined my cake, because it was still batter in the oven. That’s a poor technicality to cling to. Everyone knows she’d have ruined my cake, and it was a cake.

I've already been over this with you.

There is no guarantee that any fertilized human ovum will develop into a fully functional human being as a countless number of possibilities may prevent that from happening.

And I do not see any fetus in first trimester as being more important than the mother and I do not believe the fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother.

When a fetus reaches viability all this changes.

 

[Blues Man]

Absolutely not. If I come up and knife you to death, that is evil. It doesn’t matter if a person thinks it’s fine, it doesn’t matter if a culture thinks it’s fine. It is a cosmic, defined evil to do that. You moral relativists leave the door open for the worst things to happen and go unchallenged. You really ought to know better

No it's not "evil". In fact it is normal human behavior.

All human behavior exists on a continuum. People have always committed murder therefore murder is a normal human behavior. In fact there has never been any society ever that has not had people who committed murder.

Good and evil are subjective and are defined by society.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I've already been over this with you.

There is no guarantee that any fertilized human ovum will develop into a fully functional human being as a countless number of possibilities may prevent that from happening.

I’m talking about biological design.. when left alone an embryo becomes a human. That’s a general statement of fact. Abortion interferes in that process, it is an abnormal, invasive act on the life.

Now, you’re sprinting to even further deviations from normal, and significantly unlikely ones at that.

And I do not see any fetus in first trimester as being more important than the mother and I do not believe the fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother.

Nobody said either is more important, but it’s telling that you view it that way… becoming pregnant isn’t a gift to the abortionists, it’s a curse. It comes across as a cold, negative, antagonistic view on life, not a valuing and delight of something so precious

 

[Stann]

So you ignore the philosophy.. which is a major aspect to how the human race defines what a human is.

A fair argument is: if two people participate in the act to create an entirely new, unique, individual fertilized embryo with its own DNA that, when left to natural processes, would become a human… why isn’t that protected? The abortionists dehumanize it entirely but the philosophy stands. The cold choice by those who advocate for abortion seems like a desperate grasp on a technicality while willfully putting blinders on to far greater and necessary concerns.

If I mix some cake mix, eggs, milk, etc., (aka all the things one does to make a cake), and I put it in the oven.. and then my wife comes home, rips it out of the oven, and throws it all over the floor… am I not allowed to be angry that she ruined my cake? It was going to be a cake if she didn’t destroy it. Your logic seems to say I wouldn’t be allowed to say she ruined my cake, because it was still batter in the oven. That’s a poor technicality to cling to. Everyone knows she’d have ruined my cake, and it was a cake.

It is protected by the parent / parents who desire to have a child. Hopefully for the woman who is going to have an abortion that protection does not exist. I worded it carefully so you wouldn't misconstrue what I'm saying. Believe it or not all women who need an abortion want them. Often the worst victims of the far right's unreasonable desire to pass sweeping, egregious abortion bans are these women. They suffer too much already.

 

[Blues Man]

I’m talking about biological design.. when left alone an embryo becomes a human. That’s a general statement of fact. Abortion interferes in that process, it is an abnormal, invasive act on the life.

Now, you’re sprinting to even further deviations from normal, and significantly unlikely ones at that.

Nobody said either is more important, but it’s telling that you view it that way… becoming pregnant isn’t a gift to the abortionists, it’s a curse. It comes across as a cold, negative, antagonistic view on life, not a valuing and delight of something so precious

So then the embryo isn't human unless it it left alone to develop?

And whether you believe it or not it is normal in every human society that has ever existed that some people commit murder. Can you provide proof to the contrary?

 

[Frankenstein]

You don't want women to be free to control their own bodies as you have repeated countless times.

As I have repeated ad nausea, they do have control, and have control to not allow access to their baby maker it really is simple, and you do know simple. The human in the womb is a separate person, you can't get around that, and scientifically speaking, that is how humans procreate, so spare me the emotional response of she carries it.

 

[Blues Man]

As I have repeated ad nausea, they do have control, and have control to not allow access to their baby maker it really is simple, and you do know simple. The human in the womb is a separate person, you can't get around that, and scientifically speaking, that is how humans procreate, so spare me the emotional response of she carries it.

As I have repeated ad nausea, they do have control, and have control to not allow access to their baby maker it really is simple, and you do know simple. The human in the womb is a separate person, you can't get around that, and scientifically speaking, that is how humans procreate, so spare me the emotional response of she carries it.

So the act of intercourse negates all future choices of what a woman can do with her own body.

I disagree.