If abortion is so great why don't they show what it looks like?

[Bob Blaylock]

It's strange how republicans want to give more rights to a clump of cells, than to an adult.

The right that we want to recognize on the part of an unborn child is the right not to be put to death for no better cause than that his mere existence is inconvenient to someone else.

Where do you see us wanting to deny that right to adults?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

DUH!! but only women can get prego not people,,

you do know what a women is dont you??

Not true.

Anyone can get Prego at almost any supermarket. Look in the section pertaining to pasta and sauces meant to go therewith.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thanks MISTER OBVIOUS

 

[JoeB131]

The right that we want to recognize on the part of an unborn child is the right not to be put to death for no better cause than that his mere existence is inconvenient to someone else.

Where do you see us wanting to deny that right to adults?

Except by compelling women to have unwanted pregnanices, you are taking rights away from women.

Forget about the pure impracticality of enforcing it, when you can induce abortion with a pill.

You would have to abolish HIPAA and make OB/GYN's informers for the state. You know, the kind of thing you'd be against if it involved vaccine mandates.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except by compelling women to have unwanted pregnanices [sic], you are taking rights away from women.

The only “right” that we are trying to take away from anyone is the “right” right to murder an innocent human being in cold blood.

You oppose putting the lowest, most dangerous, pieces of subhuman criminal shit to death, after due process of law,; yet you support he murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, with no due process at all.

 

[JoeB131]

The only “right” that we are trying to take away from anyone is the “right” right to murder an innocent human being in cold blood.

Fetuses aren't people, as I've explained to you many times. And when you can get rid of a fetus by taking a pill, the point becomes rather moot.

You oppose putting the lowest, most dangerous, pieces of subhuman criminal shit to death, after due process of law,; yet you support he murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, with no due process at all.

I oppose capital punishment because we get "due process" wrong so often. 186 people released from Death Row and another 13 who were executed who were probably innocent.
Fetuses aren't people.
They aren't counted as such for tax purposes.
They aren't counted as such for census purposes.
They aren't registered with social security or the state until they are born and a certificate of live birth is issued.

If you guys were serious about wanting less abortions, you'd provide other choices. Instead, you want to practice things that have already failed.

 

[progressive hunter]

Fetuses aren't people, as I've explained to you many times. And when you can get rid of a fetus by taking a pill, the point becomes rather moot.



I oppose capital punishment because we get "due process" wrong so often. 186 people released from Death Row and another 13 who were executed who were probably innocent.
Fetuses aren't people.
They aren't counted as such for tax purposes.
They aren't counted as such for census purposes.
They aren't registered with social security or the state until they are born and a certificate of live birth is issued.

If you guys were serious about wanting less abortions, you'd provide other choices. Instead, you want to practice things that have already failed.

what are they goats or pigs???

you sure are desperate to be able to kill the innocent,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fetuses aren't people, as I've explained to you many times.

A lie does not become true, no matter how many times, nor how loudly you repeat it.

 

[JoeB131]

what are they goats or pigs???

you sure are desperate to be able to kill the innocent,,

Nope. I'd like to see there be less abortions, but you don't get there with goofy laws.

The Philippines have the laws you guys want... but they have more abortions per capita than we do. Why? Lack of access to health care, lack of access to contraception.

Meanwhile, France has LESS abortions than we do. Even though the government pays for them. Why? Because they pay for the health care, the family leave and even send around government workers to help new mothers acclimate.

A lie does not become true, no matter how many times, nor how loudly you repeat it.

So when was the last time a woman was charged with a murder for having an abortion? Clearly, if fetuses are people, someone needs to be bringing charges.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope. I'd like to see there be less abortions, but you don't get there with goofy laws.

The Philippines have the laws you guys want... but they have more abortions per capita than we do. Why? Lack of access to health care, lack of access to contraception.

Meanwhile, France has LESS abortions than we do. Even though the government pays for them. Why? Because they pay for the health care, the family leave and even send around government workers to help new mothers acclimate.



So when was the last time a woman was charged with a murder for having an abortion? Clearly, if fetuses are people, someone needs to be bringing charges.

nope its not a pig or nope its not a goat??

now dont spread it around but I'm on your side now and know we need more abortions to help those poor mothers not have to raise more poor children,,
I'm thin king about getting into the black market for abortion pills,, do you know anyone in the biz??

 

[AntonToo]

That is literally how it works, yes.

No, it does not.

Ham sadwiches will NEVER be persons, no matter what is written in some law.

Though I could see where you are coming from - if a few cells are a person make then a ham sandwich is not far off.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Exactly. There were a lot of accepted medical procedures back in the day that we look back in horror on now. Lobotomies, electric shock treatment, bleeding, etc. I'm sure stuff we are doing now will be looked back at with horror in a century.


The legacy of Sanger is that contraception is now legal, and everyone is okay with that.
She didn't support abortion because abortion was actually dangerous before antibiotics were invented.

The biggest abortion proponents (Planned Parenthood) named an award after Sanger. They look at her legacy beyond contraception.

 

[JoeB131]

The biggest abortion proponents (Planned Parenthood) named an award after Sanger. They look at her legacy beyond contraception.

Yes, they did. Doesn't change the fact that she was opposed to abortion at the time, because with the technology they had, it was actually dangerous.

And that's the thing. Most pre-1973 abortion laws were not based on the silly notion that Globby the Fetus was a person. Most of them were based on 1) the procedure was dangerous and 2) how dare those women reject their role of making babies like God wanted them to.

When anti-biotics were developed, abortions could be safely performed in OB/GYN offices. They would perform the abortion, and write down something else on the chart. SCOTUS - including FIVE Republican justices at the time - thought they were doing nothing really controversial with Roe v. Wade, they were just removing obsolete laws from the books, as they had done 8 years earlier when Griswold v. Connecticut struck down the equally silly laws against contraception.

The only reason why this became an issue at all is because the religious right needed a new issue to champion, now that segregation wasn't playing well with the public anymore. before Roe, Evangelicals saw abortion as a "Catholic" issue they didn't care about.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It's strange how republicans want to give more rights to a clump of cells, than to an adult.

Adults already have their right to life protected with laws against manslaughter and murder.

Even newborns get that same protection. It's arbitrary and stupid and bigoted to deny the yet unborn these same protections, but that is how you people operate - arbitrary, bigoted, stupid.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If abortion is so great why aren't we allowed to see what it looks like?

Show it on TV.

Put it on the internet.

Put in magazines, newspapers.

Prove abortion is great by showing that it's not so bad to look at.

/----/ Joe puts in his two cents --- sorta

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Except by compelling women to have unwanted pregnanices, you are taking rights away from women.

Objectively false and stupid statement.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

No, it does not.

Ham sadwiches will NEVER be persons, no matter what is written in some law.

Legal personhood is defined by LAW. That is literally all that matters, but yes, laws can change when leaders change, when governments change. So nothing is set in absolute stone but it is how it is when the law is set a certain way. A lot of human beings have been denied personhood by law and they weren't people, because the law said they weren't.

You are literally too stupid to have this conversation. Just leave.

 

[AntonToo]

Legal personhood is defined by LAW.

Law is law, but who the fuck is going to trade their brain in to ACTUALLY call ham sandwich a person?

It would be a really bad law which would be quickly thrown out.

There is a relationship between concensus and law that you seem oblivious to and in that relationship is your problem.

Nobody not completely insane would ever think ham Sandwich to be a person and very few recognize THIS to be a person:

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Law is law, but who the fuck is going to trade their brain in to ACTUALLY call ham sandwich a person?

It doesn't fucking matter you giant retard - it's a theoretical, one you made!

I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to declare ham sandwiches people, but it is theoretically possible, and you did this as an absurd example, this is your attempt at reductio ad absurdum - the thing is you failed, because it is LEGAL personhood that matters, and the law CAN CHANGE and the law CAN BE ANYTHING.

It would be a really bad law which would be quickly thrown out.

Doesn't matter at all, it would still be the law for as long as it was - bad law is still law.

Denying personhood to black folks and natives was bad law. Europe's new dictator denying personhood to Jews and anyone else they found undesirable was obviously really bad law. It was still the law.

Your bigoted stupidity against the unborn is the same as theirs, though, and should be cast away for the same reason.

 

[AntonToo]

It doesn't fucking matter you giant retard - it's a theoretical, one you made!

I made? Idiot, whats this?

That is literally how it works, yes.

Legal personhood means that the government could, in fact, pass a law that declares ham sandwiches people, and they would be people, by law… obviously.

YOU made it and I took it to it's logical conclusions and explained to you why thats nonsense.