If you're willing to kill unborn babies, you're willing to do anything...

[JoeB131]

Unlikely, I'm not sure what silly, simplistic narrative or interpretation that's based on to begin with, but in practice, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

If anything, I'd venture that newer forms of media will ultimately have a more deceive effect on future attitudes toward abortion, rather than the archaic, dinosaur rhetoric which you seem so heavily infatuated with, not even honest or informed enough to outline the complex history of abortion laws and attitudes, in favor of your own childish slogans and catchphrases, which would be "cute" were they not so pathetic, honestly...

Actually, what I find when I talk to Anti-choice types, I find that they are pretty ignorant of the history of abortion.

Most abortion laws were not enacted because anyone had any massive concern about the "babies". They were about keeping women in their place. Women were never punished for having them, and doctors were rarely punished for performing them.

Then the Courts realized that these archaic, unenforced laws were routinely being ignored by women and doctors, they struck them down and that kind of should have been the end of the matter. Sure, the Catholics would have still told women to say "Hail Marys" for having them, but no one else really cared.

Until the Christian Right needed an issue to glom onto after they lost the debate on segregation.

 

[JoeB131]

Hard to answer multiple points on a phone, like I would like to do. . .

1. With the numbers of Trump appointments to the Scotus and the Fed Courts? I'll take your bet. They won't be struck down in either of our lifetimes.

2. I don't know the details on Purvi Patel. I doubt very much that it was as simple a case as you claim.

I provided links in that thread you chickened out on.

Purvi Patel - Wikipedia

The short version. She had a miscarriage. The State of Indiana, home of Deputy Fuhrer Pence, charged her with infanticide because they claimed that she had taken an abortificant, even though none was found in a blood test. They also claimed the fetus was alive when she discarded it... and used a questionable "lung float" test to prove that. They sentenced this poor woman to 20 years in prison.

A court overturned the ruling.. but man, this is where you want to take us? No thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm back now, Joey and I will be continuiing our debate very soon. Fwiw, the poll shows you have it ass backward. (No surprise there). . . You are the one getting trounced.

Um, no, man, I got you to chicken out... but I'm sure you'll be back now that your "legal problems" have been resolved...

 

[wamose]

If you're willing to kill babies, what makes anyone think you can represent the peoples best interests? You are obviously a selfish bastard who is unwilling to own up to your actions.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm back now, Joey and I will be continuiing our debate very soon. Fwiw, the poll shows you have it ass backward. (No surprise there). . . You are the one getting trounced.

Um, no, man, I got you to chicken out... but I'm sure you'll be back now that your "legal problems" have been resolved...

If you must know, my legal problem (if you want to call it that) is a medical malpractice case. For nearly two years, I have been representing our case, myself as a pro se litigant / plaintiff.

We have retained a lawyer now and that frees up just a little more time for me.

Still busy, but I'll be back in the thread as time permits.

 

[wamose]

I'm back now, Joey and I will be continuiing our debate very soon. Fwiw, the poll shows you have it ass backward. (No surprise there). . . You are the one getting trounced.

Um, no, man, I got you to chicken out... but I'm sure you'll be back now that your "legal problems" have been resolved...

If you must know, my legal problem (if you want to call it that) is a medical malpractice case. For nearly two years, I have been representing our case, myself as a pro se litigant / plaintiff.

We have retained a lawyer now and that frees up just a little more time for me.

Still busy, but I'll be back in the thread as time permits.

Good luck on your case. May justice prevail. Thank you for posting the screaming lady. That's always good for a laugh.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

I asked for a rational conversation. Why can’t you do that here?

there was no interruption that caused your response to be hmmmmmmmm.

Just respond to my posts in a rational literate way.

Go back and review.

I am not the one who responded to your post with "hmmmmmmmmmmmm"

Sorry, you are the one who has not responded at all.

 

[Questioner]

Thankfully, no one in practice has any "right' to kill any babies, unless it is made possible via might, as if anyone but the underclass and the ugly would ever want to anyway, let alone be naïve enough to believe that there is much in the way of any actual right for it to begin with outside of childish and hidieous imaginations, faiths, easily and simplistically repeatable slogans and axioms.

Or those hideous enough to waste their disposable lives fighting for such a hideous and ugly "right" to begin with, as if it will save them from the ills of their self-imposed misery and immorality.

 

[whitehall]

I'll go a step further: when the information sources available to American citizens justify infanticide who is safe? First they come for the unborn and then they come for the newly born and then they come for anyone who is a burdon on society. Didn't we learn a lesson from the Nazis?

 

[Questioner]

Most abortion laws were not enacted because anyone had any massive concern about the "babies". They were about keeping women in their place. Women were never punished for having them, and doctors were rarely punished for performing them.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I'd like to see the history on that one.

Then the Courts realized that these archaic, unenforced laws were routinely being ignored by women and doctors, they struck them down and that kind of should have been the end of the matter. Sure, the Catholics would have still told women to say "Hail Marys" for having them, but no one else really cared.

Until the Christian Right needed an issue to glom onto after they lost the debate on segregation.

That's not an argument that's predicated on the realities of abortion itself, biological or otherwise, so much as just a silly conspiracy theory or "appeal to motive", which says little to nothing about the inherent methods thereof.

The reality anyway is that women of a more thinking variety tend to do quite a bit less procreation to begin with, much as they don't put so much of a priority on procreation as opposed to more mature life pursuits, whether sciences or arts, much as is likewise the case in men of some merit or reknown, wheras the behaviors so naturally correlated with higher abortion rates tend to correlate with low education, intelligence, or life ambitions as a whole.

One could call it a subordination of the ego to the id, as opposed to the natural opposite, in Freudian terms, or preferring to be a pig satisfied, than a man (or woman) dissatisfied, per the secular philosophy of Mill.

As far as biology is concerned, women naturally get pregnant in regards to those who decide to have a child, this biological reality can't be altered or denied, so mere denial or dissatisfaction with this couldn't be correlated with "putting women in their place", such as in the sense of laws which arbitrarily discriminate against women without regards to personal merit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'll go a step further: when the information sources available to American citizens justify infanticide who is safe?

nobody justifies infanticide.

why are you people all idiots when it comes to language.


Nobody has a legal abortion within a year of birth.

in·fan·ti·cide
/inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/

1. 1.
   the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
   "cases of infanticide often involve extreme emotional disturbance"
   • 2.
     a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

 

[Questioner]

Most abortion laws were not enacted because anyone had any massive concern about the "babies". They were about keeping women in their place. Women were never punished for having them, and doctors were rarely punished for performing them.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I'd like to see the history on that one.

Then the Courts realized that these archaic, unenforced laws were routinely being ignored by women and doctors, they struck them down and that kind of should have been the end of the matter. Sure, the Catholics would have still told women to say "Hail Marys" for having them, but no one else really cared.

Until the Christian Right needed an issue to glom onto after they lost the debate on segregation.

That's not an argument that's predicated on the realities of abortion itself, biological or otherwise, so much as just a silly conspiracy theory or "appeal to motive", which says little to nothing about the inherent methods thereof.

The reality anyway is that women of a more thinking variety tend to do quite a bit less procreation to begin with, much as they don't put so much of a priority on procreation as opposed to more mature life pursuits, whether sciences or arts, much as is likewise the case in men of some merit or reknown, wheras the behaviors so naturally correlated with higher abortion rates tend to correlate with low education, intelligence, or life ambitions as a whole.

One could call it a subordination of the ego to the id, as opposed to the natural opposite, in Freudian terms, or preferring to be a pig satisfied, than a man (or woman) dissatisfied, per the secular philosophy of Mill.

As far as biology is concerned, women naturally get pregnant in regards to those who decide to have a child, this biological reality can't be altered or denied, so mere denial or dissatisfaction with this couldn't be correlated with "putting women in their place", such as in the sense of laws which arbitrarily discriminate against women without regards to personal merit.

As far as that goes, I have the same response in regards to men.

For example, some complain that male sex offenders (e.x. a 30 year old man and a 16 year old girl) is viewed worse than female sex offenders (a 30 year old woman and a 16 year old boy), but I believe that some of this is inevitable due to biological realities - such as the fact that a young girl could get pregnant and die, whereas a boy cannot.

So I rebuff exaggerated notions of people who assert discrimination against men, if they do not acknowledge biological factors or realities. (As far as courts go, I haven't researched the history of the law and its sentencing standards, however I do not believe it to be as "bad" as sensationalist media makes it out to be, nor do I believe that people can't "be above" reductionism to pure biology, though the reality is that many of them simply aren't in regards to their actual primitive and childish behaviors, such as idiots who spend their entire time arguing about "men and women" online just for the sake of arguing and acting out some childish or impulsive fantasy and malcontentedness with the confines of civilization, as observed by Freud and others).

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

I asked for a rational conversation. Why can’t you do that here?

there was no interruption that caused your response to be hmmmmmmmm.

Just respond to my posts in a rational literate way.

Go back and review.

I am not the one who responded to your post with "hmmmmmmmmmmmm"

Sorry, you are the one who has not responded at all.

hmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmm

Do Trumpvoters know how to carry on a conversation?

I’d like to find one with a rational mind and language skills.

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

The Bull Ring

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm back now, Joey and I will be continuiing our debate very soon. Fwiw, the poll shows you have it ass backward. (No surprise there). . . You are the one getting trounced.

Um, no, man, I got you to chicken out... but I'm sure you'll be back now that your "legal problems" have been resolved...

If you must know, my legal problem (if you want to call it that) is a medical malpractice case. For nearly two years, I have been representing our case, myself as a pro se litigant / plaintiff.

We have retained a lawyer now and that frees up just a little more time for me.

Still busy, but I'll be back in the thread as time permits.

Good luck on your case. May justice prevail. Thank you for posting the screaming lady. That's always good for a laugh.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, it's too late for justice to prevail in our case. Too much time has passed and my wife's injuries are permanent. The best we can hope for is a little help in providing care for future needs.

You're welcome per the screaming snowflake. She's a hoot.

 

[idb]

If you're willing to kill unborn babies, you're willing to do anything...]

Like what? Shoot someone on 5th ave? Rob a bank? Murder a Mexican illegally crossing the border??? Rape a 12 year old boy? Beat your mother to a pulp? Shoplift?

What exactly is ANYTHING?

Lock actually-born-babies in cages and then let them die of flu on the floor perhaps?

 

[JoeB131]

If you must know, my legal problem (if you want to call it that) is a medical malpractice case. For nearly two years, I have been representing our case, myself as a pro se litigant / plaintiff.

We have retained a lawyer now and that frees up just a little more time for me.

Still busy, but I'll be back in the thread as time permits.

I could really care less about why you chickened out... you still chickened out.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I'd like to see the history on that one.

Not my job to do your research for you.

That's not an argument that's predicated on the realities of abortion itself, biological or otherwise, so much as just a silly conspiracy theory or "appeal to motive", which says little to nothing about the inherent methods thereof.

The reality anyway is that women of a more thinking variety tend to do quite a bit less procreation to begin with, much as they don't put so much of a priority on procreation as opposed to more mature life pursuits, whether sciences or arts, much as is likewise the case in men of some merit or reknown, wheras the behaviors so naturally correlated with higher abortion rates tend to correlate with low education, intelligence, or life ambitions as a whole.

Remind me of the Old George Carlin Joke - "Ever notice people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck, anyway?"

Of course, the reality is Christian Conservative women are more likely to have abortions, because they don't practice other forms of contraception.

As far as biology is concerned, women naturally get pregnant in regards to those who decide to have a child, this biological reality can't be altered or denied, so mere denial or dissatisfaction with this couldn't be correlated with "putting women in their place", such as in the sense of laws which arbitrarily discriminate against women without regards to personal merit.

Do you really think if you put enough big words in a sentence, you are making an argument, bud?

Here's the reality.
People are going to fuck, and they aren't always going to want to make babies.

Abortion laws were an artifact of a patriarchal society... which thankfully, we are past.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you must know, my legal problem (if you want to call it that) is a medical malpractice case. For nearly two years, I have been representing our case, myself as a pro se litigant / plaintiff.

We have retained a lawyer now and that frees up just a little more time for me.

Still busy, but I'll be back in the thread as time permits.

I could really care less about why you chickened out... you still chickened out.

I can sense your butt hurt.

I should have known better than to neglect an attention whore.

Don't fret.

I have some time off from work coming up. Your impatience will be rewarded soon.

 

[Terri4Trump]

So let’s say a man and a woman hook up in a bar and go to a hotel and have sex and never see each other again.

Some time later, the woman discovers she’s pregnant,

Who’s responsibility is it now?

The parents you dope.

Its society's responsibility to make sure someone does not murder a child

 

[ChemEngineer]

What if the guy who got you pregnant wanted that baby. He would take the baby, never see you again and he's never be in touch again. His right is as strong as yours. Would you have it?

Bulldog ain't gonna be having any babies.

Man-hating boner killer, Bulldog.