More abortion insanity

Sen. Tina Maharath (D-Canal Winchester) said her bill would allow anyone who becomes pregnant to file a civil suit against the person who impregnated them — even if it happened as a result of consensual sex.
“Regardless of the circumstances. I felt it was important to have that vague language due to the fact that abortion is now banned here in the state of Ohio,” Maharath said.


So much reactionary bullshit going on, NO ONE is thinking.
So does this mean males can sue birth control providers for not stopping the pregnancy?
WTF is wrong with people SMH
You are absolutely whining that men would be held responsible for pregnancies.

What am I missing?

Be specific?
 
A spermatozoon isn’t a life.
IT's funny they can't tell the difference from a sperm and a zygote. Dragonlay I'm assuming is a lady, so an egg is not a baby, a fertilized egg is a baby, do I have to explain more to her?
 
"Sperm Endangerment"

It seems to me, a casual test of the validity of state policy is how funny it gets. Or at least how subject to ridicule it is - some might not feel like laughing.
All we can do is laugh and hope states will correct the out-of-control bullshit.

Roe was always a suspect decision based on flawed reasoning, but things always have a way of working themselves out.

This is part of that process, and I am enjoying the fun it created.
 
They removed federal constitutional protection of that right - which is what most of us mean we say a right has been ended. But you go on with your Denial Dance. It's dead sexy!
are you saying woman in CA has no abortion right :rolleyes:
 
They ended the constitutionally protected right to abortion. that is what happened.

Why are you always so goddamn wrong and stupid?
then how is it states have abortions? I live in illinois and one can get one still today. How is it you lazy fking demofks can't understand this country and how it works?
 
There will be no civil war.

And I hope no stupid hillbillies are stupid enough to try it. The last thing we need is people dying in the streets over politics.
 
are you saying woman in CA has no abortion right :rolleyes:
No. I'm saying they longer have a federally protected right to abortion. Women in CA can still have abortions, but it's not a federal right - California is free to ban abortion if they want.

What exactly are you getting at here? What do all the word games add up to in your view? Do you just not understand how rights work?
 
It's human life no matter what stage. It ain't gonna grow into a giraffe or an amoeba.
It's a baby. Have you ever heard a lecture by a surgeon that specializes in surgery on babies in utero? They know they are operating on a baby. Spina bifida used to be a birth defect, a solid reason for abortion. Today, surgery cures that and other birth defects. All by operating on the unborn baby. Not a clump of cells. Spinal surgery, heart surgery, done by specialists who know more than abortionists.

I'm sure you can find 4d ultrasounds, it's quite clear that it's a baby. Stop being silly.
 
Activists against leftist decisions and policies, which they believe goes against their personal religious beliefs.
you prove our point it is demofk decisions biased toward a party only. You just admitted it!!!! holy crap lady, thanks.

It has nothing to do with religion either. It's a human life. what else is it if it's not human? Can you honestly answer that? And if it is alive, and you end it, you've killed it and we have laws against murder. Nothing religious at all.
 
The question is when it should be considered, legally, to be a separate person.
dblack everything about it is a separate person. needed someone else's sperm to make it. Not hers. You're in fatal error here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top