The "WAR ON WOMEN"

[maybelooking]

Keep trying. It would be helpful if you remember the question I had responded to

bitch please. the thread has been derailed from the original topic. its a standard leftist idiot tactic.

I always talk about the topic at hand. The right of any person to make decisions on their own body and health care. Bodily autonomy.

funny I didn't see that in the thread title anywhere.

The topic has remained unchanged. Update your talking points and stop self-identifying as a moron.

nonsense.

 

[maybelooking]

So a woman can die in agony, bleeding out, septic, because the fetus still has a heart beat.

you have already admitted that if we gave an exception for this it wouldn't matter to you. so stop with the straw man bullshit.

 

[Woodznutz]

Come on, that is the one thing we can tell is NOT true.

Well, you do have to read the account.

 

[Coyote]

Point?

Your statement is bullshit.

 

[maybelooking]

Your statement is bullshit.

irony overload.

 

[easyt65]

Its more a 'War on Descency & Morality' than a 'War on Women' as Democrats are not only targeting women but also children...

Democrats either want to kill them, screw them, sexualize them, groom them, transgender confuse them, LGBTQ indoctrinate them, traffick them, or mutilate their genitals at a young age.
- Democrats are even attempting to legalize the kidnapping of children from their parents IOT mutilate the children's genitals ... in violation of existing federal and state laws that are suppose to protect children.

The current liberal 'Chicks with Dicks' phase is just a biproduct of their other sick fetish agenda of targeting & harming children...

IMHO.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I always talk about the topic at hand. The right of any person to make decisions on their own body and health care. Bodily autonomy.

I mean that last thing is nothing at all and the stuff about your own body is completely irrelevant and then you bring up healthcare of all things, which is just insane.

This was about abortion, the contract killing of innocent young human beings. Try to keep up.

Abortion victims have their own body and homicide is the literal opposite of healthcare.

 

[Nostra]

the moron had to really think hard to come up with a couple of those. watch her tap dance around my simple question. I won't get an answer because its NOT ABOUT ANY OF THE THINGS SHE LISTED and she knows it.

It's all about being allowed to kill a baby at will because of irresponsibility. it's just that simple. And they NEVER WANT TO TALK ABOUT the actual topic at hand. Take this very thread for instance.

The topic was changed because admitting you are wrong is unacceptable in the mind of a lunatic liberal.

Abortion is birth control for the lazy.

 

[Nostra]

Keep trying. It would be helpful if you remember the question I had responded to.



I always talk about the topic at hand. The right of any person to make decisions on their own body and health care. Bodily autonomy.


The topic has remained unchanged. Update your talking points and stop self-identifying as a moron.

It's not about the mother's Healthcare, Simp.

I showed you where even Unplanned Unparenthood says instances where abortion is used when the life of the mother is in danger is so low it doesn't even register statistically.

 

[Nostra]

Nope.

My line is viability.

So well after birth.

 

[Dwell]

Democrats either want to kill them, screw them, sexualize them, groom them, transgender confuse them, LGBTQ indoctrinate them, traffick them, or mutilate their genitals at a young age.
- Democrats are even attempting to legalize the kidnapping of children from their parents IOT mutilate the children's genitals ... in violation of existing federal and state laws that are suppose to protect children.

Are you hinting there might be something wrong with these things?

 

[Road Runner]

I don't know why this got deleted but I thought that it was a really good argument.

 

[Concerned American]

No one “had” to get vax’d.

No one "had" to have irresponsible, unprotected sex. Closing the barn door after the damage is done (abortion) is murder.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This was about abortion, the contract killing of innocent young human beings….

Abortion is birth control for the lazy.

No! Those who define a woman choosing — for example — to take a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy (by far the most popular form of abortion today) and who also purposely mis-define a distressed woman’s decision to take such action as “the contract killing of innocent young human beings” … they are the ones being both intellectually lazy and intentionally demagogic.

The egg, larvae and caterpillar is not yet a butterfly.

Definitions of “life” are many and varied, as the excellent Brittanica article Coyote linked to helps us understand.

“Human life” in the West has historically long been, and ordinarily is still, dated from birth, not from “conception.”

A six-month-old “baby” was born six months ago. Pre-born embryos and fetuses are not “kids.” To speak otherwise is to play demagogic politics with words, to be lazy and unscientific.

Yet of course humans are usually — but not always — profoundly moved by the miracle of human life developing in the womb as well as by a baby being born and breathing its first breaths. This is natural and healthy.

Of course at a certain stage a human embryo / fetus and a pig embryo / fetus look virtually identical — and may seem to some even like a pre-born “monster” — but paternal / maternal instincts and human psychology and our general understanding of pregnancy as a process today ordinarily dispose us to feel emotional attachment even to fetuses as they become more mature, in the same way we feel empathy toward pregnant women.

Again not everyone feels this way, especially toward pregnant women, who others — or they themselves — may not feel are nearly so “beautiful” as they once were.

Most of us are instinctually (and socially) especially sympathetic to new-born human babies. That is very natural. But even here some don’t feel the joy happy parents normally do.

Let’s be honest here. For many, especially unrelated people, their attitude at such a time is sometimes colored by their attitude toward the mother, her financial and social status. Can she support her child? How many other children does she have? Is she married? They may secretly despise her for having a baby she is unfit to raise. Yet rightfully, or at least by modern law, nobody would dare deny the newborn baby’s legal personhood, its right to live under the protection of our laws — however inadequate those may be.

Fertile women have the almost absolute right to birth children if they desire, regardless of their status or ability to care for them.

Yet other men (and some women) seem to think that they (unrelated people), or society itself, needs the right to legislate that these utter strangers, unwilling women of all classes, MUST carry within their bodies, give birth to and then raise up these potential future children.

So the “Moral Majority” seeks to use politicians to pass all kinds of legislation that once any woman is carrying a zygote, embryo or fetus in her womb, no matter how unwilling she may be, she has no right to stop the process of a pregnancy in her own body, even if it was the product of failed contraception. To make matters worse, the demagogues scream that the embryo or fetus she has just learned to her dismay is growing in her body … is an unborn “kid” with “rights” equal to her own.

The legal “personhood” of a child has in past ages usually begun with its birth as a human baby, not with its life as one of many sperm cells or unfertilized human eggs, not with conception, not with the usually unknown moment it attaches successfully to the woman’s nourishing body, and not when electrical impulses and pulsations can be observed with echocardiograms or other special instruments in cells that will or may eventually become differentiated into a human heart!

Science cannot resolve all ethical conflicts about child-rearing nor can it determine when or whether an abortion is appropriate or “moral.” That should be left to the real person most intimately involved. Science can, however, certainly help us all to use language more clearly, organize our thoughts more clearly, and give us insights into how different people understand how becoming a “living human being” is a process of development leading to birth — which is itself only the start of a human being’s physical independent existence.

 

[Concerned American]

Pre-born embryos and fetuses are not “kids.”

A jury in CA convicted a man of double murder after he killed his wife who was pregnant with his 8 month unborn son. That seems to throw a wrench in your argument. Abortion after a heartbeat is murder.

 

[Concerned American]

No! Those who define a woman choosing — for example — to take a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy (by far the most popular form of abortion today) and who also purposely mis-define a distressed woman’s decision to take such action as “the contract killing of innocent young human beings” … they are the ones being both intellectually lazy and intentionally demagogic.

The egg, larvae and caterpillar is not yet a butterfly.

Definitions of “life” are many and varied, as the excellent Brittanica article Coyote linked to helps us understand.

“Human life” in the West has historically long been, and ordinarily is still, dated from birth, not from “conception.”

A six-month-old “baby” was born six months ago. Pre-born embryos and fetuses are not “kids.” To speak otherwise is to play demagogic politics with words, to be lazy and unscientific.

Yet of course humans are usually — but not always — profoundly moved by the miracle of human life developing in the womb as well as by a baby being born and breathing its first breaths. This is natural and healthy.

Of course at a certain stage a human embryo / fetus and a pig embryo / fetus look virtually identical — and may seem to some even like a pre-born “monster” — but paternal / maternal instincts and human psychology and our general understanding of pregnancy as a process today ordinarily dispose us to feel emotional attachment even to fetuses as they become more mature, in the same way we feel empathy toward pregnant women.

Again not everyone feels this way, especially toward pregnant women, who others — or they themselves — may not feel are nearly so “beautiful” as they once were.

Most of us are instinctually (and socially) especially sympathetic to new-born human babies. That is very natural. But even here some don’t feel the joy happy parents normally do.

Let’s be honest here. For many, especially unrelated people, their attitude at such a time is sometimes colored by their attitude toward the mother, her financial and social status. Can she support her child? How many other children does she have? Is she married? They may secretly despise her for having a baby she is unfit to raise. Yet rightfully, or at least by modern law, nobody would dare deny the newborn baby’s legal personhood, its right to live under the protection of our laws — however inadequate those may be.

Fertile women have the almost absolute right to birth children if they desire, regardless of their status or ability to care for them.

Yet other men (and some women) seem to think that they (unrelated people), or society itself, needs the right to legislate that these utter strangers, unwilling women of all classes, MUST carry within their bodies, give birth to and then raise up these potential future children.

So the “Moral Majority” seeks to use politicians to pass all kinds of legislation that once any woman is carrying a zygote, embryo or fetus in her womb, no matter how unwilling she may be, has no right to stop the process of a pregnancy in her own body, even if it was the product of failed contraception. To make matters worse, the demagogues scream that the embryo or fetus she has just learned to her dismay is growing in her body … is an unborn “kid” with “rights” equal to her own.

The legal “personhood” of a child has in past ages usually begun with its birth as a human baby, not with its life as one of many sperm cells or unfertilized human eggs, not with conception, not with the usually unknown moment it attaches successfully to the woman’s nourishing body, and not when electrical impulses and pulsations can be observed with echocardiograms or other special instruments in cells that will or may eventually become differentiated into a human heart!

Science cannot resolve all ethical conflicts about child-rearing nor can it determine when or whether an abortion is appropriate or “moral.” That should be left to the real person most intimately involved. Science can, however, certainly help us all to use language more clearly, organize our thoughts more clearly, and give us insights into how different people understand how becoming a “living human being” is a process of development leading to birth — which is itself only the start of a human being’s physical independent existence.

This certainly is a verbose attempt to justify what can be summed up in six words. ABORTION AFTER A HEARTBEAT IS MURDER.

 

[Nostra]

No! Those who define a woman choosing — for example — to take a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy (by far the most popular form of abortion today) and who also purposely mis-define a distressed woman’s decision to take such action as “the contract killing of innocent young human beings” … they are the ones being both intellectually lazy and intentionally demagogic.

The egg, larvae and caterpillar is not yet a butterfly.

Definitions of “life” are many and varied, as the excellent Brittanica article Coyote linked to helps us understand.

“Human life” in the West has historically long been, and ordinarily is still, dated from birth, not from “conception.”

A six-month-old “baby” was born six months ago. Pre-born embryos and fetuses are not “kids.” To speak otherwise is to play demagogic politics with words, to be lazy and unscientific.

Yet of course humans are usually — but not always — profoundly moved by the miracle of human life developing in the womb as well as by a baby being born and breathing its first breaths. This is natural and healthy.

Of course at a certain stage a human embryo / fetus and a pig embryo / fetus look virtually identical — and may seem to some even like a pre-born “monster” — but paternal / maternal instincts and human psychology and our general understanding of pregnancy as a process today ordinarily dispose us to feel emotional attachment even to fetuses as they become more mature, in the same way we feel empathy toward pregnant women.

Again not everyone feels this way, especially toward pregnant women, who others — or they themselves — may not feel are nearly so “beautiful” as they once were.

Most of us are instinctually (and socially) especially sympathetic to new-born human babies. That is very natural. But even here some don’t feel the joy happy parents normally do.

Let’s be honest here. For many, especially unrelated people, their attitude at such a time is sometimes colored by their attitude toward the mother, her financial and social status. Can she support her child? How many other children does she have? Is she married? They may secretly despise her for having a baby she is unfit to raise. Yet rightfully, or at least by modern law, nobody would dare deny the newborn baby’s legal personhood, its right to live under the protection of our laws — however inadequate those may be.

Fertile women have the almost absolute right to birth children if they desire, regardless of their status or ability to care for them.

Yet other men (and some women) seem to think that they (unrelated people), or society itself, needs the right to legislate that these utter strangers, unwilling women of all classes, MUST carry within their bodies, give birth to and then raise up these potential future children.

So the “Moral Majority” seeks to use politicians to pass all kinds of legislation that once any woman is carrying a zygote, embryo or fetus in her womb, no matter how unwilling she may be, she has no right to stop the process of a pregnancy in her own body, even if it was the product of failed contraception. To make matters worse, the demagogues scream that the embryo or fetus she has just learned to her dismay is growing in her body … is an unborn “kid” with “rights” equal to her own.

The legal “personhood” of a child has in past ages usually begun with its birth as a human baby, not with its life as one of many sperm cells or unfertilized human eggs, not with conception, not with the usually unknown moment it attaches successfully to the woman’s nourishing body, and not when electrical impulses and pulsations can be observed with echocardiograms or other special instruments in cells that will or may eventually become differentiated into a human heart!

Science cannot resolve all ethical conflicts about child-rearing nor can it determine when or whether an abortion is appropriate or “moral.” That should be left to the real person most intimately involved. Science can, however, certainly help us all to use language more clearly, organize our thoughts more clearly, and give us insights into how different people understand how becoming a “living human being” is a process of development leading to birth — which is itself only the start of a human being’s physical independent existence.

A ton of hot winded bloviating just to demonstrate you are a science denier.

Life begins at conception, Simp.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

A jury in CA convicted a man of double murder after he killed his wife who was pregnant with his 8 month unborn son. That seems to throw a wrench in your argument. Abortion after a heartbeat is murder.

I mentioned this and similar cases in my comment #313. You think you are throwing a verbal wrench at Californians who support women’s right to choose? Here you are predictably throwing a demagogic “wrench” into the air … but mainly hitting only yourself on the head.

New often very deceitful laws have been passed taking advantage of the emotional horror most everybody feels when sick misogynistic men kill their pregnant wives or girlfriends. These laws allow, sometimes almost necessitate, rulings of “double homicide” in these special cases of atrocious murder or homicide of pregnant women, but most of course do not refer to “kids.”

They are almost always as in CA products of careful, strategic, and well-funded political campaigns backed by the Catholic Church and Republican “Moral Majority” types. In CA and “Blue States” in general they of course make exceptions for abortion rights of women. Nice try, though.

 

[Concerned American]

do not refer to “kids,”

Try again. The "kid" as you so crudely refer to him, was given the name, Connor! The only head that the wrench hit was your own. BTW, the catholic church has nothing to do with the CA justice system. Just accept the fact that you are a murderer by proxy--as far as I know, and by fact if you've ever murdered one of your own offspring.

 

[Captain Caveman]

You actually think that is worse than denying women control over their bodies and healthcare decisions?

No wonder you guys are losing the support of women voters. You are out of touch and plowing full steam ahead.

Women have and should have full control over their bodies, same with men. It's a shame a proportion of them can't make the condom choice BEFORE conceiving.

So did you support the mask mandate, or the choice of women to control their own body?

Who's out of touch?