US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade

[Army Guy]

On 5/4/2022 at 10:31 AM, Oksanna said:

So, again, all of this is stupid. If you aren't a woman, you don't have to bear the costs. And, you have exactly zero idea what you are talking about with respect to anything else surrounding the issue. You aren't a doctor, you aren't even a psychologist, or anything even close. A woman aborts a baby about once a month, and it's fine. It has nothing to do with you.

There is no other case in which a human being is forced to sacrifice themselves medically for another human, and we aren't even talking about real humans here. Just clumps of cells. And as always spare me the lies about how much you care about babies. You don't, and nobody outside of you guys thinks that you do.

WOW if you are not a woman, you have nothing to bring to the table. STFU this topic is off-limits. 

When does this clump of cells become a living being? 

Being a father, and a grandfather, I care for babies a great deal, and never once regretted having kids, it was the highlight of my life. And saying that men don't care is you on your high horse. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You would saddle her and her child with poverty while preaching morality to her. Maybe mind your own business and let her decide.

That's a huge assumption that single moms are predestined to be poor, Many, many single women have become successful in life, balancing raising children with work-life... with the majority of them finding the right partner in due time, and living happily ever after. 

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have looked around and conservatives are just naturally meaner compared to progressives hence my use of Mother Mary Stigmata and Bonnie Henry as analogs for the different style our governance would take. Bonnie Henry evokes images of happy unicorns and rainbows and with Mary Stigmata it's more like cranky old goats and storm clouds.

Dreams and reality eyeball. Dreams and reality.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Dreams and reality eyeball. Dreams and reality.

Meaning what exactly?

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This is just too much of an irrational unscientific way of viewing the world for my liking, again something that is reflected in my use of a happy scientist and a dour supernaturalist to illustrate the type of governance we could expect from these competing paradigms.

The former would be based in reality and the latter...wouldn't.

Oh I don't know. Science is great for our physical existence. And frankly, we only know a tiny fraction of what's "knowable" in our universe. Science will find Gawd. It already found a "God Particle".

There's nothing "supernatural" about understanding Gawd. Ya jus' gotta think BIG.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

And you keep chiming in with your male misogynist bullshit. Women deserve everything they get in spite of how men treat them.

No, we should all be treated equally and the same, except in this case, then men don't have an opinion, well except if it is given by a women.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Oh I don't know. Science is great for our physical existence. And frankly, we only know a tiny fraction of what's "knowable" in our universe. Science will find Gawd. It already found a "God Particle".

There's nothing "supernatural" about understanding Gawd. Ya jus' gotta think BIG.

No. You have to think rationally. 1000's of years of governance by people who don't shows.

You said it best, take a look around you.

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Meaning what exactly?

Liberal and Conservative.

Dreams and Reality.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. You have to think rationally. 1000's of years of governance by people who don't shows.

You said it best, take a look around you.

Huh...and you think Gawd had something to do with that? Try to understand...there is a world of difference between Gawd...and the population control manuals man has written in Gawd's name. LOL...BOY would I have liked to be at the entrance to heaven when these poor bastards got there.

"What? You exist? oops..."

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Liberal and Conservative.

Dreams and Reality.

These are political parties not dreams and reality.

[Nationalist]

Just now, eyeball said:

These are political parties not dreams and reality.

Really?

Tell me...the idea that we can immediately get off fossil fuels...dream or reality?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...and you think Gawd had something to do with that?

Of course not because there is no such thing.

Why do you keep talking to me like I do?

[Infidel Dog]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

You seem to think it is fine that the woman and child will grow up in poverty while the guy gets away scot free. 

Why? Who said that...exactly. I think if you want to suggest men should bare some responsibility you could talk most pro-life supporters into supporting that.

Or are you just suggesting poor people should be put out of their misery? That would be too stupid though. I wouldn't expect even you to suggest that. It's not allowed by 'the narrative'...yet.

You seem to be saying babies in the womb aren't babies yet so you can kill them before they get out and become poor. That's kind of dumb too, but 'the narrative' allows that. It just puts it different. But basically yeah, I think that's what you're selling, right?

 

 

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course not because there is no such thing.

Why do you keep talking to me like I do?

You brought up religion...

And don't be too sure there's no Gawd. That's rather...huberistic.

[Oksanna]

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

WOW if you are not a woman, you have nothing to bring to the table. STFU this topic is off-limits. 

When does this clump of cells become a living being? 

Being a father, and a grandfather, I care for babies a great deal, and never once regretted having kids, it was the highlight of my life. And saying that men don't care is you on your high horse. 

If you are just a random dude, you have nothing to offer on any abortion that is not yours. Unless you are a medical professional, or directly involved, your opinion is worthless, and triply so if you can't bear children yourself.

There is no 'point' where we can define what is and isn't human or a baby. Absolutely a blastocyst isn't it, and at the moment of birth, you are no longer forcing a human to donate their body to another being, so it doesn't matter. This is medical.

Nobody cares about your little story about your kids. Talking about loving your kids doesn't make up for killing women.

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, West said:

?.. 

There's nothing more inhumane then referring to a baby as a "clump of cells".

In the end we are all just a "clump of cells". 

A fertilized egg is not a “baby”. It is a clump of cells. 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

You're wrong, as usual.

Study: 95 Percent of Biologists Say Life Begins at Conception

Run your 'baby in the womb = a fried egg sandwich' by this guy:

 

Righ wing propaganda outlet reports that right wing activist confirms right wing theory.  
 

In the reality world 95% of biologists do not support banning abortion at conception and do not consider a human being to exist  at conception 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I imagine you were on board with Virginia delegate Cathy Tran's proposed bill to allow abortion even at the point the mother is dilating and ready to give birth, were you, Beave?

After all it's just like boiling an egg, right Beave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9KkAqPv_AI

I'm always amazed by the flexibility of a Prog's moral compass. South becomes North or more precisely Evil becomes Good whenever convenient.

 

More hysterical right wing propaganda  based on selective half truths 

A False War Over Late Abortion

Virginia law already allows for third-trimester abortions — about one percent of all abortions, according to the CDC — if three physicians agree a pregnant woman’s mental or physical health is at risk. Tran’s bill would have reduced the requisite number of doctors to one, and removed the requirement for anticipated harm to be “substantially and irredeemably” were she denied an abortion. (“How confident do you have to be that a woman is going to die?” a Harvard Medical School professor and specialist in maternal-fetal medicine once put it to me. “What if there would be complete loss of renal function — does that not merit consideration? What if a woman is going to go blind if she remains pregnant? Those are the kind of nuances that are hard to make bumper stickers out of.”)

Though you wouldn’t know it from the outrage that ensued, the recommendations in Tran’s bill are consistent with federal law. Even the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuruadmits that “the central provisions of these laws and proposed laws do not liberalize abortion policy beyond the status quo” set in Roe v. Wade, which, at least on paper, dictates that states can only ban abortion after a fetus is viable, if they provide necessary exceptions for health and life of the woman.

But on Tuesday, Republicans circulated a video in which a colleague demanded Tran answer for a bogus hypothetical of a woman requesting an abortion during labor. 
 

https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/the-false-outrage-over-kathy-trans-infanticide-bill.html

[West]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

A fertilized egg is not a “baby”. It is a clump of cells. 

So are you...

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'd like to start off with this topic is a nonstarter, abortion is not going to be questioned or challenged politically in this country unless things change drastically. Not in my lifetime, or yours...

What is it about human life do you not understand, since when did a human life take precedence over bad choices? 

Perhaps you can tell me when this clump of cells becomes a human being? and when do we stand together and say no you can't abort, that's a living child. 

I did not absolve anyone of anything, the final say or safety check is with the woman, she is the one that will bear the brunt of making this bad choice. she and she alone has the power to have or not have this new life.  Today's abortions are being used as an excuse for a) not being educated about sex and how babies are made, b) or they were too cheap or lazy to use the thousands of different means of birth control... How simple does it get, swallow this a "poof" no kids...... But hey that's ok you can be ignorant, lazy, and cheap in this world today someone will always have your back you can change your mind up until that baby is born and it has no repercussions on the girl's life whatsoever. Taking a life is that easy...and nobody questions if it is right or wrong, not the medical staff, certainly not the women, or anyone else...And yet when in Afghanistan taking a human life still haunts me today.

Their poor choice gets buried with all the rest of the medical waste.

Not sure how wanting to save an unborn life makes me a misogynist but ok , i can live with that. 

Stop making the woman the victim here she is not the victim, the baby is the victim, she is not the one that gets ripped apart limb by limb while in the womb and then suck out and disposed of with the rest of the medical waste.   Because of a bad choice made by its parents. 

Considering there are thousands of different types of birth control on the market today, some cost a couple of bucks. and yet over 95000 girls have failed to even make an attempt to prevent something they did not want to start with. They get a pass, it's a topic that no one should talk about.   

Wow, chauvinism is alive and well. You don't absolve anyone of anything but women are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. According to you 95,000 girls failed to make an attempt to prevent something but the 95,000 guys had no responsibility or accountablity at all. You have no problem giving them a pass.  A condom breaks or a couple gets drunk and have unprotected sex, the woman gets a life sentence but the guy just got laid and moves on to the next one. Life is grand.

For most women, an abortion is a difficult and traumatic decision. An early term fetus will know nothing if it is aborted but the women carries the guilt for the rest of her life, even if her pregnancy was not her fault and she was justified in doing it. How much guilt does a man carry? SFA yet he (you) still believes it is their right to determine that woman's future.

 

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Righ wing propaganda outlet reports that right wing activist confirms right wing theory.  
 

In the reality world 95% of biologists do not support banning abortion at conception and do not consider a human being to exist  at conception 

And once more the king of wrong claims his throne by refusing to read the text he claims expertise on.

PJ Media was only quoting this poll study

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

where the following is stated in the abstract:

"

The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins. Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)."

 

 

[Shady]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:14 PM, Oksanna said:

Of course it will.

Abortion kills women every single day.  Unborn women.  Regardless, overturning Roe v Wade doesn’t ban abortion.  Roe v Wade isn’t a law.  Overturning it means that it will be regulated the same way other rights are regulated.  Like speech, second amendment, etc.  At least half of the country will see no change.  A quarter more will see some change, but abortion will remain legal up to a certain point.  Only a handful of states, but probably none, might ban abortion outright.  Someone looking to have an abortion will just need to find a neighbouring state to have the procedure.  Furthermore, Democrats had the chance to codify abortion into actual law several times and chose not to.  There’s literally a bill that’s been sitting in committee for almost a year that Democrats have never brought to a vote.  Instead, they’ve been lazy, and relied on a 50 year old abortion ruling that was based on privacy, not body autonomy.  
But it’s nice to see that medical privacy and body autonomy are once again a thing now!  Funny how that worked.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You brought up religion...

I also brought up science and reason.

Quote

And don't be too sure there's no Gawd. That's rather...hubristic.

So when you're sure there is a Gawd your default sense is the opposite - that of shame and a lack of self confidence?

I suspect that's exactly what a dour old Mother Stigmata Nanny state would expect of it's wards.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

More hysterical right wing propaganda  based on selective half truths 

https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/the-false-outrage-over-kathy-trans-infanticide-bill.html

So you give me a hard time about giving a right wing source then you give me a leftist one and want us to believe it's different this time when you do it. "Rules for thee but not for me" again, is it, Beave?

Hell, yours didn't even link to a scientific study. Mine did.

All BS aside, here's the question from the committee on whether to approve Kathy Trans Bill legalizing abortion in the third trimester.

"Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth...she has physical signs she's about to give birth, would that be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She's dilating...

Kathy Tran: Blah, blah, blah.

Questioner: I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that.

Kathy Tran: It would allow that. Yes. "

 Now after that Kathy may very well have figured out she opened up a can of worms she'd prefer people didn't stress on and maybe there would have been better diversionary, bibble babble ways to answer that question.

But the fact remains that's the way she answered in front of the committee.

And it's not like Kathy's bill was revolutionary. Remember this happened shortly after New York had been celebrating the passing of their 3rd trimester bill. Remember? Cuomo's gang illuminated the New York state government buildings in pink lights in celebration of the passing of their third trimester abortion bill.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Oksanna said:

If you are just a random dude, you have nothing to offer on any abortion that is not yours. Unless you are a medical professional, or directly involved, your opinion is worthless, and triply so if you can't bear children yourself.

There is no 'point' where we can define what is and isn't human or a baby. Absolutely a blastocyst isn't it, and at the moment of birth, you are no longer forcing a human to donate their body to another being, so it doesn't matter. This is medical.

Nobody cares about your little story about your kids. Talking about loving your kids doesn't make up for killing women.

I am just a random dude, with an opinion no less, you don't have to like it or agree with it...God forbid a man questions a woman or her rights. And somehow being women your magically much more aware of these issues...And if women are that much more aware, why are they getting pregnant in the first place, is it being lazy/ not educated on contraceptives or just too horny to care.

  There are points in which these questions are answered below is one of the examples. 

but I did find a female doctor with an opinion, and she disagrees with your entire premise, she gives a medical and scientific explanation of when someone becomes a human being. She must be one of those right-wingnuts. 

A Scientific View of When Life Begins - Charlotte Lozier Institute

Canadian law however states that a fetus has no rights whatsoever until they are born or outside the womb. . .. I'm sure you would be good with that, I mean according to law and the Canadian medical association back in 2012. we can discard a fetus until 23 weeks and 6 days, after that time period it requires a good medical reason. I mention that because there are restrictions already placed on the mother... why are these restrictions good and others not? medical advances have been able to keep babies alive at 22 weeks... Just because it is law does not make it right.

Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)