Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
A. - I am breathing.As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.
Breathe. That’s not what I wrote.
This ought to be interesting, but I'll bite - How does refusing to accept responsibility for the consequence of action somehow qualify for the adjectives "medically necessary"?QuoteNo, a vast majority of abortions performed are simply because the woman and often the man does not want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.
Indeed. And those happen almost entirely in the first trimester. You are making our concordance seem like a disagreement.
Yeah, the non-sequitur commenced by those labeling the act of murder as a "reproductive right." Typical BS trotted out by bots, and other gaslighting scumbags, found in or emanating from, your typical DARPA-funded server farms, primarily located in Ukraine.QuoteReproductive rights...HA...what a freaking joke!
Well that’s a non sequitur.
Yeah, if a woman is found to be giving birth to a corporation, you (and I) would find it okay to kill it.https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102
Seems a crime victim is a person
You are just flat-out wrong.
So, there you have it.
An unborn fetus is a person.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people. Seems like a lot of things can be a person. Until such time that States out-and-out ban all abortions with no exceptions, all abortions are crimes against victims/persons?
If the mother dies and her death could have been prevented if she aborted, yet a law states that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, is the mother not a person, a victim? Who deserves to live, the Mother or the fetus?
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.
The law already defines it.Lazy?https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Seems a crime victim is a person
You are just flat-out wrong.
So, there you have it.
An unborn fetus is a person.
The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.
A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.
That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.
You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
Once you’ve defined that, then comes the sticky wicket around exceptions for the mothers health & rape and incest. And perhaps even viability of the fetus.I understand some people's need to have their bloodlust satisfied, regardless of what others know to be just and moral.
The easy out is a person exists at conception and there are no exceptions, all abortions under any circumstances are forbidden. Is that where you are?
Lazy?https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Seems a crime victim is a person
You are just flat-out wrong.
So, there you have it.
An unborn fetus is a person.
So anyone can determine the legal definition of a person at any given moment?Can't believe someone made a throwaway just to say that smhAlso for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
The consent of the pregnant woman makes the entire difference.
QuoteThe Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.*Note that is says legal victim, not legal person.
Of course not.People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.
Forcibly?
It was projection all along:More likely some of the regulars here using a VPN set to server locations in conservative areas.
https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
Pertinent quotes, Pt. 1Yeah, I agree Tumeni...
Twitter @highroadsaloonQuoteI said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?" She instantly replied "yes." Then she added "there will also be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.
Twitter @DavidNHackneyQuoteAbortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio. I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects. So at some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die
Imgur user 'zaboomafoo19'QuoteAt 29 years old, we found we were expecting our second child in TX. It was a surprise, but a welcome one. At 17 weeks, we found this child had no kidney, no liver, no legs, but still a heartbeat. I was referred to a clinic 2 hours away. I was told "This will be out of pocket". I was told "The insurance will cover it IF YOU WAIT FOR THE HEARTBEAT TO STOP". I was told "It's not 20 weeks old so it's not a real person". I was told a lot of things. Finally, I was told to say goodbye and move on. I was one of the fortunate ones. Women need real helathcare. Abortion is a right. Period.
Free association.On the bit I quoted...On what?There is nothing wrong with discrimination.Care to elaborate?
Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."
How is there "nothing wrong" with that?
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.
So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?Why not?
And I am sure you question the legitimacy of the claims.I'm pretty sure that the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups do.So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
On what?There is nothing wrong with discrimination.Care to elaborate?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.
So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.
Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".
You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.A little thing called "discrimination".There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
More people ought to be more discriminating.
That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.
No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.I usually ignore worthless questions.
Like-minded individuals congregate together.People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone. You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.Yeah, it could look like that.
What is wrong with that?
A little thing called "discrimination".
I achieve no sense of pride out of either.Where does it end?It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.
Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?
Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.
When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.
So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?
Well, pigeon is singular."The value of infinity is also undefined."Correct. Just like pigeon or scourge, infinity is not a value. So, one more time, the definition of infinity is: Infinity is that which is boundless, endless, or larger than any natural number.
self reflection is a good thing for everyone. I think most would agree and are probably aware of the concept prior to you feeling compelled to introduce it here.Feel free to start a thread on the process when you have a bit of time. Perhaps it may be a topic for you that allows for some personal growth.