:bigclap

All things being equal I'm fine with telling a woman who's seven months pregnant that it's too late for an abortion. Even in cases of anencephaly I'd be more inclined to induce labor and provide comfort care for the child. That infant will not be aware that it's being taken care of, but we know, and I think that matters.

The CBS story you cite goes into greater detail than the story we are discussing in this thread. For instance, in the article you cite they name the rapist, one Juan Leon-Gomez, who was indicted for rape and held on a one-million-dollar bond for his "non-forcible" transgression. He was scheduled to be arraigned on May 20th of that year. The article mentions information about the victim, how she "left the residence without her mother's permission," and how she was counseled on "her delinquent behavior," and how she is "rebellious," and how she "refuses to listen to her mother and runs away from home all the time." Most importantly, it cites court documents and police reports.
This was rather interesting -
I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

Did you forget that you did say:

How do you justify aborting a fetus that is the result of incest unless you don't consider it equally deserving of life as any other fetus?

I don't care what your position on overturning R v W was. The rest is just your usual attempt at distraction with nonsense.

What is wrong with calling a "the unborn" a parasite... don't many conservatives call people who get the dole (social security) the same thing???

What is special about "the unborn" that you find it objectionable to call them parasites just like most conservatives call the dole recipients... especially when "the unborn" are in fact parasites by all the definitions of the term scientifically and socially???

Do you know what the definition of a parasite is???

This. As soon as you say that abortion is OK in certain situations, you're admitting that it's more about the mother's behavior than anything else. You're making your own judgment on whether or not she "deserves" to discontinue the pregnancy.

No one should have that control over another person's bodily autonomy. Not if they ever want to pretend they respect civil rights at all, for anybody. No pregnant woman, or any human being at all, should have to prove to some stranger's satisfaction that they deserve to have control over their own being.

Why???

Also... do you think the government should make it illegal for you to refuse to give blood or to refuse to be an organ donor???

Consider this... if a man has a daughter and she just had double renal failure and as a result her lungs are irrevocably diseased.

Do you think that the government should pass a law to make it illegal for the father (who is fully compatible blood and genetically) to refuse giving half a lung and one kidney to his daughter???

At least she's not flat-out declaring that the story is false. In a weird way I give her credit for that. I disagree with her definitions though. Terminating an unwanted six-week pregnancy is not a "tragedy." She kind of admitted a full-term pregnancy could well endanger the life of a 10-year-old and in fact a full-term pregnancy is definitely a mortality risk for women in general. She started using the language of choice, actually, by saying the people close to the problem should make the decision. But she included the state Legislature as people close to the problem.

Maternal mortality is 10 times as high in the U.S. as it is in New Zealand. Twice as high as France. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation where it has increased since 1990. Of course some will hand-wave this away.

I always wonder why people who champion individual rights, and say it's inappropriate for the federal government to take them away, think it's OK for a *state* government to take them away. Paranoid fantasies almost never seem to focus on, say, being persecuted by South Dakota.

Ask the legislatures that are passing these draconian anti-abortion laws. They're the ones telling women that a clump of cells is more important than control over their own bodies.

"Inconvenience"? Spoken like someone who will never, ever find himself with an unwanted pregnancy. And an added "it's really her fault, after all" condemnation for good measure. You never fail to deliver. Pardon the pun.

I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy. :)

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

Well, how is she going to be able to have any allowance left for buying ice cream from the ice cream truck if she has to spend it on diapers?

So if the girl is irresponsible and will never be able to be so and much less take care of the child to grow up to a decent citizen..... do you advocate that the government should start a social security system to provide for these children of irresponsible people to be brought up decently and to mature into decent citizens on the expense of tax payers???



Isn't the conservatives' mantric spiel ... smaller government lesser control less legislation .... what do you think all this is doing to the size and expenditure of the government especially if they have to take care of the eventually born "unborns"???

Nope... a fetus is NOT a human... it is the enemies of liberty and bodily autonomy who falsely claim it is in order to further their agenda of denying people autonomy over the choices for their lives' trajectories.



I think you need to get yourself a biology book and learn about what a fetus is and then what a parasite is... and see if you can comprehend the similarity.

Well, yeah....you kinda did:

Well, good. But unless the father of the baby in the Ohio case has been identified , they can't give his name, can they? If the girl was sexually abused by more than one man or the girl cannot name him, then it will require a DNA test that they can't do until they can get fetal tissue after the abortion. Therefore, if no criminal charges have been filed as of yet, there are no court records to quote.

You're pedaling awfully hard to support your claim that the Ohio case is 'fake' and 'made up' when it's clear that you want to believe this is all just a political stunt by pro-choice advocates. But you're on a stationary bike and going nowhere:

How many parents would want to advertise that their 9,10, 11, 12 yr. old child is pregnant and needs an abortion? You think they contact the media? Hell, no: they quietly take her to a state without these draconian laws and get it taken care of. And if it's a case of incest, they probably cover that up, too.

Great for you. You still seem to be confused. You keep citing stats that agree with me.

It's always easy to refute people when you see their real meaning behind their words, and refute that rather than what they actually said. Is this the way you teach history? Ignore what things say and just make up your own meaning?

Some guys musings on his blog about what he wrote 46 years ago is a ****** source.

Yes, but you are using it to refute an argument you made up. I never said that medieval peasants weren't poor. My point was that they were. Demonstrating my point doesn't refute me. It only refutes the point you made up and then attributed to me that goes against the things that I actually said.

Again, I said half a their children died in my original post. You then changed it to infants, and so I gave the stat for that. You going back and saying I should be using the child death stat, that I originally gave, and giving me the exact same stat that I quoted in my original post is neither you educating me, no is it you proving me wrong. When you teach, do you listen to what your students say, or do you go on hour long monologues based on you not having listened to the question?

Read what you are responding to. I said that, given that half their kids died before adulthood, for the population to be increasing, as it was for most of the middle ages, apart from times of plague and famine, they must have been having 4 or 5 kids. You leaping out and telling me that actually after half their kids died they only had two or so kids left, or that during the black death that dropped below two, is you agreeing with what I said.

Read the text you are responding to. I said that half their kids died, and since the population was mostly rising the must have been having 4 or 5 kids. I was speaking in very broad terms. 4 or 5 kids with half of them dying leaves 2-2.5 kids. I mentioned that the population dropped at times due to things like plague in my second post that you responded to. I'm perfectly familiar with the graph of the English population in the middle ages. Demonstrating that there were below replacement birth rates in the period I had already mentioned as being such a period is not you bringing anything to the table.

I'm sorry, but you are quoting things that agree with my posts to refute me. Things that are widely known. My daughter is 12 and could tell you them. What do you want me to tell you if you start lecturing me about the facts in my own posts as if you are educating me?

Some kind of haze, because you keep seeing claims from me that don't appear in my posts. They were able to, times like the black death aside, maintain above replacement birth rates, even though in absolute terms their were far poorer, and yet we aren't and many people cite the cost of children as the reason.

Yeah, I don't think there is much point in going in to the women's studies departments view of history.

Are you still giving me a history lecture, or just a social justice lecture?

Except that you don't read the posts you responded to, and you quoted back stats that I had given you as if you were informing me. You said "That has to be one of the most historically ignorant posts I've ever read"... sure you came in very polite. You then went and straw manned me. I have no idea why I took your approach as rude and confrontational.

Clearly I am not entitled to my own facts because you steal them from my posts and then cite them back to me as if you were educating me.

For the sake of the mods, I'm done responding.

There are a number of medical terms people might find have a negative connotation. The word itself describes a relationship between the host and the parasite. It isn't always negative.

5 reasons you might actually want to be infected by a parasite


Moving on:
Inside the Extreme Effort to Punish Women for Abortion
lol :rolleyes:

No one has said a zygote or fetus isn't 'human'. My liver is 'human'. My kidneys are 'human'. But they are not 'persons'. This has been pointed out to you before but you just continue with the intellectual dishonesty.

Every scientist would jump on that bandwagon because it's a scientific fact.

Sigh. Can you get any more dishonest? Kookbreaker never compared a fetus to a virus:

Countering an argument with the fact that having a 'unique DNA' does not mean something isn't scientifically a parasite is not comparing them.

"Viruses are small obligate intracellular parasites"

First rule of holes when you find yourself in one: stop digging.

:clap:

Best news I've had all day!

Yet you don't think women should have to carry "incest babies" to term. To be OK with that, as far as I can tell, you can't believe abortion is murder - that a fetus is a full-fledged person.

If it's not murder, why should the state be able to ban it?

I'm not playing games. I'm willing to call a viable fetus a person, but at six weeks? No. And I don't think you are saying that either.

But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.

Quote anyone saying "it isn't a developing human". You can't because no one has. We have said it isn't a 'person'. Let's play "Spot the difference".

YOU are the one attempting to distract with the 'parasite and virus' talk by misrepresenting what was said. Still.

Exactly... that is what you are doing.... I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer ....


Besides....


A swab from the inside of my cheek is also a potential human too... and a developing human is not a human... just as an egg is not a chicken and an almond nut is not an almond tree.

You really need to get yourself a biology book and start learning stuff about what a fetus is and what a parasite is.... maybe that would at least let you realize that that "all your piffle about parasite is just an attempt to distract from the fact"...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, Dumb All Over.

What matters is whether the Indy Star story is true, not whether it includes the exhaustive detail one might expect in a three part documentary.

We still await any evidence that the Indy Star story is "fake".

Edited by zooterkin:

Edited to give another member's full name. Do not change another member's name for purposes of ridicule, nor when they have specifically asked you not to.

I'm fine with calling it a developing human life. But then, the "parasite" terminology doesn't bother me either. I see it as fairly neutral.

Interrupting that development under certain circumstances - and not only when a woman's life is threatened - was broadly acceptable for eons. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with third trimester abortions for no reason, but states already had the ability to regulate that. They are vanishingly rare occurrences. At 6 months, I would consider saving the woman's life to be a valid reason. I also don't want to force a woman to birth a baby without a brain. The risk to the mother in that situation is not negligible.

You're a 'the glass is half full" kind of person, aren't ya?

You are correct. I am generally not engaging you in debate.

No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights

Just like many members here.

I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid. I'm sure some others will be more than happy to entertain such shenanigans, however. :)

You know, the more you act all holier than thou with people, the harder I laugh.

What a ******* sideshow.

Yup... you will never dare ever to answer those questions ... and your ad hominems are not a valid ruse to obfuscate from the fact that you will never dare answer those questions because they demonstrate the moral and legal bankruptcy of the anti-human-rights position of the anti-women's bodily autonomy fundamentalists.

In retrospect, this thread should have been aborted a couple of hundred posts ago. I guess it's too late now.

It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

Maybe somebody could drive it to California or New York.

:big:

:big:

It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

It's far more curious that those who defend a clump of cells which might grow into a sentient creature at some point in the future will toss aside those principles when it comes to actual sentient creatures. Come back when the Christian party starts caring about the poor; rich men and camels and all that. I won't share their believes, but at least I will respect them.

So, you are one of the ones campaigning for comprehensive, state mandated sexual education in all schools (even home schooling), a tax funded healthcare system with free access to birth control (including the morning after pill) and a social security system that allows young mothers the ability to care for their children including access to schools without having to work?

Or are you one of all the others who only cares about children from the moment of ejaculation to the moment of birth?

The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

Yes, every step in the direction of a theocracy is right in your eyes, provided it gets 'liberal tears'. I hope you go to the right church the right amount of times.

You're free to provide relevant scientific findings on brain activity.

I don't see anyone giving out the social security number for this thread. How can you expect me to believe that it happened?

I'm glad to see that you turned around to... honesty?

Your opinion on the values of others is about as valuable as what I left in the toilet this morning.

Everyone here as read the vile garbage you've written on this forum. Your hypocritical BS isn't fooling anyone.

With cheering the loss of bodily autonomy in favor of valuing human life, will you be willingly accepting forced blood and organ donation when it inevitably arises?

Noem Squirms When Pressed On Story About 10-Year-Old Forced To Travel For Abortion

You can watch the interview here:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1543591991220572160

3 minutes of waffling and ********.

Also, to those who are about to reply to this with their 50th post insisting "it never happened!", for the purposes of this interview, it doesn't ******* matter! What matters is that Gov. Noem is asked point-blank what she and her state would do if such a case happened in South Dakota under present laws, and this piece of **** couldn't give a straight answer and rambled on with her talking points! And, of course, if this did happen in South Dakota, a large majority of the people there would be fine with forcing this girl to go through with her pregnancy.

With the SCOTUS decision, I assume that all deportation or arrest of pregnant women will stop, right?

They should have asked Noem if she plans to get rid of the death penalty in South Dakota. You know, since she values life.