Women are only "split-tails" after birth. Before birth, they're persons worthy of respect.

Your implication being that pro-choice liberals were just playing around with the issue.

Can anyone say, "projection"?

No one is fond of late 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions without cause.

Your preference "would be that more focus was placed on personal responsibility than is currently the case." I'm curious what you think that would *look like*, in terms of abortion law. Would the law say only people who used contraception (or at least tried to) would be able to obtain abortions? Seriously, what would an emphasis on "personal responsibility" change?

At best the chips will fall to honest discussion and, I hope, a consensus on the order of that developed in Ireland. It did take maternal deaths for that to happen. Will pointing out such cases be written off as liberal "screeching"?

My problem with the SCOTUS decision is that ultimately I am very skeptical that the justices in question were simply making it a state's rights issue. The real agenda for many right-to-lifers is establishing "personhood" and a nationwide ban. Absent widespread support for that concept (and I would argue that very few people truly believe that a zygote is a person, even among right to lifers) I don't see a compelling state interest to intrude on this decision to any greater extent than is already the case.

Barry Goldwater agreed, but the Republican Party has become so extremist that even Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster these days, let alone Goldwater. I apparently find that more ominous than you do.

Maybe the states instituting personhood laws will eventually put the Supreme Court in the much tougher position of having to rule on whether in fact a zygote is a person. IOW: Is abortion murder? Because if it isn't - and IMO, anyone that supports exceptions for rape or incest is admitting that it isn't - where then is the justification for the more extreme restrictions on access? And if it is, common law, everyday practice and even Biblical law are being tossed out the window.

Exactly. This is a 6 week gestation fetus. I guess it's more important than the girl or woman carrying it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2024f8d2e3.jpg

Why does it have to be "more important" in order to justify living?

Someone could argue that the value of that life is greater than the inconvenience that the woman may endure due to the unwanted pregnancy that she voluntarily contributed to (in the vast majority of cases).

A baby probably isn't even aware of anything until a few months after birth, but that might be an unpalatable time frame, so I'm willing to compromise.

Have you ever even seen a newborn baby in real life?

I didn't realize I and others had to barter for human rights.

"You can have freedom of religion or freedom of speech, both is too much."

"What? You don't have the right to take away either, **** off!"

"<sigh> See?" You people just won't compromise! We might as well just take both."

I think he was just trading ridiculous hyperbole tit for tat.

I suggest you get to an ear, nose, and throat specialist and get your nose checked. Your nasal passages are clogged with ant-choice bias mucous.

Is this 2019 story also fake?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-ab...ll-2019-05-13/
Hmmmm.... shame on the 11 year old for not being 'responsible'!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...0NQ0YB20150505
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...5bf2e87c57234f

GOP controlled state abortion laws are no better than Paraguay.

He's been told that several times and cannot dispute that fact so he resorts to misrepresenting how the term were used. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

You head the 'intellectually dishonest posts' list.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...209d8a27cd.jpg

It is an interesting form of argument here. I never said a thing doesn't happen. But if I deny any instance in which it does, it cancels out: it does and doesn't at the same time and I win.

Just because something looks aware, doesn't mean it is.

Around 30 weeks seems to be the point when you can even start to consider a fetus sentient, but I don't really count that as a person based on what I've read.

Yes, like a seed is a developing flower. Do you give a woman a seed bouquet?

Does an acorn give you shade?

Do people toast newlyweds with a bunch of grapes?

Does an egg get served at Thanksgiving with sausage?

"Asked if she would seek to have the law changed if a similar case occurred in her state, Noem replied: “I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. There’s more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered, like that 10-year-old girl.”

Yeah, let's compound the horror of that shattered life by making her carry and give birth! On average, a ten year old girl weighs 70 lbs and is 4'7" tall.

It's just about that child saving money, you see.

I wonder if a lot of people think that third-trimester abortions with no cause are common.

Reportedly it is less than 1 percent of abortions, and in fact the Supreme Court decision may actually increase the incidence of third-trimester abortions.

I don't believe a zygote is a person. I don't believe the fetus pictured above is a person. However I accept that abortion kills a developing human. And while I don't have a problem with a woman deciding to abort a 6-month-old fetus with no brain, in other circumstances I also don't mind telling a woman it's too late for an abortion. If her life is in danger, induce labor and accept the costs associated with keeping a premature but otherwise healthy infant alive. Chances are pretty good someone will want to adopt them.

Wagging my finger and lecturing people about birth control doesn't interest me in the slightest.

My great-grandmother (born 1908) had 13 pregnancies. Four survived past their first birthday. One, Emma, died when she was 4 from scarlet fever. Three survived to adulthood: One almost died from scarlet fever at 12 (left deaf), another was injured and became a cripple at 7, and my grandmother barely survived smallpox at age 17. My gr-grandmother was not poor. They owned property including a farm and rental properties. She had access to healthcare. So she gave birth 13 times but had a family of 3.

: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.