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.

Warp12, "King of Kings", wrote:
Made me laugh.

I wasn't alone.

But the questions that were asked are worthy of thought and serious discussion, which may be easier now that Warp12 has declared his lack of interest in thought and serious discussion of them:

Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.

“That’s what’s interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,” Noem said. “The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That’s appropriate. It’s the way our Constitution intended.”

So which is it? Doctors, loved ones, or legislators? (or, heaven forbid, pregnant women and girls)

Also, the Constitution doesn't "intend" anything, it's a piece of paper. I think you meant the founding fathers you worship so much.

Is there something magical about being attorney general that makes him infallible and/or incapable of changing his mind?
All he would have to do is issue a statement: "Upon further review of the law and consultations with anti-abortionists (none of whom were women or doctors), we have determined that yes indeed the law prohibits emergency contraception. All 13 year old rape victims must now be denied emergency contraception, and carry their children to term, as the god-inspired law indicates."

There does seem to be a general trend of republican politicians trying to avoid the issue of pregnant pre-teen rape victims. I wonder why that is?

Its not like this is some unexpected side-effect. Pro-choice people have been pointing to this problem for a long time. Hopefully any time a republican politician gets interviewed, they get asked is "About those underage rape victims that abortion bans affect... why aren't you doing anything about that?" It should be the first question they get asked. And the last question. And sprinkle the question in the middle of the interview as well.
Technically, aren't the "legislators" (to use a broad definition of the term) that are closest to the people those who act as mayor and/or city counsellors? What is it about being a state-level legislator that makes them somehow better decision makers than those at the federal or municipal level? (or even, god forbit, the individual themselves)

It seems like an easy out to just chalk the rape up to "God's will", and call it a day. I guess the optics aren't too good on that, though. I mean, at this point, like I say...why should they even care? If they allow abortion for rape and incest, then the liberals take them to task for their limited scope.

That is the beauty of the scotus ruling, in one sense. It really puts the activists in their place. Their "demands" just got a massive downgrade, I'd say. Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

Is it just the optics that bothers you now? It really seems that you do not care even a little about what is right and wrong on any local issue as long as your overall goal of crushing liberalism is served.

Yeah, those uppity women demanding <gasp> rights over their own body. Kind of like hitting them with the metaphorical waterhoses like the good ol' days, huh Warp?

Rule of thumb when it comes to rights: meek and humble doesn't usually win any prizes. Legislators rarely hand out awards for people acting like good boys and girls and being quiet. You DO have to demand it sometimes, sorry if you think that's "bitching and moaning."

Wait for the inevitable "that's not what I said, why do you meanies never understand me????"

It's a moldy oldie.

The revenge politics are getting a little thick.

I'd like to think that folks have the sense to realize that the common good might from time to time necessitate embracing parts of the action plan of the other side of the political spectrum.

The idea that it's good politics to ignore and dismiss the problems of un-wanted pregnancies due to rape and incest because doing so bugs pro-choice advocates is, IMHO, the worst kind of partisanship.

Classic virtue signaling. Do you consider an egg a chicken? An acorn a tree? A seed a flower? Batter a cake? Is a bunch of grapes wine? Is a ball of yarn a sweater?

I suppose when a woman miscarries, she must report the 'death of her baby' to authorities so they can issue a death certificate for it?

THESE are not a 'baby':


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...342bc49d54.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...34464d8bb6.jpg