International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13847433)
Someone on record calling murder victims scumbags who earned their fate and not caring if poor people die due to lack of access to healthcare should probably spare the rest of us their hollow moralizing.

:bigclap

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olmstead (Post 13847496)
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.

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.

Dumb All Over 3rd July 2022 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847486)


Is this 2019 story also fake?


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 -
Quote:

An incident report filed April 29 by the local police department reflects an interview with an employee of a "pregnancy care center," who appeared to place some of the responsibility on the 11-year old rape victim.
I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847448)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.
I never said that.
And did you forget that I was not against Roe in the first place, nor did I expect it to be overturned?

But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Did you forget that you did say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

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.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847184)
So, now we have people here on the forum who consider the unborn on par with both parasites and viruses. Lovely.


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???

TheGoldcountry 3rd July 2022 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847526)
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.

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.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.


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???

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847503)
"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.

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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847474)
Why does it have to be "more important" in order to justify living?

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.

Quote:

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).
"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.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847529)
What is wrong with calling a "the unborn" a parasite...


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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13847507)
It's just about that child saving money, you see.

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?

Leumas 3rd July 2022 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847389)
...
My personal preference would be that more focus was placed on personal responsibility than is currently the case. Most unwanted pregnancies are entirely avoidable without surgery or abstinence.

I can't say that I am shedding a tear over this ruling, however. Some of the liberal rhetoric being put forth makes me think the action was overdue. Now we will just have to let the chips fall where they may.


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???



Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847389)
...
I can't say that I am shedding a tear over this ruling, however. Some of the liberal rhetoric being put forth makes me think the action was overdue. Now we will just have to let the chips fall where they may.

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"???

Leumas 3rd July 2022 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
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. :)

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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
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.

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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847455)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant?
I haven't said that and I don't think that.


Well, yeah....you kinda did:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847018)
HEADLINE - Millions of Knocked-Up Nine-Year-Olds Require Abortions!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847022)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Random View Post
Probably only a few dozen a year but yeah. Heck, what would you say if this happened once, because, and I repeat, this stuff will be happening.
So far, it hasn't happened even once.


Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847525)
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.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13846957)
Something smells fishy. I don't believe the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847003)
The story is pure BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847027)
Mischaracterize my position on abortion all you like. All I am saying is the story is bogus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847258)
Do try to pay attention.

We're talking about a made-up story of a nine-year-old girl who was statutorily raped just a handful of weeks before the Supreme Court overturned Roe and has since travelled to Indiana for her abortion. That's what we're talking about, Skeptic Ginger. Not whether 10-year-olds have ever gotten abortions, but rather about how many 9-year-olds who were impregnated shortly before the SC decision will need to travel to another state for an abortion because they are just now slightly over six weeks pregnant and therefore ineligible to receive an abortion in the state of Ohio. It hasn't happened, not in this case or any other.

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.

shuttlt 3rd July 2022 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
I have a teaching credential in history and passed my 3 hr. final exam in the 97th percentile and I say your post was historically ignorant because it was.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
Yes, I noticed it but that was not the point of your post at all which was "From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood)."

The highlighted is merely an acknowledgment that many children died but it does not change what your main point was: it wasn't an economic hardship on women to keep having children. That is patently false.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
Despite your attempt to discredit my source as a 'blog', the writer was referring to his senior thesis. You know, that thing a graduating senior has to write and present to professors as evidence of their mastery of their major. Do you think malnutrition in the MIddle Ages has changed in the last 46 years? As the author included in his 'blog', he "was particularly interested in a recent study of bones from medieval London (National Geographic, Feb 2016, p. 97):

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
This backs up exactly what I said.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
The size of families was not determined by infant deaths alone but by all child deaths which was about 50%:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
False:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
So, not the large families you claim.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
Again, your attempt to dismiss my source fails. As does your ad hominem. I'd say my facts are backed up with....facts. Yours are not.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
SLOL! Speaking of a 'midwit haze' what the hell does that have to do with your claim that people 'pushed out children' like crazy and didn't find it an economic burden? ]

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
OMG. The list I provided weren't 'encouragements' to have children! They are what prevented women from having control over their own bodies!
Women never wanted to be breeding machines but that was the major role society...controlled by MEN...gave them because it wasn't MEN who were dying from pregnancy, in childbirth or from post partum infections. Childbirth was the leading cause of death in women in the middle ages.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
Today we give women choices...or at least we did until this latest SC debacle. Historically, women had very little control over anything in their lives because they were legally the property of men in their lives. Hell, rape was seen as a property crime against a woman's husband or father.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
I said your post was historically ignorant...as in uninformed. I didn't say stupid. It was you who chose to use the term "midwit" toward me.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847420)
AS the saying goes: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your post was, and is, historically incorrect.

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.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd July 2022 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
...
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.

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:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847376)
"Extremists". LOL.

As for the video, that is not a civil discussion, and the fellow is clearing trying to frustrate Trump. Clearly though, if an abortion law is broken, there must be punishment. Obviously the woman is likely to be part of that equation.

Inside the Extreme Effort to Punish Women for Abortion
Quote:

“Even the states that have trigger laws,” which ban abortion at conception without exceptions for rape or incest, did not go far enough, Durbin, a pastor in the greater Phoenix area, said. “They do not believe that the woman should ever be punished.”...

The most extreme, like Durbin, want to pursue what they call “abortion abolition,” a move to criminalize abortion from conception as homicide and hold women who have the procedure responsible — a position that in some states could make those women eligible for the death penalty. That position is at odds with the anti-abortion mainstream, which opposes criminalizing women and focuses on prosecuting providers.

Many people who oppose abortion believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Abolitionists follow that thinking to what they believe is the logical, and uncompromising, conclusion: From the moment of conception, abolitionists want to give the fetus equal protection as a person under the 14th Amendment.
lol :rolleyes:

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing depersonifying the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy. :)

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.

Quote:

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4,
Every scientist would jump on that bandwagon because it's a scientific fact.

Quote:

with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.
Sigh. Can you get any more dishonest? Kookbreaker never compared a fetus to a virus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13847182)
Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 View Post
If you want to talk science, then the first thing that must be observed is that the baby is not part of the mother's body. He is *in* the mother's body, but he is not a part of her body.
Except that said baby cannot live outside of the mother's body until very late in term.

Quote:

Quote:
The baby is a separate living being with a unique DNA set,
So is 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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13847555)

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

:clap:

Best news I've had all day!

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
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. :)

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.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13847595)
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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
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.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847534)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

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???


Besides....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie.


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"...

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847607)
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:

arayder 3rd July 2022 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847525)
I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

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.

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
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.

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.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847609)
But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, DOA.

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".

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

Warp12 3rd July 2022 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847607)
I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer .....


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

Leumas 3rd July 2022 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847613)
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

shemp 3rd July 2022 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847354)
Technically/scientifically a fetus is a parasite.

Just like many members here.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847622)
No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights


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. :)

TheGoldcountry 3rd July 2022 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
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.

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

What a ******* sideshow.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847633)
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. :)

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.

TragicMonkey 3rd July 2022 09:45 PM

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

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13847660)
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.

Bob001 4th July 2022 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

Maybe somebody could drive it to California or New York.

Leumas 4th July 2022 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

:big:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847701)
Maybe somebody could drive it to California or New York.

:big:

mikegriffith1 4th July 2022 04:07 AM

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.

Olmstead 4th July 2022 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
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.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th July 2022 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
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.

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?

Warp12 4th July 2022 05:05 AM

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.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th July 2022 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
Then more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It' 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.

Olmstead 4th July 2022 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
Then 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.

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

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

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

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

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

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
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.

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.

Upchurch 4th July 2022 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
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.

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?

shemp 4th July 2022 08:23 AM

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

Quote:

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) on Sunday struggled to defend her state’s abortion ban, which only excludes cases where the pregnant’s person’s life is at risk, when asked about a news story about a child who is traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion.

Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned late last month, South Dakota passed a law that bans abortions except in cases when it is necessary to save a mother’s life. It does not allow abortion in cases involving incest or rape. The state’s law also makes it a felony to perform an abortion.

During an interview on CNN, Noem was pressed on a report in the Indianapolis Star that detailed a call that an Indianapolis-based obstetrician-gynecologist received from a doctor who works with victims of child abuse in Ohio, a state that outlawed any abortion after six weeks just hours after Roe was overturned late last month. The doctor in Ohio had a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks pregnant. The child was reportedly on her way to receive care from the Indianapolis-based doctor soon after the call. Abortion is legal in Indiana for now, but the state may soon impose similar restrictions.

Asked whether South Dakota would go forward in forcing a 10-year-old in the same situation to give birth, Noem said she finds the child’s scenario to be a “tragic story” without answering the question.

“What’s incredible is that nobody’s talking about the pervert, horrible and deranged individual that raped a 10-year-old. And what is it? What are we doing about that? What are we doing about those individuals that do this to these children?” Noem said.

CNN anchor Dana Bash interjected as Noem continued to dodge the question. Bash stressed that the 10-year-old who crossed state lines to obtain an abortion is a girl, not a woman, before asking Noem about whether a child should give birth to a child.

Noem once again deflected.

“And every single life — every single life is precious,” Noem said. “This tragedy is horrific. I can’t even imagine. I have never had anybody in my family or myself gone through anything like this. I can’t even imagine. But, in South Dakota, the law today is that the abortions are illegal, except to save the life of the mother.”

Pressed again on the details of the Indianapolis Star story, Noem claimed that she is never okay with that and that the story will “keep me up at night.”

Bash then asked Noem if she would be willing to support a change to state law on abortion to make an exception for a child who becomes pregnant as a result of abuse.

Noem continued to pivot away from the question, saying that the situation “breaks my heart” as a mother and grandmother.

“Got a 1-year-old little granddaughter named Ms. Addie. I can’t even imagine,” Noem said. “What I would say is, I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. And so 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.”

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.”

Noem’s latest remarks come a week after she refused to engage on the life-threatening consequences that the overturn of Roe poses during an interview on ABC News.

After promoting a website in her state that supposedly offers financial support to people during their pregnancy, Noem complained about what she called “sensational pundit commentary” on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Asked about the prospect of her constituents traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, Noem replied that the situation is not currently addressed in her state’s statute.

“And so I think that’s things that there will be debates about. But also we’re having lots of debates in South Dakota,” Noem said, before pivoting to complaining about the Biden administration and inflation.

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.

The Great Zaganza 4th July 2022 08:27 AM

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

slyjoe 4th July 2022 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13847968)
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.

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.