I never did that anyway.
The way I read this bill: if a woman starts it, she has to finish it. This man has my vote.
I got nothing
- Thread starter thatsbaseball
- Start date
- Status
The way I read this bill: if a woman starts it, she has to finish it. This man has my vote.
Right, this is so much crazier than the other sh|t***: ranging from civil rights being dismantled to nazi salute excuses to being offended by the words of a minister preaching Jesus' ways.
I’m all for an abortion that doesn’t have an impact on anyone other than the mother.
If we are going to claim a fetus has rights, then the cart cant go before the horse. Everything needs to line up for that to actually be defensible.
- fetuses need to be recognized by the Federal Government as having all the same rights as born and living Americans. So a SS# for every fetus, I guess?
- every pregnancy that isnt carried to term needs to be investigated because that is the death of someone with rights. So since 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, thatll be a shitton of criminal investigations. But seriously now- it is needed if we are protecting a fetus' rights.
- every birth where a child has physical or mental limitations needs to be investigated to see if the mother was criminally responsible due to poor care during pregnancy. DHS is gonna be overflowing with newborns. Again though, this is needed if we are protecting a fetus' rights.
Those 3 bullet points could be read and viewed as me being dramatic and extreme. But no, I am not being extreme- I am pointing out how extreme a genuine claim of personhood with rights is for a fetus.
Anything less that full protection is both inconsistent and a violation of the claimed rights the fetus has.
I will add that I am unsure of a reasonable resolution for situations where a man wants to keep the child and the mother doesnt. That is, admittedly, a specific instance that I have no answer for because I do think the man should be able to raise their child, but I also dont think a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
I offer up this situation because I think it is important to acknowledge that issues can be complex and specific situations may not fully track with the overall view.
This is an incredibly rare situation though, so it is almost never something that actually has to be sorted out.
This thread would be a lot cooler if everyone just recognized the obvious satirical point the Legislator is trying to make, chuckles at the inconsistent position the point highlights, and they post a funny gif like many have done.
Last edited:
Didn’t read it but I’m guessing the gist is “I’m all about killing babies in horrific fashions that if it was done to an animal, I’d want the person to be burned alive at the stake.”
Well men (and women, you left that part out) making laws regarding bodies inside women's bodies is not the same thing as men (and women) making laws regarding women's bodies.
Those would be illegal, you would lose rights over your own body. That is the point, Republicans are already doing such stupid **** to women.
I know my wife would have died at age 24 under the current abortion laws. There was a viable chance that thing inside her would have lived a few seconds but it definitely would have killed her. Under today's laws she would have had to have died.
So, yeah, this law makes just as much sense to me as the Republicans trying to ban contraceptives and abortion. Keep Your Religious views out of my life, because you wrong. It should always be between a woman and her doctor what is required and not some religious zealots.
He did exactly what he intended to do and the idiots fell for it hook, line, sinker ball game
what's worse, we don't even know how many women these anti-abortion laws are killing because so many were dying in Texas that Texas stopped reporting maternity deaths. We don't even know how many are dying, I just know my wife would have died and I would have been left to rear our first two children alone, as it was, she lived 20 more years.
We were never able to have more children due to many complications, cancer etc, but at least my wife lived two more decades. Anti-Abortion is the complete opposite of prolife to me, it is pro-death to women. So why not outlaw masturbation. I am game, I old and mine don't work right anymore.
We were never able to have more children due to many complications, cancer etc, but at least my wife lived two more decades. Anti-Abortion is the complete opposite of prolife to me, it is pro-death to women. So why not outlaw masturbation. I am game, I old and mine don't work right anymore.
Yea uhh actually that's not true. Most undocumented pay into programs they cannot use and also most tax dollars go to subsides for billionaires who don't have to pay much for taxes but keep believe what Daddy DJT and uncle Elon tells you
That is a religious view, one in which I disagree.
Guess what, even the Baptist Association had several votes in favor of abortion up until the Republicans had a political campaign complete with propaganda making you believe it was murder back in the late 70s or was it early 80s. It is not murder. Convincing you that is was the brain child of one guy to get Republican votes.
You know what is murder? Not giving women proper healthcare and killing doctors taking care of these women which has happened. So many women are dying from the new anti-women laws that they are stopping even reporting the data on maternity deaths in Texas and maybe everywhere when Trump gets through. They slashing everything.
Let this sink in. Anti-Abortion laws kill women.
Anyone that thinks the laws say abortion is fine when the women are endangered are fools. Hospitals won't touch a woman having a miscarriage. Why? It's actually called a spontaneous abortion and they can't help. Women are suffering and religious nuts like you have no clue about it until it happens to your wife or child and even then deny it.
I'm truly sorry for your loss, and that sounds like an incredibly horrible situation. I'm glad you and your children got those extra 2 decades with her.
I just wanted to point out that some of us on the "prolife" side (like me, and I believe probably the majority of others) agree that there should be procedures and laws in place that protect the mother in situations like yours. I am pretty sure in a lot of the anti-abortion bills, language includes "except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy". I think the vast (vast) majority of abortions are by choice and for convenience. I think that less than 3% of abortions are actually carried out due to the endangerment of the mother. I guess that stat could be wrong, but I highly doubt it misses by a ten- or twentyfold margin. Again, I'm sorry for your situation and this comment is not intended to address your specific case, I'm speaking in general.
It seems to me the obvious solution is to stop killing babies in the womb UNLESS that pregnancy is going to kill the mother. Then, save the mother's life. I'm not sure why that is so controversial. (I know r*pe is another issue, but i don't want to complicate my comment any further)
Terrible takeaway from my post. Just terrible.
I am saying that if a fetus has the status of personhood, and the connected rights, then changes need to be made for consistency.
- All pregnancies which are not carried to term need to be looked into. Every grieving woman and man will need to go through the process of documenting the cause of death and possibly investigated for criminal activity which may have led to the death.
- Every mother of a child born with physical or mental limitations needs to be investigated to determine if they committed child abuse during pregnancy which led to those limitations.
Related note- if a fetus has personhood status and a SS#, then can they also be claimed on taxes as a dependent?
So, what I am getting out of all this reading is that abortion is a controversial issue. There seems to be some very differing schools of thought running in both directions. You have to give the religious zealots their props. They set their minds on getting rid of Roe in the late 70s, and rode that belief all the way to control of the supreme court. You also have to admit that denying anyone access to medical care is going to cost lives in some form or fashion. Surely there is a way to balance religious interests with medical ones when it comes to the issue. I know the words common sense get thrown around a great deal, but it would seem to make sense here. If a woman is dying, then help her, common sense. Do not kill a baby, common sense. The real debate seems to be over a number of weeks. All the educated folks I know that argue this issue usually boils down to where you set the week ban on abortion?
I am also an avid reader of religious texts. I guess that would make sense too, being the Devil and all. I have never found a part that talks about forcing your beliefs on other people. I have seen parts about converting other people to your beliefs using positive means. I have always thought if you want to have beliefs, that is awesome, but they are just your beliefs. When you start to force social policies or laws based on them, that will be where the ole Devil hops off the train. Just my two cents, I am sure I am mostly wrong. I am also sure one of the far more educated folks will tell me about how I am wrong and set me straight.
I am also an avid reader of religious texts. I guess that would make sense too, being the Devil and all. I have never found a part that talks about forcing your beliefs on other people. I have seen parts about converting other people to your beliefs using positive means. I have always thought if you want to have beliefs, that is awesome, but they are just your beliefs. When you start to force social policies or laws based on them, that will be where the ole Devil hops off the train. Just my two cents, I am sure I am mostly wrong. I am also sure one of the far more educated folks will tell me about how I am wrong and set me straight.
Can you provide any proof of a woman needing healthcare (not an abortion) and wasn’t provided it? Serious question.
As to your second point, if you’re being objective, we all “force our beliefs” on others if given the chance. Whether you’re Christian or not, the way we vote is how we choose our laws. No one is asking people to worship Jesus, but we also feel that abortions done bc a lady decided to not be careful when getting it on is not right. Some feel that killing a baby is murder when it’s done just to do it which is what the left seems happy to do. And don’t tell me that doesn’t happen when there are numerous videos out there of rabid women laughing about their abortions. And even in MN, despite the lies Walz claimed, abortion was available up until the end. Basically, one can’t separate your beliefs (religious or not) from how one votes.
Maybe you should point out what else it's about. I'll anxiously await your BS response.
No, I was making the point that if a woman is in serious danger then help her. If that means because she is having a miscarriage or because she got shot in the head then she should be helped, that was my only point there. To me a medical procedure is a medical procedure. You obviously see abortions as different from other medical procedures, and I do not. I would not deny a woman an abortion for the same reason I would not deny her a heart transplant.
So it is ok to force your beliefs on someone else when given the chance? That is ok? Or it is ok because according to you that is what we are going to do naturally anyway? I get that you are against needless abortions. If you do not want there to be abortions that are not medically needed I am fine with that. I am simply saying in your highlighted part that I do not see abortion as different from any other medical procedure. I think you are looking for someone to argue with over this, and that is great argue away. I would also say two idiots (me and you) arguing about it on a message board solves nothing given neither of us are qualified to make any medical decision relating to some else's life. There are people that are, and they are called doctors. I would say the best idea is let them make decisions on what is needless and what is not. Just my two cents again, tear it apart.
I didnt make the claim so I wont speak to what the other poster is saying, but I can add that there are very real and documented examples of access no longer being available and women then going without or delaying care with a bad end result.
When healthcare clinics close up because they are concerned about liability due to how laws are written, and those clinics serve an area without other healthcare options, the end result is that some delay care or even go without it entirely due to the inability to go elsewhere for care.
Its the same story as general care clinics in rural areas so it isnt even a surprise that its happened.
I have both read and listened to examples where delaying care due to lack of access resulted in worse reproductive health issues.
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not arguing. I sincerely asked a question and then countered your “forcing one’s beliefs onto another” statement. You can’t asked Christians to vote and not expect them to vote their conscience. Would I vote to make people go to church even though I think it’d be good for them? No. I also don’t know of any laws that prevent women from having a medically necessary abortion. Please provide states where medically necessary abortions (and these are statistically rare) are against the law. And again, please provide any examples of women being denied healthcare procedures as you claim exists.
Again, I’m not trying to argue but your point isn’t factual as far as I know. I actually think we’re more on the same page than you think.
Please provide documentation of these examples you speak of. I’m shocked that you would make a claim and not back it up as you so often belittle others for not doing.
it's about other basic gynecological needs along with abortion and contraceptive care. so not it's not only about abortion rights
They are not babies... You want Biblical evidence.. just look at the punishment for beating a pregnant woman. If she dies then the assailant is to die but if she only loses the unborn fetus, then he only has to pay a fine. If it were murder, the assailant would have been put to death.
Read your own Bible
well obviously 100% pure blood Merican will. but it'll cost you $300 to get your grass half arsed cut, but don't even ask about weedeatin and driveway blown, $500 should about cover getting your house about as clean as porta potty and roofing, hmmm probably won't be able to afford that but rest assured it won't happen when temps are above 70 or below 60.
You want me to find some random podcast episodes from some point over the last 18mo? Nah, I am good there. Thank you for the polite request though.
First, I do apologize for the disconnect. I am not making a claim that women are being denied medical care. If that is how it came off, then I apologize again for being stupid, and for not being able to articulate my point in a more effective manner. I am simply saying we should live in a world where if any women presents to a hospital or doctor's doctor's office in need of any serious medical procedure, then she should receive it, regardless of what the procedure might be. I am not claiming there are places or states where women are being denied medical care. I, again, am simply saying abortion is a medical procedure just like any other to me. As far as the fight with the other poster for examples, good luck.
Second, I am able to divorce my social and religious beliefs from the way that I vote. I know plenty of people that are able to do the same. Obviously you do not. I hope you can see by letting your religious beliefs govern the way you vote that you are actually forcing people to go to church. Or really what you are doing is bringing the church to them. And actually, under the separation of church and state, you can ask religious people to separate their beliefs from the way they vote. That is kind of the whole point of the separation. I would imagine you would counter that that is not how real people would be able to behave once they reach the voting booth. I can agree with that to some degree, but again, I know people that can make that separation. I would actually think we would disagree on much more than you would think, but that is ok the country is founded on the right to disagree.
After reading this thread, I'm convinced that they absolutely did not know that.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.