I don't expect an answer from this because the disgusting abortion zealots argue in bad faith because they know their cause is evil and detestable.Tom Kazansky 2012 said:Are you ok with outright banning abortions outside of ectopic pregnancies, rape, and incest?Carolin_Gallego said:
It's not a rare occurrence if it happens at a rate of 1 in 50 pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are a life-threatening gynocological emergency and a significant cause of maternal morbidity. The medical treatment is abortion,
Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book
6,555 Views |
130 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Tramp96
Liberals are desperate.
I know a lot of people like to over simplify the whole "personhood" thing...but many of us view it very early on as an amazing life form on it's way to being a person. It's not debatable whether it is living or not. It is definitely "life" and only a complete fool would argue otherwise.Carolin_Gallego said:cecil77 said:
An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy.
Specious example.
Not exactly a specious example when that exclusion is not always provided in law or the fact that it is a condition that meets with Republican's absurd assertion that life/ensoulment/personhood begins at conception.
A developing fetus is something to behold and one of the most precious and awe inspiring things on this planet. yet so many consider it no more than invasive trash to be discarded at their whims...meanwhile most of these people tend to be animal rights activists and supporters. I know a guy whose wife writes pornographic fiction for fellow lonely women who can't be satisfied by their men, and she actually supports laws punishing people for tampering with turtle eggs...at the same time, she clearly considers unborn human beings as much lower forms of life. It's just funny how hypocritical so many godless white leftists are on this issue.
Where is this true? I'm unaware of a state where there is a law in place preventing abortion in the event of medical emergency, which is what an ectopic pregnancy would be considered.Carolin_Gallego said:cecil77 said:
An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy.
Specious example.
Not exactly a specious example when that exclusion is not always provided in law or the fact that it is a condition that meets with Republican's absurd assertion that life/ensoulment/personhood begins at conception.
One of the more disgusting ways to advocate for killing babies. Using that low IQ logic of historical precedence there are a lot of other things I guess you support. Small government, no federal income tax of citizens, no separation of church and state, local school authority, right to own guns, slavery, segregation, no women voting rights.
Hey Keef,Carolin_Gallego said:
I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.
Are you ok with outlawing abortions that dont include rape, incest, or a life threatening danger to the mother?
AKA 99% of abortions?
Why wont Xe answer my question?
Carolin_Gallego said:
I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.
Are you ok with outright banning abortions outside of ectopic pregnancies, rape, and incest?
Oyster DuPree
Joined:
Aug 11, 2009
Posts:
4,887
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll ask you again. Do you enjoy babies being killed?
Of the many things the left does with which I disagree is judging people of a different era by modern society's standards. Old Ben was known for his tolerance but God help us if he were allowed to come back from the grave and pass judgement on us.
Going with the "it's not a baby" idiocy I see.
Carolin_Gallego said:
If you can't or won't understand the fact that we are not talking about babies then we have nothing to discuss.
No you're wrong. We're talking about babies. I'll say a prayer for you.
Ben Franklin also wrote an essay on how to choose a mistress. His opinion on both abortions and mistresses is not relevant.
It is a human baby, and the word should not be spelled a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n. The correct spelling, in this context, is m-u-r-d-e-r. In any situation other than imperiling the life of the mother, the child is an innocent human being.
It is a human baby, and the word should not be spelled a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n. The correct spelling, in this context, is m-u-r-d-e-r. In any situation other than imperiling the life of the mother, the child is an innocent human being.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
Texas bill specifically calls out an exception for medical emergencies. I don't know specifics of the bills in the other states so I can't say for sure, but like most of your posts I assume you're lying.
Carolin_Gallego said:
I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.
That's a trash comment. I know a few people that had miscarriages and all of them mourned for their dead baby. It took a heavy toll on them mentally and spiritually.
Quote:
Republicans don't morn miscarriages
So Republicans only miscarry in the afternoon I guess.
They absolutely do mourn them. Even the ones that wouldn't be known w/out the EPT we have nowadays. At least that's my experience.
And those that miscarry so far along that the baby must be "delivered" absolutely do mourn, every bit as much as if the baby had been born alive and perished shortly after. Many are named and buried.
We even received a birth notice for child who died in the womb.
Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress (1745)
June 25, 1745
My dear Friend,
I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entring into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good conomy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.
Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.
Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8[thly and Lastly] They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.
June 25, 1745
My dear Friend,
I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entring into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good conomy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.
Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.
Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8[thly and Lastly] They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.
1. Are you sure about that? I have many examples to the contrary.Carolin_Gallego said:
[1] Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person
[2] ... and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse.
2. Do you know who is in charge of DFPS in Texas and how many underwhelming people they have working in their bureaucracy? Have you ever fostered? (I have, and I've been exposed to this rotten group of people)
Carolin_Gallego said:
I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.
Bull**** people don't mourn miscarriages.
Your whole premise is idiotic.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Oh well then this news changes everything. Forget that ahole Jesus. Follow the Benjamins!
do we have all the baby murdering buzz words in here yet? "reproductive healthcare", "bodily autonomy", etc.?
he/she/ze/they is definitely not sure about [1] because [1] is falseSpreadsheetAg said:1. Are you sure about that? I have many examples to the contrary.Carolin_Gallego said:
[1] Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person
[2] ... and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse.
2. Do you know who is in charge of DFPS in Texas and how many underwhelming people they have working in their bureaucracy? Have you ever fostered? (I have, and I've been exposed to this rotten group of people)
That's absolutely not true. Look who donates more to charity keef. Using the government to confiscate money to then give to people doesn't make you care more. In fact it makes you care less.
Carolin_Gallego said:
I appreciate prayer and will do the same for you.
And FWIW, Evangelical scholars use to endorsed the abortion guidelines approved by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, years before Roe and before the 'life at conception' was widely espoused and used for the culture wars), though few still insisted that all abortions are sinful.
I appreciate the prayer. I only wish my wife were still here. She would certainly have a word with you about her miscarriage. By the way, who do you pray to?
So no one is going to point out that this article is from 2000, and the stat used above is from a study done in 1992?Carolin_Gallego said:Tanya 93 said:It is actually 1-2 out of every 1000 pregnanciesCarolin_Gallego said:
It's not a rare occurrence if it happens at a rate of 1 in 50 pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are a life-threatening gynocological emergency and a significant cause of maternal morbidity. The medical treatment is abortion,
And if you have one, you are more likely to have another one
Do not make **** up to justify abortion on demand
Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester.
Surely there's more current stats on ectopic pregnancy rates than from 30 years ago?
Carolin_Gallego said:
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
Pastor Dave Barnhart, Saint Junia United Methodist Church, Birmingham, Alabama.
Yet, the biggest non govt group that cares for the unborn and unwanted is the church.
Such a eye roll argument
Carolin_Gallego said:
I find the Republican's position equally hypocritically and so extreme that people in the Dark Ages would think it's crazy. Republicans don't morn miscarriages as if they actually thought a fetus was a person (and neither did people in the Dark Ages) but they will restrict a real person's liberty by taking away their bodily autonomy. Republicans don't fully address the needs of the fetus or the needs of the recently born. Infant mortality rates are very high and foster care underfunded and riddled with abuse. Republican positions are so very contradictory and hypocritical that I honestly believe they are made in bad faith.
This is absolutely laughable