Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Is an answer from one of the forced birthers going to change anything? At its heart the forced birther answer is essentially that women don’t matter. If one dies here or there it doesn’t matter to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Is an answer from one of the forced birthers going to change anything? At its heart the forced birther answer is essentially that women don’t matter. If one dies here or there it doesn’t matter to them.

The casual forced birther needs to understand that those "life of the mother" exceptions are meaningless in actual practice.
The die-hard ones know exactly what they're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Is an answer from one of the forced birthers going to change anything? At its heart the forced birther answer is essentially that women don’t matter. If one dies here or there it doesn’t matter to them.

The casual forced birther needs to understand that those "life of the mother" exceptions are meaningless in actual practice.
The die-hard ones know exactly what they're doing.

PP you’re replying to and my guess about the “die-est hard” forced birthers is that they are essentially going for a touch of eugenics here, too. If a woman can’t birth easily, let her be culled. I’m willing to have my mind changed on this, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Stephen Miller equivalents in the forced birther movement are probably happy for women to die.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if cruelty is the point as people keep saying. I think they believe a few thousand dead women is a fair exchange for all of those saved fetuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if cruelty is the point as people keep saying. I think they believe a few thousand dead women is a fair exchange for all of those saved fetuses.

Dp- your equation is close but off.

A few thousand dead woman is a fair exchange to punish imaginary sluts.
They don’t actually care about the fetuses. If they did, they wouldn’t consider them punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if cruelty is the point as people keep saying. I think they believe a few thousand dead women is a fair exchange for all of those saved fetuses.

well it's not even working because abortions are up, since the rs have go whole hog on banning them. i don't know why, but not hard to think of at least some of this being in response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if cruelty is the point as people keep saying. I think they believe a few thousand dead women is a fair exchange for all of those saved fetuses.

well it's not even working because abortions are up, since the rs have go whole hog on banning them. i don't know why, but not hard to think of at least some of this being in response.

If you’re on the fence about keeping a pregnancy, knowing that if your life is in danger later and there will be no help has probably pushed many women into the “abort” column.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if cruelty is the point as people keep saying. I think they believe a few thousand dead women is a fair exchange for all of those saved fetuses.

well it's not even working because abortions are up, since the rs have go whole hog on banning them. i don't know why, but not hard to think of at least some of this being in response.

If you’re on the fence about keeping a pregnancy, knowing that if your life is in danger later and there will be no help has probably pushed many women into the “abort” column.

oops. this would be an unintended consequences situation created by Rs.

[Anonymous]

Nevada will have an abortion rights referendum on the November ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

No, because the honest answer to this is that abortion and the circumstances surrounding why someone has one are complicated. And if "pro-lifers" acknowledge the complexity then they will have to travel down the logic path and admit that keeping or terminating a pregnancy is a decision best left to the woman. Or if they stick to their guns and have to admit that they would truly like to see a woman close to death before she can terminate her pregnancy because they are "pro-life" they know that the vast majority of people would be horrified. But the actual answer is that they believe the fetus' life is equal to the woman's and should only be terminated if not doing so will result in the death of the woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

No, because the honest answer to this is that abortion and the circumstances surrounding why someone has one are complicated. And if "pro-lifers" acknowledge the complexity then they will have to travel down the logic path and admit that keeping or terminating a pregnancy is a decision best left to the woman. Or if they stick to their guns and have to admit that they would truly like to see a woman close to death before she can terminate her pregnancy because they are "pro-life" they know that the vast majority of people would be horrified. But the actual answer is that they believe the fetus' life is equal to the woman's and should only be terminated if not doing so will result in the death of the woman.

Nope. They don’t believe the fetus is equal to the woman.
Many believe it is more valuable. If the woman was a good mother, she would be willing to die for her “baby”.
These are people that hate women so deeply, they aren’t even aware of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

In Idaho it’s never. Their abortion ban doesn’t even include the procedure to save life of mother. If Dr. intervene it’s to save the fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

No, because the honest answer to this is that abortion and the circumstances surrounding why someone has one are complicated. And if "pro-lifers" acknowledge the complexity then they will have to travel down the logic path and admit that keeping or terminating a pregnancy is a decision best left to the woman. Or if they stick to their guns and have to admit that they would truly like to see a woman close to death before she can terminate her pregnancy because they are "pro-life" they know that the vast majority of people would be horrified. But the actual answer is that they believe the fetus' life is equal to the woman's and should only be terminated if not doing so will result in the death of the woman.

Nope. They don’t believe the fetus is equal to the woman.
Many believe it is more valuable. If the woman was a good mother, she would be willing to die for her “baby”.
These are people that hate women so deeply, they aren’t even aware of it.

I think they’re well aware of it but they think that’s the way it should be.

And I think at the heart of the misogyny in this specific part is the fact that many men think that pregnancy is theirs. They put it there, it belongs to them, it’s their property, as is the woman brooding it, typified by the kind of guy like Rusty Yates. His wife was completely irrelevant to him, she was nothing but a uterus to him. Do I think all those men show it so easily? No. I think Yates was a kind of sociopath. But I do think that’s the worldview of a lot of these forced birther men, and their religion has told them this from birth, that they’re princes and deserve to run their own kingdoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

No, because the honest answer to this is that abortion and the circumstances surrounding why someone has one are complicated. And if "pro-lifers" acknowledge the complexity then they will have to travel down the logic path and admit that keeping or terminating a pregnancy is a decision best left to the woman. Or if they stick to their guns and have to admit that they would truly like to see a woman close to death before she can terminate her pregnancy because they are "pro-life" they know that the vast majority of people would be horrified. But the actual answer is that they believe the fetus' life is equal to the woman's and should only be terminated if not doing so will result in the death of the woman.

Nope. They don’t believe the fetus is equal to the woman.
Many believe it is more valuable. If the woman was a good mother, she would be willing to die for her “baby”.
These are people that hate women so deeply, they aren’t even aware of it.

I think they’re well aware of it but they think that’s the way it should be.

And I think at the heart of the misogyny in this specific part is the fact that many men think that pregnancy is theirs. They put it there, it belongs to them, it’s their property, as is the woman brooding it, typified by the kind of guy like Rusty Yates. His wife was completely irrelevant to him, she was nothing but a uterus to him. Do I think all those men show it so easily? No. I think Yates was a kind of sociopath. But I do think that’s the worldview of a lot of these forced birther men, and their religion has told them this from birth, that they’re princes and deserve to run their own kingdoms.

+1 this is what we are up against. Straight up misogyny.