Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Uh no. That isn’t what most people consider intelligent life. I think people disagree that “personhood” starts at conception. I don’t believe the rights of personhood attach until birth. The state may have an interest in promoting birth, and that’s fine, but that’s why we had Roe. Anyway, this debate is stupid and irrelevant to the holding that the court may adopt in Hobbs. It goes far beyond weighing the states’ interests in protecting unborn children, and erases fundamental rights for pregnant women. You keep up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Anonymous wrote:I had two miscarriages. Would I have been prosecuted if this happened in a post-Roe world? Would the fascists have to investigate to make sure I hadn't murdered my fetus? These were wanted pregnancies, but I'm guessing I would be treated like a criminal for these miscarriages if they happened after Roe is struck down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Not going to agree to that. This baby was born from a fertilized embryo that had been in a freezer for 27 years. Human life if kept in a freezer for 27 years would die.

It’s a bit like a butterfly and a caterpillar. Different forms with different abilities but at the end of the day they are the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Nope. Don't agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm are the Republicans softening their string up the leaker rhetoric?

I am old enough to remember about 150 pages ago on this very thread when the republicans where shocked SHOCKED at the leaking and vowed to expose the leakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!

Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?

The PP wasn't talking about all women , dumbass. Clearly the proponents of abortion are using a change such as "my body, my choice" which precludes the recognition that there is another body/life involved.

What people who are for women's bodily autonomy are saying is that a woman's body has precedence over the fetus inside it. That fetus is a potential threat to a woman's life or body and therefore the woman gets to say if she is willing to take on that risk. The government doesn't get to force people to go through a potentially dangerous process that involves pain and suffering.

+1 Forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity according to the United Nations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Not going to agree to that. This baby was born from a fertilized embryo that had been in a freezer for 27 years. Human life if kept in a freezer for 27 years would die.