Anonymous wrote:Can we agree to just stop responding to the troll/PP who doesn’t actually have any good faith arguments regarding abortion or the Comstock issue?

Would these medications be banned outright? Only for abortion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

what about all those gun sales at convention or those sold privately? Congress doesn't seem to care about that. How many babies/children could be saved if we didn't have easy access to guns in this country?

You care more about a fetus than you do an actual child.

Let's not pretend what these anti-abortionists are about: punish them whores.

Anonymous wrote:Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

Completely disagree, and I could just as easily say that anyone who doesn't believe abortion is "killing" a human being is not arguing in bad faith.

I honestly have never understood that argument. If you want to say, sure, it is a human being being killed, but I believe other interests, etc. outweigh it. But to argue that it literally is not killing a human being is simply anti-science and bad faith. It is, by definition, a human being, just in the early stages of life. If you are arguing that it is not killing a baby, then what is it? Are you saying it magically becomes a human being for "value" purposes once it just happens to exit the woman, which would mean five seconds earlier it had no value? If someone kills a baby inside a woman by punching the woman's stomach, would you say that it was not murder or even not a crime as to the baby? And if you say abortion should not be legal after a certain point, why? Why is abortion "killing a baby" at 30 weeks, but not at 10 weeks?

Because it has no consciousness. No mind. It can't miss anything because it is still nothing.

Is it OK to kill someone in a coma? And by your definition, when does it become a human life with value? If you say at birth, that makes no sense because it isn't like it gained "consciousness" by simply exiting the woman. If you say viability, that makes no sense because it isn't it gained "consciousness" the moment it turned 23 weeks old (and the viability line keeps changing). Thus, the problem with arguing it is not a human life, aside from it being objective anti-science, is that you have zero scientific way to measure then when transforms into a human life -- it is completely subjective, which means it is not science.

dp... actually , yes it is legal to "kill" someone in a coma if they are on life support. The family member agrees to "pull the plug". The person cannot survive on their own. Same for a 15 week baby.

My spouse's family had to make that difficult decision for their father. His brain active, but his body couldn't survive without support. He was "alive", but they decided to pull the plug because he had no qol. That decision was left to the family, not the doctors, and certainly, not any lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

Completely disagree, and I could just as easily say that anyone who doesn't believe abortion is "killing" a human being is not arguing in bad faith.

I honestly have never understood that argument. If you want to say, sure, it is a human being being killed, but I believe other interests, etc. outweigh it. But to argue that it literally is not killing a human being is simply anti-science and bad faith. It is, by definition, a human being, just in the early stages of life. If you are arguing that it is not killing a baby, then what is it? Are you saying it magically becomes a human being for "value" purposes once it just happens to exit the woman, which would mean five seconds earlier it had no value? If someone kills a baby inside a woman by punching the woman's stomach, would you say that it was not murder or even not a crime as to the baby? And if you say abortion should not be legal after a certain point, why? Why is abortion "killing a baby" at 30 weeks, but not at 10 weeks?

Because it has no consciousness. No mind. It can't miss anything because it is still nothing.

Is it OK to kill someone in a coma? And by your definition, when does it become a human life with value? If you say at birth, that makes no sense because it isn't like it gained "consciousness" by simply exiting the woman. If you say viability, that makes no sense because it isn't it gained "consciousness" the moment it turned 23 weeks old (and the viability line keeps changing). Thus, the problem with arguing it is not a human life, aside from it being objective anti-science, is that you have zero scientific way to measure then when transforms into a human life -- it is completely subjective, which means it is not science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

Completely disagree, and I could just as easily say that anyone who doesn't believe abortion is "killing" a human being is not arguing in bad faith.

I honestly have never understood that argument. If you want to say, sure, it is a human being being killed, but I believe other interests, etc. outweigh it. But to argue that it literally is not killing a human being is simply anti-science and bad faith. It is, by definition, a human being, just in the early stages of life. If you are arguing that it is not killing a baby, then what is it? Are you saying it magically becomes a human being for "value" purposes once it just happens to exit the woman, which would mean five seconds earlier it had no value? If someone kills a baby inside a woman by punching the woman's stomach, would you say that it was not murder or even not a crime as to the baby? And if you say abortion should not be legal after a certain point, why? Why is abortion "killing a baby" at 30 weeks, but not at 10 weeks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.

Should women who have abortions be charged with a crime? What about rape victims impregnated by their rapist? Should women be required to report miscarriages to the police? Do you want the police investigating miscarriages?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Resurrecting Comstock would outlaw porn as well. Porn is big business. That would probably turn into a vicious fight that a lot of Republicans would lose.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023120908472

However, interactions between individual-level evangelical identity and state-level political conservatism indicate that evangelicals who live in more politically conservative states report the highest rates of pornography consumption. These findings thus provide more nuanced support for previous research linking religious and political conservatism with greater pornography consumption.

Anonymous wrote:Resurrecting Comstock would outlaw porn as well. Porn is big business. That would probably turn into a vicious fight that a lot of Republicans would lose.

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

Cars don’t have a million parts. Cars don’t even have ten thousand parts. And if you put all of the parts of a car in front of me, I could assemble them into a car. Because I’ve literally done exactly that numerous times.

I have never, ever created a human being. And neither could you, without becoming pregnant and giving birth to one.

Willingly. You forgot that key word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

Cars don’t have a million parts. Cars don’t even have ten thousand parts. And if you put all of the parts of a car in front of me, I could assemble them into a car. Because I’ve literally done exactly that numerous times.

I have never, ever created a human being. And neither could you, without becoming pregnant and giving birth to one.