ADVERTISEMENT

Pro-Choice Violence

I’m rarely surprised by stuff anymore but the cruelty here surprises me. Crushing your enemies who provide free services to pregnant women….I suppose this means Dems don’t really care about women. That’s how this game works right?


1-C461-BEF-DB39-498-F-B29-B-3-A85-BEF71-BD7.jpg
 
Last edited:
I’m rarely surprised by stuff anymore but the cruelty here surprises me. Crushing your enemies who provide free services to pregnant women….I suppose this means Dems don’t really care about women. That’s how this game works right?


1-C461-BEF-DB39-498-F-B29-B-3-A85-BEF71-BD7.jpg
Just because a business offers a 'free' service, does not mean they are doing it benevolently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
why do we need any law on abortion either way. it is a personal decision based on self beliefs, and medical advice; much the same as a DNR, Hospice, vacinations, blood transfusions, . . .
 
why do we need any law on abortion either way. it is a personal decision based on self beliefs, and medical advice; much the same as a DNR, Hospice, vacinations, blood transfusions, . . .
Because their is only one entity involved in DNR, Hospice, vacinations, blood transfusions, . . .

Mother and unborn child is why their needs to be laws. None of those procedures involve another person that cannot give consent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Because their is only one entity involved in DNR, Hospice, vacinations, blood transfusions, . . .

Mother and unborn child is why their needs to be laws. None of those procedures involve another person that cannot give consent.
Define person please. Personally I don't think cells are inherently people. Even if they have human DNA.
 
Last edited:
Define person please. Personally I don't think cells are inherently people. Even if they have DNA.
I was not referring to the unborn fetus. When I said person I was referring to persons who could give consent in the procedures aTUfan was referring to.

For instance in a blood transfusion, a person had to donate that blood, and give consent when donating. That was the only obvious instance in the given procedures where two individuals were involved where that other person would give consent.
 
St. Aston Aquinas has once again put me in my place
"If any man can convince me and bring home to me that I do not think or act aright, gladly will I change; for I search after truth, by which man never yet was harmed. But he is harmed who abideth on still in his deception and ignorance.“


― Marcus Aurelius
 
Last edited:
This lawsuit underscores that the ban on abortion is fundamentally based on a religious view of when a fetus becomes a person. Every marker until birth is at its core an arbitrary milestone even within Christian based cultures. Some cultures/religions even mark 100 days after a birth to signify person-hood. Using the power of the state to impose a particular religious view point violates the Constitution regardless of what one thinks of the right to privacy. Orignalism is just a workaround argument picks and choses when to uphold basic principles or to insert the norms of society that existed centuries ago.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/1105229512/florida-abortion-law-synagogue-lawsuit-15-weeks
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: URedskin54
Reading about this lawsuit underscores that the ban on abortion is fundamentally based on a religious view of when a fetus becomes a person. Every marker until birth is at its core an arbitrary milestone even within Christian based cultures. Some cultures/religions even mark 100 days after a birth to signify person-hood. Using the power of the state to impose the a particular religious view point unconsitutional regardless of what one thinks of the right to privacy.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/1105229512/florida-abortion-law-synagogue-lawsuit-15-weeks

Most of us don’t even consider the concept of “personhood,” and birth itself is an arbitrary milestone. You’re pretty bad at this.
 
Last edited:
The irony of this whole thread is not lost on those of us who are seeing the prolife violence against women and girls as a result of state laws and the illegitimate SCOTUS. Making a victim of rape or incest carry the baby to term compounds the trauma they’ve already endured as a victim. The party of fascism could care less.
 
Making a victim of rape or incest carry the baby to term compounds the trauma they’ve already endured as a victim.

I always find it odd when pro-choice people point to edge cases like this. It’s not like the state of Oklahoma allowing exceptions for this (it does) would change your mind about anything or make you suddenly believe the people you disagree with aren’t evil. So what purpose does it serve other than to allow you to avoid having to defend the completely out of step with society dem position of abortion until birth?
 
Last edited:
The irony of this whole thread is not lost on those of us who are seeing the prolife violence against women and girls as a result of state laws and the illegitimate SCOTUS. Making a victim of rape or incest carry the baby to term compounds the trauma they’ve already endured as a victim. The party of fascism could care less.
You seem very angry. I’m not nearly as mad at Dems encouraging men to use the same bathroom as my 12 year old daughter and the mental anxiety associated with the same . Now males taking spots on female high school and college sports teams might get me close :).
 
You seem very angry. I’m not nearly as mad at Dems encouraging men to use the same bathroom as my 12 year old daughter and the mental anxiety associated with the same . Now males taking spots on female high school and college sports teams might get me close :).
Keep crying about bathrooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
You seem very angry. I’m not nearly as mad at Dems encouraging men to use the same bathroom as my 12 year old daughter and the mental anxiety associated with the same . Now males taking spots on female high school and college sports teams might get me close :).
I am not angry, but I have friends that work in family services who have clients - 10 and 12 year old incest victims - who are facing either giving birth to an unwanted pregnancy or going out of state to terminate the pregnancy. Having had a family member violently raped probably colors my opinion regarding the need for a choice other than all or nothing for victims of crimes like this. And it is sad that we are at this point in this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
I am not angry, but I have friends that work in family services who have clients - 10 and 12 year old incest victims - who are facing either giving birth to an unwanted pregnancy or going out of state to terminate the pregnancy. Having had a family member violently raped probably colors my opinion regarding the need for a choice other than all or nothing for victims of crimes like this. And it is sad that we are at this point in this country.
I don’t believe you’re going to find many posters who don’t agree with exceptions to the state’s abortion law. Hell…most of us would support a reasonable federal law which codified the right to receive an abortion with limitations regarding time frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU 1978
abortion is medical and religous. what is the legal. constutitional rational to limit abortion
 
abortion is medical and religous. what is the legal. constutitional rational to limit abortion
Moral can exist separate from religion. Every well received religion is moral, not the other way around.
 
different strokes for different folks.

some states allow gambling others dont, some counties and citiies ban alcahol, Las vegas legalizes prostitution.
 
The slogan has always been dumb no matter who is using it, but the fact that it now doesn’t poll well among Dems because it’s associated with choices besides abortion is pretty funny

 
The slogan has always been dumb no matter who is using it, but the fact that it now doesn’t poll well among Dems because it’s associated with choices besides abortion is pretty funny

Funny how the SC can strike down vax mandates based on that idea and turn around and ignore the concept a few months later. Selective idealism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
Funny how the SC can strike down vax mandates based on that idea and turn around and ignore the concept a few months later. Selective idealism.
Tell me you didn’t read the opinions without telling me you didn’t read the opinions
 
Tell me you didn’t read the opinions without telling me you didn’t read the opinions
Just because they used different reasoning from one case to another, does not negate the argument that similar reasoning should have applied to both in terms of medical freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
biden to sign a bill to legalize abortion.

Didn't the SC just say that, according to the Constitution, states could decide this, not the feds.
 
Just because they used different reasoning from one case to another, does not negate the argument that similar reasoning should have applied to both in terms of medical freedom.
Neither hinged on medical freedom reasoning. The vaccine mandate decisions were about the scope of authority delegated to administrative agencies by congress under different laws. According to the court CMS did have such authority, while OSHA did not. Disagree with them, sure, but the ruling was a result of their view of what the agencies had been authorized to do and how broad their rules were allowed to be under that authorization. If there is any connection between the two cases at all it is that the court said the legislature is responsible for addressing them.

From the majority opinion- This doesn’t sound like a ruling based on “medical freedom” to me:

“That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occu- pation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus. So too could OSHA regulate risks associ- ated with working in particularly crowded or cramped en- vironments. But the danger present in such workplaces dif- fers in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID–19 that all face. OSHA’s indiscrimi- nate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction— between occupational risk and risk more generally—and ac- cordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an “occupational safety or health standard.”
 
Found this interesting. Biden’s press Secretary insinuates she supports harassing Supreme Court Justices in public places. The same Justice in this case who experienced an attempt in his life a few weeks earlier.


 
Found this a little disturbing. A month after an attempt on a Supreme Court Justice’s life an activist group is paying money for tips as to Justices locations when they’re out in public.


 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT