1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt is not easy to defeat the government and science establishment with a viewpoint that they consider only religious.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jeb-bush-was-director-of-philanthropy-that-funded-planned-parenthoods-globa
This should end his bid to become the GOP front runner, but we all know it won't.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodey
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jeb-bush-was-director-of-philanthropy-that-funded-planned-parenthoods-globa
This should end his bid to become the GOP front runner, but we all know it won't.
"This is a fight to [help] women control their own destinies," Bloomberg said. "And let me tell you: We are in it to help them win it, and we're gonna stay in it until they do."
Presumably the GOP advocates that women be treated as battery hens and their bodies placed at the disposal of right wing "Pro-Lifers" for ritual abuse.
Originally posted by finneganThat's right, ritual abuse by making them not kill their offspring."This is a fight to [help] women control their own destinies," Bloomberg said. "And let me tell you: We are in it to help them win it, and we're gonna stay in it until they do."
Presumably the GOP advocates that women be treated as battery hens and their bodies placed at the disposal of right wing "Pro-Lifers" for ritual abuse.
Mwhahahaha!!
Originally posted by whodeyYep you really have your teeth into the idea that you can control women's bodies and deprive them of autonomy, while you run miles from advocating any positive policies to benefit women, or to promote sexual health policies that might, in fact, produce lower abortion rates than your oppressive campaigns have achieved. Because of your attitudes generally to such policies, it is evident that you are not looking to reduce abortions (Holland's policies would be your model in that case) but rather looking to control women. You belong with the American Taliban. (I wonder are mobile phones a risk to the unborn Republican?)
That's right, ritual abuse by making them not kill their offspring.
Mwhahahaha!!
Originally posted by finneganIs the unborn baby always'the mother's body' as long as the baby is inside the mother?
Yep you really have your teeth into the idea that you can control women's bodies and deprive them of autonomy, while you run miles from advocating any positive policies to benefit women, or to promote sexual health policies that might, in fact, produce lower abortion rates than your oppressive campaigns have achieved. Because of your attitudes generally to ...[text shortened]... belong with the American Taliban. (I wonder are mobile phones a risk to the unborn Republican?)
Originally posted by EladarClearly a fetus is not the mother's body. Indeed, a finger is not the mother's body and neither is a knee.
Is the unborn baby always'the mother's body' as long as the baby is inside the mother?
"The unborn baby" is not an accurate way to describe the embryo or the fetus throughout pregnancy. It is emotive. The not-yet-even-an-unborn-baby-more-a-bunch-of-cells is more accurate for nearly all abortions, 95% of which are undertaken in the first trimester. For example at four weeks we can read: " The ball of cells – now called an embryo – growing inside your uterus (womb) is the size of a poppy seed. It's dividing into three layers that will later form organs and tissues." Obviously an interesting little thing in its way but hardly the basis for a busy trade in human organs for example and not much in the way of fuel for the heating system either. Ho hum. Four weeks. Nail clipping can remove more cells than most abortions do.
Every society on earth in which abortion is legally allowed sets a time limit and late abortion is a topic with entirely separate issues, usually concerning life or death decisions for the mother. You may take it that all societies have a rational discussion about the nature of the fetus at each stage of development and makes distinctions between earlier and later stages. The concept of an unborn child is empty.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
Originally posted by EladarI certainly didn't say anything remotely like your incoherent interpretation. If the baby has been removed and is surviving just fine, then its a baby. Obviously. What's less obvious is the ground upon which you want to tell women what to do reproductively.
So you believe that if a baby can be removed by C section and survive just fine on its own that the mother should be able to kill it?
What makes it any of your business?
Originally posted by stevemccYou said as long as the baby is in the mother she can kill it.
I certainly didn't say anything remotely like your incoherent interpretation. If the baby has been removed and is surviving just fine, then its a baby. Obviously. What's less obvious is the ground upon which you want to tell women what to do reproductively.
What makes it any of your business?