Having rights still bewilderingly popular

@averagejoe1 said
@AverageJoe1
And who are these queer people who will give a thumb down (as to your post) and just move along with no comment?

You claim so much BS in this forum that it is hard to keep up with every post.

@wajoma said
So we can chalk moonbus up with suzi bamboozle and zahlooney bamboozle:

There should be no line. If a woman decides on a late term abortion then "A WOMANS CHOICE'. Also talk of the form of the thing, the parasite, the maggot is uncomfortable so let's call it a medical procedure, like getting a wart removed is a medical procedure, or a puss filled cyst.

You leap to silly and unwarranted conclusions. No one but you would talk of what's inside a woman's womb as a 'maggot'.

There should be a guideline, and Roe provided a good one which was both ethically tenable and empirically verifiable. There will, however, always be a penumbra of uncertainty about when a fetus is viable outside the womb, given the best available care, and there will always be exceptional cases in which pediatricians determine, up to and including the onset of contractions, that a woman's life is in danger if she attempts to complete the delivery. Setting hard and fast rules, without making allowances for exceptional circumstances, is a fool's solution.

@averagejoe1 said
All due respects, she is a fledgling marxist, thus is trying to have government (you and me) pay for her contraceptions. That is the long and short of it. But she can NEVER justify paying for it. If a girl gets pregnant, she wants to, and we have nothing to do with that or the raising of the baby. I raised my baby.

If you elevate abortion (which has been legal for 50 years) into a crime, then contraception becomes the main way to avoid confrontation with redneck law and therefore it becomes necessary for 'the pursuit of happiness'.

If you are going to get in our face about removing a right women have had for 50 years, the very LEAST you could do is help them avoid incarceration. Unless that is your goal.

If you are going to deny women the basic human right to body sovereignty, which we have already had enshrined for 50 years, you need to "close your argument" by delivering a way to avoid paying with our lives for that right. It is, in point of fact, the least you could do.

If contraception were provided, then MAYBE your argument that "if she gets pregnant, then she wanted to" MIGHT have some traction. On its face, that is a bullsh-- argument.

@moonbus said
You leap to silly and unwarranted conclusions. No one but you would talk of what's inside a woman's womb as a 'maggot'.

There should be a guideline, and Roe provided a good one which was both ethically tenable and empirically verifiable. There will, however, always be a penumbra of uncertainty about when a fetus is viable outside the womb, given the best available c ...[text shortened]... hard and fast rules, without making allowances for exceptional circumstances, is a fool's solution.

Never said 'exceptional circumstances' I said (and I'm quoting suzi screwy here) "A WOMANS CHOICE'

@kevcvs57 said
If a baby is found in a dumpster has it occurred to you that it was a full term birth born to a mother who was never going to be able to cope with a child.
If the Republican misogynist’s get their way there will be a lot more babies in dumpsters, a lot more neglected children, a lot more child poverty and a lot more dysfunctional adults in about 18 or 20 years.
Yes just some of the joys of Living in a theocracy

The Republic of Gilead forced down our throats.

Funny how I don't hear any "Libertarian" mewling about it, though.

@wajoma said
Not the point. suzi screwy dablooey has said late term abortions never happen, that babies can be found in dumpsters means it's is reasonable to assume late term abortions do happen and if they're legal they're bound to increase with abortionists now legally advertising their services and abilities to handle, let's call them; more human baby appearing maggots.

Now back to t ...[text shortened]... S CHOICE"? and not others? Is this proving to be an inconsistency and thus the reluctance to answer.

A complete and utter non sequitur.

How can you argue your first sentence here? It is nonsense on its face. If babies are found in dumpsters, then it was born. Duh. No late-term abortion happened.

Also, the only people doing abortions should be medical doctors. It is you, and people like you, forcing women to take the risk involved in getting a back-alley abortion. I am advocating women be allowed an actual choice, not a "Sofie's Choice" forced on them by local redneck government.

@suzianne said
A complete and utter non sequitur.

How can you argue your first sentence here? It is nonsense on its face. If babies are found in dumpsters, then it was born. Duh. No late-term abortion happened.

Also, the only people doing abortions should be medical doctors. It is you, and people like you, forcing women to take the risk involved in getting a back-alley abortion. ...[text shortened]... allowed an actual choice, not a "Sofie's Choice" forced on them by local redneck government.

Women should be able to choose who and how the abortion is performed, you're the one wanting men to be involved limiting "A WOMANS CHOICE".

You see, you're the hypocrite on the one hand it's all about

"IT'S A WOMANS CHOICE"

Now you're talking about limiting that choice. That's the hypocrisy, that's how you prove hypocrisy, you don't just fling the word around then run away.

Well, you do fling the word around baselessly of course but then that's your M.O.

@boonon said
Wrong oh you of no brains. An unborn child is a baby, a fetus or a clump of cells as some of your comrades say. You are anything but clear. You need to double your dosage of meds or get off of them completely.

The only ones irrationally using the term "baby" to describe something that is NOT a baby are idiots who are anti-abortion, desperate to remove rights from women. By using the term "baby", you are making the fetus more important than it is, even elevating an abortion to murder.

You would be admonished during an actual debate to use words how they are defined, not how YOU wish to define them.

@suzianne said
The only ones irrationally using the term "baby" to describe something that is NOT a baby are idiots who are anti-abortion, desperate to remove rights from women. By using the term "baby", you are making the fetus more important than it is, even elevating an abortion to murder.

You would be admonished during an actual debate to use words how they are defined, not how YOU wish to define them.

I prefer maggot, because it's just like stomping on a maggot.

BTW you misuse the words 'hypocrisy' and 'choice'. Which is kinda funny because that makes you a hypocrite yourself.

@wajoma said
Women should be able to choose who and how the abortion is performed, you're the one wanting men to be involved limiting "A WOMANS CHOICE".

You see, you're the hypocrite on the one hand it's all about

"IT'S A WOMANS CHOICE"

Now you're talking about limiting that choice. That's the hypocrisy, that's how you prove hypocrisy, you don't just fling the word around then run away.

Well, you do fling the word around baselessly of course but then that's your M.O.

You are the one "limiting choice" by supporting the reversal of Row v Wade. You support making it illegal for a medical doctor to perform an abortion. By limiting women to back-alley abortions, YOU are removing their right to get a medical doctor instead of a butcher.

And how dare you claim that only men are medical doctors.

@wajoma said
I prefer maggot, because it's just like stomping on a maggot.

BTW you misuse the words 'hypocrisy' and 'choice'.

Stop with the FMF-branded argument that I misuse words. You ARE a hypocrite and YOU are misusing 'choice'. For you would offer them no choice. It is your argument arguing that, hypocrite.

@suzianne said
You are the one "limiting choice" by supporting the reversal of Row v Wade. You support making it illegal for a medical doctor to perform an abortion. By limiting women to back-alley abortions, YOU are removing their right to get a medical doctor instead of a butcher.

And how dare you claim that only men are medical doctors.

Men are involved in making laws, limiting a womans choice, that is what you're advocating i.e. hypocrisy.

I've never mentioned Row v Wade. If I woman wants to go to a butcher for an abortion she should be able to, if a woman wants to go to a vet for an abortion she should be able, what don't you understand "IT'S A WOMANS CHOICE" you're the one wanting to limit choices.

I don't care if the vet/butcher/doctor is a man, transmans, or a gaymans.

@suzianne said
Stop with the FMF-branded argument that I misuse words. You ARE a hypocrite and YOU are misusing 'choice'. For you would offer them no choice. It is your argument arguing that, hypocrite.

Screwy Suzi's Bare Faced Lies:

"For you would offer them no choice."

"And how dare you claim that only men are medical doctors."

@moonbus said
I do not like talking about abortion. It’s the wrong word for what is really at stake here, and the wrong point at which to apply any legal or logical fulcrum. Abortion is a medical procedure, nothing more. What is really at stake here is a pregnant woman, and that is the point the legal argument should be addressing. Setting a line, such as 6 or 15 weeks, or 5 minutes before ...[text shortened]... t. No one will resist them, and they will save a lot more lives, than by trying to outlaw abortions.

Well said. I couldn't have said it better myself.

@wajoma said
Men are involved in making laws, limiting a womans choice, that is what you're advocating i.e. hypocrisy.

I've never mentioned Row v Wade. If I woman wants to go to a butcher for an abortion she should be able to, if a woman wants to go to a vet for an abortion she should be able, what don't you understand "IT'S A WOMANS CHOICE" you're the one wanting to limit choices.

I don't care if the vet/butcher/doctor is a man, transmans, or a gaymans.

I'm done. You are spewing idiot arguments and you are also lying.

Women would not normally choose some butcher to lay hands on her. Women also do not choose to have an abortion "5 min before birth". These are irrationalities that you presume to believe women make because you don't mind relegating women to second-class citizen status. This is, by the way, also what drives racism. By making people "less than", you can safely, from on high, assume they will make bad decisions that you, with your male, white skin, must save them from.

I refuse to elevate yelling at an idiot to anything approaching "debate", so I'm done. Vomit up your sexism somewhere else.