Have you heard that women don't have to worry about being forced to carry a rapist's baby to term in Texas? The reason? Governor Abbott has promised that he is going to reduce rapes in Texas to zero. Very soon all the rapists in Texas will be rounded up and incarcerated. Soon the word will get out that, if you rape in Texas, you go to prison. And then there will be no more rape.
Even though (currently) Texas is one of the states with the most rapes. Perhaps because the current message being broadcast is that Texas doesn't care if women are raped. Proven by that fact that there is a huge backlog of rape kits piling up in Texas police stations.
As per George Carlin, conservatives aren't pro-life, they are anti-woman.
As Carlin pointed out, republicans only care about "babies" (pre-birth) and not so much about babies (post-birth).
Democrats want to make abortion unnecessary by supporting mothers and babies post-birth. republicans vociferously oppose this approach. Not because it doesn't work, but because they don't care about babies post-birth. republicans aren't pro-life, Democrats are pro-life. Proven by the fact that the "during the last 30 years, abortion rates have fallen the most under Democratic presidents".
"...the Republican approach to stopping abortion is regulation. [An] interesting stance for the hands-off business party. They fight against economic prosperity for middle and lower-class workers, birth control, and good health care for families. What is more effective in reducing abortions? Economic stability, affordable family planning/birth control, and quality health care. The very things Republicans fight AGAINST".
By the way, republican men, you can do your part to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies! Unwanted pregnancies aren't the sole responsibility of women.
Yet Donald tRump, when it comes to women who get abortions, said "there has to be some form of punishment". And none for the men. When asked by Chris Matthews (during a 3/30/2016 Town Hall prior to the 2016 election) if men bear any responsibility or should face any punishment, Dotard replied "I would say no".
Punishment for women (and their doctors) but none for men. Because republican opposition to abortion is rooted in misogny and their desire to control women. By the way, "the abortion rate in the U.S. ticked up slightly from 2017 to 2018, according to data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". This uptick occurred during the Dotard administration (after decreasing by 26% under president Obama).
Even though (currently) Texas is one of the states with the most rapes. Perhaps because the current message being broadcast is that Texas doesn't care if women are raped. Proven by that fact that there is a huge backlog of rape kits piling up in Texas police stations.
As per George Carlin, conservatives aren't pro-life, they are anti-woman.
As Carlin pointed out, republicans only care about "babies" (pre-birth) and not so much about babies (post-birth).
Democrats want to make abortion unnecessary by supporting mothers and babies post-birth. republicans vociferously oppose this approach. Not because it doesn't work, but because they don't care about babies post-birth. republicans aren't pro-life, Democrats are pro-life. Proven by the fact that the "during the last 30 years, abortion rates have fallen the most under Democratic presidents".
"...the Republican approach to stopping abortion is regulation. [An] interesting stance for the hands-off business party. They fight against economic prosperity for middle and lower-class workers, birth control, and good health care for families. What is more effective in reducing abortions? Economic stability, affordable family planning/birth control, and quality health care. The very things Republicans fight AGAINST".
By the way, republican men, you can do your part to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies! Unwanted pregnancies aren't the sole responsibility of women.
Yet Donald tRump, when it comes to women who get abortions, said "there has to be some form of punishment". And none for the men. When asked by Chris Matthews (during a 3/30/2016 Town Hall prior to the 2016 election) if men bear any responsibility or should face any punishment, Dotard replied "I would say no".
Punishment for women (and their doctors) but none for men. Because republican opposition to abortion is rooted in misogny and their desire to control women. By the way, "the abortion rate in the U.S. ticked up slightly from 2017 to 2018, according to data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". This uptick occurred during the Dotard administration (after decreasing by 26% under president Obama).
AOC certainly has a knack for cutting through the bullshit. Direct, accurate, and cutting.
ReplyDeleteOf course Carlin always was spot on and in a amusing way.
When will they start putting American cons in museums? Or maybe will get lucky and they'll move to "Putinville" Russia.
Abbott and the Texas "Taliban" are using women's bodies for political purposes, not to protect the sanctity of life. There is no exception for rape or incest in the Texas Taliban on abortion.
ReplyDeleteHere's a hypothetical situation: Say a woman has a child who needs a bone marrow transplant or a kidney transplant to live. There is no law that compels her to give that child a bone marrow transplant or kidney to keep her child alive. It is, in fact, against the law to force her to cede any part of her body to save her child's life. In fact, no one can harvest this hypothetical woman's body parts after death to save anyone's life unless she has provided to do so in her will or other legal document.
Can someone explain why a Texas law can force a woman to carry a collection of cells (because at 6 weeks that's what an embryo is), it is the size of a grain of rice and no heart has developed yet, except cells are there to form that heart.
So the moral question here is if Texas cannot, by law, force a woman to save the life of a living child through a medical procedure, such as a bone marrow or kidney transplant, how can it morally force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy?
Either a woman has autonomy over her body or she doesn't. There are two laws in Texas now that contradict this.
"British researchers analyzed scans of the hearts of healthy fetuses in the womb and found that the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week. This is much later than expected, according to the study published Feb.Feb 20, 2021"
Speaking of a grain of rice. Perhaps Abbot and those of his political and moral persuasion should eat more rice.
ReplyDeleteIf Democrats really cared about the killing of babies, they'd stop killing babies.
ReplyDeleteIf republicans really cared about the killing of babies, they'd stop killing babies.
DeleteUS infant mortality and the President's party (excerpt)... Infant mortality rates in the US exceed those in all other developed countries and in many less developed countries, suggesting political factors may contribute.
...White and Black infant mortality rates in the US were analysed over the 1965–2010 time period to ascertain whether infant mortality rates varied across presidential administrations. ...
Across all nine presidential administrations, infant mortality rates were below trend when the President was a Democrat and above trend when the President was a Republican.
:P
DeleteThe post (from your blog) that you link to doesn't have anything to do with infant mortality.
DeleteOnly because you adhere to a conveniently narrow definition of the term.
DeleteI adhere to the actual/real definition. As opposed to an expanded imaginary one.
DeleteNames name "the real"? LOL!
DeleteFunk & Wagnalls must rule the Universe!
DeleteTo JoeCon:
ReplyDeleteYours is an utterly stupid, inane, moronic statement. It's not meant to clarify or enlighten; it's meant to make you look like a fool.
"Approximately 3 days after fertilization, a 16-cell conceptus reaches the uterus. The cells that had been loosely grouped are now compacted and look more like a solid mass. The name given to this structure is the morula (morula = “little mulberry”). Once inside the uterus, the conceptus floats freely for several more days. It continues to divide, creating a ball of approximately 100 cells, and consuming nutritive endometrial secretions called uterine milk while the uterine lining thickens. The ball of now tightly bound cells starts to secrete fluid and organize themselves around a fluid-filled cavity, the blastocoel. At this developmental stage, the conceptus is referred to as a blastocyst. Within this structure, a group of cells forms into an inner cell mass, which is fated to become the embryo. The cells that form the outer shell are called trophoblasts (trophe = “to feed” or “to nourish”). These cells will develop into the chorionic sac and the fetal portion of the placenta (the organ of nutrient, waste, and gas exchange between mother and the developing offspring).
ReplyDeleteThe inner mass of embryonic cells is totipotent during this stage, meaning that each cell has the potential to differentiate into any cell type in the human body. Totipotency lasts for only a few days before the cells’ fates are set as being the precursors to a specific lineage of cells."
The "emergency contraception pill," or ECP could be used at this stage. At this stage, toenail clippings have more cells than the 16 cell conceptus.
And yet JoeCon calls the shedding of 16 cells "killing babies." He's an idiot.
Free contraception would prevent unwanted pregnancies, but certain religious sects are against that as well.
JoeCon's concern is not about "killing babies."
Until folks like joe con eat rice, one grain at a time, and sit more, they will never feel the dharma flowing in them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Shaw, you identified the truth. joe con's concerns are not about "killing babies". It is about ignorance and control.
Of course they feel justified as they point to their god.
States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are:
ReplyDeleteAlaska
Colorado
District of Columbia
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
Slicing and dicing a 9 month mature "clump of cells"....
DeleteYou REALLY need to eat more rice and sit more con man joe.
DeleteBut you won't. The lure of BS, hatred, judgement, and control consumes you. As well as many in the "Christian" west.
Kaiser Family Foundation: Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring "moments before birth" or even "after birth". In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy – including "late-term", "post-viability", "partial birth", "dismemberment" and "born-alive" abortions — despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use.
DeleteThey don't occur? REALLY????
DeleteYes, really. They don't occur. The article you posted on your blog says the abortions in question were at 20-35 weeks. At 35 weeks there are 5 weeks left in a normal pregnancy. 5 weeks remaining isn't "moments before birth" or "after birth". Kermit Gosnell didn't perform abortions, he committed (and was convicted of) murder. His Wikipedia page states that he is a serial killer.
Deletebtw, Maryland doing a bad job enforcing regulations is a bad excuse to take away rights from a large number of people. Enforce the regulations.
AllSides: Live Action News' media bias leans right. In 2008, Live Action formed their "non-partisan" organization. Even though Live Action says they are non-partisan, they are an anti-abortion organization. Anti-abortion is a conservative value, so despite their claim to be "non-partisan", the AllSides Bias Rating™ for Live Action is "leans right".
DeleteMedia Bias/Fact Check: we rate Live Action a moderate conspiracy website based on misleading and sometimes false accusations against Planned Parenthood and pro-choice advocates. ... Live-Action is an American anti-abortion non-profit organization founded in 2003 by then 15-year-old Lila Rose. Live-Action is known for its undercover video sting operations on Planned Parenthood clinics.
FactCheck.org: The NYT published an opinion piece on 2/26/2019 by Dr. Jen Gunter, an obstetrician and gynecologist, who told her personal story of making the decision to forgo medical intervention when her 1-pound son was born prematurely at 22 weeks. "As Aidan's parents we had decided that invasive procedures, like intravenous lines and a breathing tube in a one-pound body, would be pointless medical care. And so, as we planned, Aidan died", Gunter wrote. "And that is the reality for so many parents. Some have known for weeks or even months that there will be no life after birth. With that knowledge some choose an abortion and others the blanket and embrace. Both are brave decisions". (3/4/2019).
"botched abortion" = bullshit. Most of the time, at least. These were births (induced or natural) where those involved knew the baby would die (because of fatal fetal abnormalities). With or without medical care.
Politifact: How often are babies born during a planned abortion, but then killed or neglected to death? [North Carolina Governor] Cooper said the practice "simply does not exist". ... We found that there’s some evidence suggesting that infants occasionally survive abortion attempts, but reports are rare. (5/30/2019).
NYT: How often are infants born alive after attempted abortions? It hardly ever happens, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. (2/26/2019).
De Nile is more than a river in Egypt.
Delete1% of 614,820 abortions is 6,148 dead babies a year...
ReplyDelete...or 2 World Trade Centers on 9/11 a year...
Delete...but, but, but, it's "only" 1%.
DeleteActually it's zero 9-11s. Because there are zero dead babies. Killing babies is murder and murder is illegal. btw, included in that 1% are abortions of fetuses who have "lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth". Yet, to you, they are ALL "murdered babies".
DeleteUnder covid (which republicans want to keep around as long as possible) we're having a 9/11 every two days. But republicans don't give a shit about those ACTUAL people. Because doing their part to end the pandemic would impinge upon their "freedoms".
btw - 99.9999% of aborted babies have no "lethal fetal anomalies". They simply lack a woman/mother capable of acting responsibly.
DeleteALL the women acted responsibly. In that they dealt with the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Unlike the men involved, many of whom didn't act responsibly. In that they ran away and left the woman alone to deal with the problem. Though you don't mention them at all. Ever.
Deletelol! If you can blame the men for irresponsibility, you've conceded my argument.
DeleteA man's cowardice in not sticking around to deal with the problem (in support of the pregnant woman and acknowledgement of their responsibility) is NOT a concession that you are correct. It's proof of your misogyny.
DeleteThe man is only irresponsible if he runs away/refuses to accept his responsibility.
Delete...but only "if" the woman "chooses" NOT to abort. LOL!
Delete...cuz then its' all "no harm, no foul."
DeleteThen he has to pay child support. Not surprising you overlook this, however.
DeleteJoe, RN, et al...
ReplyDeleteI think the question for everyone here would be "What's the end game"?
Is it zero abortions? The fewest possible? Is "safe legal and rare" a worthwhile target?
Or is it just to argue?
Because to yell at each other without ever defining what it is ppl want is just making noise.
Look, I think conservatives should be somewhat happy at the progress we've made since the ACA/Obamacare went into effect. Abortions, while some would argue are still too high, have dropped dramatically.
Isn't that good news?
Maybe, but it all depends on the answers to the questions above.
When Roe legalized abortion in '73, the promise was that abortions would be "safe, legal, and rare."
DeleteThen all the "illegal" abortionists performing unsafe abortions were sanctioned as "legal" providers (so abortions never became "safe") and then millions had abortions (so abortions were never "rare".
We got the worst of all wordls.
It Would Take COVID 23 Years to Kill as Many People as Abortion Killed in 2020 Alone
DeleteThat's bullshit. Covid is killing as many people who died on 9/11 every two days. While the number of PEOPLE who die in the US as a result of legal abortions in 2017 was 2 and, between 1973-2015, the number of deaths was 447 (source: abortion fatality).
DeleteSure... just don't call them "people"...
DeleteGuttmacher Institute data
year number of abortions abortion rate abortion ratio
2016 874,100 13.7 18.3
2017 862,300 13.5 18.4
Deny them their "symbolic" value.
DeleteWhy would I. I don't call eggs people either.
Delete...and therefore abortions are not "deaths." Whatever salves your conscience.
DeleteShe probably wasn't much of a "person", either.
DeleteNo, these non-deaths of non-people don't bother my conscience in the least. Though I have compassion for a woman suffering a spontaneous abortion (aka a miscarriage) if the woman wanted a child (or any other scenario that involves a woman losing a fetus when she WANTS a child). Otherwise, no. Women having bodily autonomy is a good thing, not a bad thing. btw, I don't know who the "she" you're referring to in your second comment is.
DeleteYou know what doesn't weigh on MY conscience? One single Covid-19 death. And THAT is where acceptance of practices like abortion, lead. An absolute de-valuing of human life and mortality.
DeleteIf you can rationalize abortion, you can rationalize euthanasia and a whole raft of immoral activities. At least Covid-19 is a "natural" death (until it's proven that the virus was engineered).
DeleteAnti-Vaxxers like you (an admitted hypocrite who was vaccinated) absolutely bear some responsibility for deaths among the unvaccinated. You have (and continue to) spread misinformation that feeds people's fears. btw, I very very very seriously doubt it will ever be proven the virus was engineered. Because it almost certainly was not.
Deletebtw, I support euthanasia (if the person in question is terminal and has a short amount of time to live, as confirmed by a doctor).
^^needs to be put out of his misery^^
DeleteLife is a "terminal condition". The only question is in its' duration. btw - What is your legalistic definition of short?
Death with dignity: Death with dignity statutes allow mentally competent adult state residents who have a terminal illness with a confirmed prognosis of having 6 or fewer months to live to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their inevitable, imminent death.
DeleteI would be happy if the "pro" side ensured that abortions could be made safe (have admitting agreements with hospitals and hospital-like standards for their offices) AND abortions were NEVER FREE (so that there was a cost MUCH greater than birth control to the idiots that got pregnant) and that abortions were no longer permitted (without exceptions for "mental health") after the FIRST trimester.
ReplyDeleteAt least that's a reasonable start to dialogue Joe Conservative. I appreciate and thank you for that.
DeleteI do belive, as do many spititual leaders, that even after 3 months there does exist a number of concerns and conditions that would justify termination of a pregnancy. I believe those have been highlighted many times so I won't bore anyone with repetition.
Again, thanks for your thoughts. Oh, by the way, how do you or I know these woman are "idiots". A bit too judgemental don't ya think?
There are far too many women who view abortion as "just another form of birth control" (As they've had four-five abortions). I would like to disavow them of this notion and encourage an economical use of resources when abortions and condoms have no "cost" to them. These are the "idiots" of which I speak.
DeleteThen is it safe to assume you would support insurance covered birth control for all women of child bearing age? Including young women who are in school on their parents insurance, eithe high school or college. Also, is it safe to assume you would support free "morning after pill" for women who have been raped?
DeleteAnd lastly, would you support abortions beyond the 1st trimester in circumstances the patient's OB-GYN advises abotion?
I actually highly questiion the statement about women with 4 or 5 abortions. However I woould be pleased to read any data you might steer me too that shows there is a great number of them.
Apparently zero men view abortion as "just another form of birth control".
DeleteRequiring admitting privileges is a strategy republican state legislatures have used to shut down abortion providers. It's a canard, given the fact that "abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States - safer than other routine medical procedures and substantially safer than childbirth".
And, fyi, a prior Supreme Court ruled that admitting-privilege restrictions are unconstitutional.
btw, RN, "in 2018, women who had not aborted in the past accounted for 60% of all abortions; women with one or two prior abortions accounted for 34%, and women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 6%" (As per the CDC).
Guttmacher reports that there were 874,100 abortions in 2016. 6% of those, or 52,450 women think abortion is just another form of birth control. The CDC thinks that 200,000 of those abortions never happened.
DeleteMakes you wonder how many abortions the other 200k had gotten....
Deletefrom Wikipedia...
DeleteGuttmacher Institute data
year number of abortions abortion rate abortion ratio
2016 874,100 13.7 18.3
2017 862,300 13.5 18.4
Abortion data for the two most recent years reported by the CDC appears below. The number of abortions is the number reported in 47 states and the District of Columbia, excluding California, Maryland, and New Hampshire. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age and the abortion ratio is the number of abortions per 1,000 live births. All these numbers rose slightly in 2018.[2]
CDC data
year number of abortions abortion rate abortion ratio
2017 612,719 11.2 185
2018 619,591 11.3 189
Sounds like Maryland's Office of Health Care Quality did a bad job enforcing regulations that govern abortion-service providers. At least in the examples cited in the article (as posted on your blog). Why do you think more regulations will solve the problem?
DeleteBecause if you study the cases, most of the abuses were from abortionists exploiting legal loopholes... inducing the abortions out-of-state and then driving the patients in-state for abortion completion.
DeleteRemember the Mann Act? There should be an equivalent federal law vis "abortion".
DeleteYou say that "the abortionists injected them out-of-state so that the babies wouldn't be viable when their abortion patients got to Maryland", but I don't see this information included in the article (as posted to your blog). Anyway, the police investigated and made arrests. Aren't arrests and convictions supposed to be a deterrent to others contemplating the same crimes?
Delete"the argument has always been for abortions, period, safe or NOT"... who would want an unsafe abortion? NOBODY, that's who. Not unless there is no other choice. And you're in favor of taking away choices. Proof would be your desire to stop women from leaving their state (Texas, for example) to get an abortion in another state.
:P
DeleteYou mean "legal" isn't necessarily "safe"? LOL!
Delete...and I never said or meant to imply that women couldn't travel to France to get their their abortions. But then, that's "white privilege" for ya.
DeleteReuters Health: Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
DeleteSo ALL pregnancies should be terminated to "save the health/ life of the mother". Good to know.
DeleteMy point was that "safe" is relative. Compared to giving birth, abortion is a lot safer. ALL pregnancies shouldn't be terminated. ALL women should have bodily autonomy. Which means they can become pregnant and chose to give birth, or chose to end the pregnancy prior to birth.
DeleteAs long as some folks embrace their cherished traditional "values" and create illusions and stories that serve only to support their own personal beliefs NOTHING will change Dave.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance means, in another word, concrete. To be caught by a concrete idea is ignorance. SSR
There is no such thing as a nine month abortion. JoeCon is not arguing in good faith. When someone starts using the term "baby killers," all bets are off, and you can conclude that person is NOT interested in a rational discussion.
ReplyDelete"Some abortions are referred to as 'late-term abortion'. However, 'late-term abortion' is not a recognized medical term. According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "the term 'late-term abortion' has no medical definition and is not used in a clinical setting or to describe the delivery of abortion care later in pregnancy."
Abortions for the health of the mother only happen before 24 weeks, which is the generally accepted cut-off for fetal viability. After 24 weeks, if a pregnant person is sick enough that she needs to deliver for her health, obstetricians either induce labor or perform a C-section, and the baby is attended by the neonatal intensive care unit.
JoeCon would apparently have you believe, and perhaps he believes himself, that in these situations doctors do a delivery and then commit infanticide. Health of the mother abortions absolutely do happen — in circumstances of ruptured membranes with an infection or deteriorating heart disease, for example — but they happen before 24 weeks. No OB-GYN is doing third-trimester abortions for the health of the mother, they simply just practice obstetrics and deliver the baby by the most appropriate method."
JoeCon's pronouncement of "far too many women" who use abortion for birth control gives him away. It clearly shows what his objection and objective truly is.
Abortions for the health of the mother only happen before 24 weeks
ReplyDelete...because no woman has ever lied about when her last period was or who the father was so that she could get what she wanted... LOL!
:P
Delete33 weeks later...
Delete
ReplyDelete"...because no woman has ever lied about when her last period was or who the father was so that she could get what she wanted... LOL!"
Again, JoeCon reveals his misogyny. His language makes it clear that he wants to not just control what a girl or woman does, but apparently would pass judgement on her motives for a legal medical procedure. And it's really none of his or the government's business.
And he hasn't answered Dave's question above. It appears JoeCon only wants to argue and show us his feelings around women on this subject instead of looking for solutions.
"It's the misogyny, Stupid!"
lol! The reason we have any laws at all is to "control people".... especially the liars and idiots you would give license to commit murder.
DeleteYour problem is that like all leftist atheists, you decide that there is no use, exchange, sign, or symbolic "value" in death. And yes, "death" is what happens to those "aborted fetus'" that were never, by you and yours, granted "life".
DeleteThersites with running ignorance on full frontal display.
Delete^^rejoices in the banality of evil that by the legal standards of 1972 constitute the daily murder of 2,000 souls^^
DeleteLife begins at birth — it says so in Genesis. (excerpt) The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms when life begins. In Genesis, chapter one, God answers that question himself. He forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("man" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man". Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. ... Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being. (Baltimore Sun 8/7/2018).
DeleteAlso, "Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Killing the woman is murder, a capital crime. The miscarriage is treated differently... as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it's not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is".
I'm not an atheist.
...and I'm a Deist, not a Christian, Jew, or Moslem. You're Bible is merely a history of quaint Middle Eastern customs. Biology recognizes both a sperm and an egg as aspects of "life" capable of eventual self-sustenance, autonomy and sentience (in humans). There is nothing except law and experimentation preventing that union being performed in a petri dish and sustained completely outside a woman's body ex-utero ala "Brave New World" w/o any input from a woman once her egg has ben harvested.
DeleteI'm not a deist, I'm a Christian. Will babies be grown in artificial wombs some day? I don't know. Or care. Or see what that has to do with this discussion. Unless you're saying that (when this day comes) republicans will come up with billions to pay to transfer fetuses from the bodies of women who want abortions into artificial wombs. Then be responsible for these children until they turn 18. Or get them adopted into families that will assume financial responsibility. I very seriously doubt that will ever happen.
Deletebtw, as per deism.com, "Abortion in cases of rape and/or incest should be treated the same as abortion for medical reasons. It should be up to the victim of the rape or incest what she wants to do...".
So you support a woman's right to chose abortion if she is raped or for medical reasons? But you already said you're against abortion for medical reasons... so, just rape/incest then? Are those the only "babies" that can be "murdered"?
Thersites is using inflammatory language, i.e., "license to commit murder," to describe a procedure that is LEGAL (it's not murder by definition if it's legal) and allowable in several religions, including various Christian sects and, surprisingly enough, is legal, and in many cases, free, in Israel, a country to which we send billions of Americans' tax payer dollars. And how are we to know where those $$$ are spent?
ReplyDeleteBut I digress.
Thersites' passion over his concern for an embryo's life is laughable. Where is his crusade on forcing women (or men) to give up their bodies' organs to save a life -- even their childrens' life? It is illegal to force a woman to give up her organs to save the life of a living child -- even her own. And it is against the law to harvest a woman's organs even in death if she has not legally provided to do so.
The law says a woman has autonomy over her body when it comes to life and death decisions in organ transplants and the state cannot force her to give any part of her body -- even to save the life of a living child.
How do you square that with anti-abortionists who want the state to force a woman to carry out a pregnancy?
Either a woman has autonomy over her body or she doesn't.
In the case of giving up an organ to save a child's life she DOES, by law, have autonomy. The state gives the choice to her. And in the case of ending a pregnancy, people like Thersites want the state to take over her body and deny that choice, making her pregnancy a state-enforced pregnancy.
Communist China instituted state-enforced abortions. People like Thersites would support state-enforced pregnancies.
Where is pShaw's cry, "My body, my choice!" when it comes to vaccines? LOL!
Delete-FJ... there is no my body my choice as it relates to covid and the vaccine.
DeleteCovid can affect the entire population.
You want it to be my body, my choice, then stay in your home, never walk outside. Any unvaccinated person with Covid runs the risk of infecting another person, causing that person great bodily harm or even death, great financial distress and long term illness. Often unknowingly as many people transmitting the disease do so before they are symptomatic.
The founding documents of the US are all about the common good of a society, by definition, a community. Each person has a responsibility to the others to continue to strive for the betterment of that society... how else should we interpret the preamble? There's not one directive there that can be understood from an individualists perspective. It's all about we...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Note the word "posterity" in the preamble. Abortion is its' antithesis. :)
Delete...the negation of posterity.
DeleteIf you want abortion to be "my body my choice"...then do it in your own house alone with a coathanger and stop paying medical professionals to clean up your moral lapses for you.
DeleteThanks for acnowledging your barbarism and ¹and horrifying egregious ignorance.
Delete...still better than ignoring yours towards the unborn.
Delete50+ million dead in the US...and counting
DeleteNice redirect -FJ... you likened "my body, my choice" in the abortion debate to the desires of the antivaxxers. Yet when presented with an argument that does not line up with your held position, rather than engage on your shaky ground, you deflect.
DeleteAnd then you hide in your philosophical haughtiness as if you are too smart to even enter into the discussion.
And ppl call me snarky...
What argument was that, Dave? Have any of my opponents acknowledged that the result of every abortion is a death yet?
DeleteYou seem to be of the opinion that a vaccinated person can't catch or spread the virus... then why should they wear masks?
DeleteVaccine scorecard as of 9/3/21:
DeleteHigh-Level Summary COVID19 vaccines (Dec’2020 – present) All other vaccines 1990-present US Data Only
COVID19 vaccines (Dec’2020 – present) US Data Only
All other vaccines 1990-present
Number of Adverse Reactions 675,593 819,638 539,473 719,011
Number of Life-Threatening Events 14,593 13,579 8,300 9,699
Number of Hospitalizations 58,440 78,322 30,528 38,099
Number of Deaths 14,506* 8,993 6,577 5,108
# of Permanent Disabilities after vaccination 18,439 19,562 7,648 12,411
Number of Office Visits 106,183 42,791 99,662 41,505
# of Emergency Room/Department Visits 77,863 209,571 68,097 200,634
# of Birth Defects after vaccination 413 138 292 89
Over half a million adverse reactions to the vaccine to date... and you still want to mandate this?
DeleteHell I'd just as soon mandate contraceptives and eliminate all abortions. You should need a doctor's prescription to get pregnant.
Joe and whoever asked... "Have any of my opponents acknowledged that the result of every abortion is a death yet?"
DeleteIf you are talking about a human death, no, because it is not true.
Until there is viability of a fetus, the great majority of Americans, including scientists and doctors would agree with me. And that was as true in the 1970's immediately after Roe as it is today.
And I think it's pretty clear what statement you made regarding "My body, my choice"... your view on that is simply false, and not supported by the facts as it relates to Covid.
-FJ... anyone who would make the following comment... "If you want abortion to be "my body my choice"...then do it in your own house alone with a coathanger and stop paying medical professionals to clean up your moral lapses..." really isn't fit for a reply.
DeleteIt's little more than a deistic lurch towards moralistic terrorism.
Zygotes aren't "human"? Who knew? Do they develop into horses?
Deletebtw - Is a three month old baby "viable"? Can it feed itself? Defend itself?
Delete:P
DeleteA zygotes isn't a human. a zygote is a potential human. Not all zygotes become humans. Even ones that aren't aborted.
DeleteThe video you link to has nothing to do with this discussion. "Discarding" a baby post-birth is murder.
DeleteThank you, Dave. I was going to answer that silly statement by Minus Eff Jay by stating the obvious: Pregnancy is not a transmissible disease that can kill men, women, and children.
ReplyDeleteBoth Minus Eff Jay and Thersites (are they the same commenters?) Are not serious in their arguments. They like to throw rhetorical bombs, run away, and not deal with anyone's comment.
Calling abortion "murder," when it's a legal medical procedure is just one example of their inability to argue rationally and coherently.
lol! At least I don't need to turn linguistic summersaults in the pretense that my actions are not immoral.
DeleteYour "choice principle" has been proven the fraud it always was.
DeleteAbortion = "medically assisted infanticide".
DeleteFurther claification of your obvious lack of understanding, empathy, compassion, and humanity. Sad, really sad.
Delete...and your complete lack of understanding, empathy, compassion, and/or humanity towards the unborn is equally evident.
Delete2,000 babies aborted yesterday. 2,000 babies aborted today. 2,000 tomorrow.
Delete...one WTC every other day.
DeleteIn your diseased mind. Oh ignoramus..
DeleteShaw: "are they the same commenters?".
DeleteYes. -FJ, Beantown AntiFacist, Inspector AIPac, Joe Blow from Kokomo, Joe Cameltoe, Joe Conservative, Joey Conservative, Mrs. Grundy, Red Herring, Speedy G, Stanley Kowalski, The Absolute Marxist, Thersites, Titan Uranus 2, and Vrag Proletariata... are all blogging IDs controlled by the same person. At least those are the ones I've identified. Maybe he has more.
I agree that generally, "Pregnancy is not a transmissible disease that can kill men, women, and children." ... but EVERY abortion leads to fetal death.
DeleteNo it doesn't. A fetus is "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception". i.e. an abortion prior to 8 weeks doesn't kill a fetus :P
Deletelol! So more than just fetus' die. Good to know.
DeleteHow many fetus' survive attempted abortions, btw?
DeleteInfanticide: "The crime of killing a child within a year of birth."
ReplyDeleteAbortion is NOT infanticide. Another one of your inflammatory claims.
Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure, it is NOT murder or infanticide. That's your opinion, not a legal statement.
You need to get a grip on yourself and figure out why you lose your all sense of proportion over this issue. It doesn't affect you at all, you're a man, I think, and I'm not convinced you care that much about embryos.
A child his born. His conception date 9 months previous weren't with a year of birth? Who knew?
DeleteThe rules surrounding your moral superstitions are curiously random. If they didn't address such serious subjects, they'd be risible.
A child is "a person between birth and puberty or full growth". 9 months prior to birth there was no child. One can only kill a child and commit infanticide post-birth.
Deletelol! Alababma Penal Code....
DeleteSection 13A-6-1
Definitions.
(a) As used in Article 1 and Article 2, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section:
(1) CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. Murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
(2) HOMICIDE. A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.
(3) PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
So the Alabama law you cite is a backdoor embryo/fetal "personhood" law that makes all abortion illegal in Alabama? Who knew? I wonder why the Texas anti-choice law is making headlines and I've never heard that abortion (at any stage) is illegal in Alabama. Given that (in Alabama) an embryo is a "person" making abortion "murder".
DeleteFYI, the law you cite states, "the term [applies] when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault". It doesn't say it applies in regards to abortion. So it ISN'T a backdoor personhood law. And an embryo or fetus ISN'T a person. In Alabama or in other state.
Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure that was an ILLEGAL medical procedure prior to 1973.
ReplyDeleteIf I get a woman pregnant, abortion "doesn't affect me"? On what planet?
ReplyDeleteMinus Eff Jay: "Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure that was an ILLEGAL medical procedure prior to 1973."
ReplyDeleteWrong again.
"There was a time when abortion was simply part of life in the United States. People didn’t scream about it in protest, and services were marketed openly.
Drugs to induce abortions were a booming business. They were advertised in newspapers and could be bought from pharmacists, from physicians and even through the mail. If drugs didn’t work, women could visit practitioners for instrumental procedures.
The earliest efforts to govern abortions centered on concerns about poisoning, not morality, religion or politics. It was the mid-19th century, long before abortion became the hot-button issue it is now.
In the 18th century and until about 1880, abortions were allowed under common law and widely practiced. They were illegal only after “quickening,” the highly subjective term used to describe when pregnant women could feel the fetus moving.
“At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy, before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view,” Reagan wrote. “Rather, the popular ethic regarding abortion and common law were grounded in the female experience of their own bodies.”
Though it is considered taboo in Christian traditions, until the mid-19th century, “the Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment,” she explained. “Not until 1869, at about the same time that abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895, it condemned therapeutic abortion,” meaning procedures to save a woman’s life.
Abortions would become criminalized by 1880, except when necessary to save a woman’s life, not at the urging of social or religious conservatives but under pressure from the medical establishment – and the very organization that today speaks out in support of abortion access."
But before abortions were banned, a woman known as Madame Restell ran abortion businesses from New York to Philadelphia and Boston. Her main clientele, Reagan wrote, were “married, white, native-born Protestant women of upper and middle classes.”
Abortions, birth control and general efforts to manage the timing of pregnancy meant birth rates among white women were falling just as immigrants streamed into the United States. And the idea of being out-populated by “others” worried some anti-abortion activists like Storer. He argued that whites should be populating the country, including the West and the South. Better them than blacks, Catholics, Mexicans, Chinese or Indians, he said, according to Reagan.
“Shall these regions be filled by our own children or by those of aliens? This is a question our women must answer; upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation,” Storer said, according to Reagan’s research.
You're welcome.
lol!
DeleteSome of the earliest anti-abortion laws were poison control measures, passed in the mid-19th century in response to the proliferation of chemical abortifacents that became popular at the time. But by the late 19th century, most states had laws banning abortion except to save the life or health of a pregnant person.
Minus Eff Jay: "2,000 babies aborted yesterday. 2,000 babies aborted today. 2,000 tomorrow."
ReplyDeleteDefinition of "baby."
ba·by
/ˈbābē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
No "babies" are aborted. You don't seem to know what you're talking about
Abortion is a legal medical procedure.
It is not murder; it is not infanticide; and babies are not aborted.
Try arguing with facts instead of emotional hyperbole and hysteria.
You enabled a genocide of fifty million Americans. No G_d can EVER forgive your hubris.
DeletePersonally, as someone who identifies as Christian, I'm not concerned. Though I've never been involved in an abortion in any way. I only support women having bodily autonomy. It's their decision, not mine.
DeleteYet you'd scream if that body wore fur... so much for her "autonomy", huh. lol!
DeleteI never have. I wouldn't. Personally I don't like fur, but (given that I have a leather coat and eat meat) I don't have a problem with people who do. Although I am very opposed to animal cruelty and think more should be done (regulations, bans on importing from countries were animals are treated cruelty). Are you in favor of animal cruelty? Or just don't give a shit?
DeleteNon sequitur, btw. A absurd stretch, at least. To compare forced pregnancy with someone deciding to wear a fur coat. And apparently men don't/can't wear fur coats?
DeleteWasn't the question about 'autonomy'? LOL!
DeleteNo. Regarding bodily autonomy, I didn't ask a question, I made a statement. You ignored the question about animal cruelty that I did ask.
DeleteRegarding "bodily autonomy" applying to clothing choices, are you going to complain that you can't walk around nude in public next? Is it not a violation of your (or anyone's) bodily autonomy not to be allowed to do so?
You're the one who brought it up. You tell me.
DeleteI'm not a mind reader. I was only pointing out the absurdity of saying wearing fur has something to do with "bodily autonomy". Wearing fur is legal. Though walking around nude in public usually isn't.
DeleteI'm against animal cruelty, I just don't believe that wearing fur is necessarily an indicator of it. It presumes too much.
DeleteMinus Eff Jay: "You enabled a genocide of fifty million Americans. No G_d can EVER forgive your hubris."
ReplyDeleteThere you go again with your hysteria and hyperbole, which I do not acknowledge as a valid argument or the truth.
PS. Your second statement doesn't apply to me at all, since I'm a nontheist. A god's wrath has no meaning for me.
I agree with Derv. Either a woman has autonomy over her body or she doesn't. Minus Eff Jay never addressed that. All he can do is throw rhetorical bombs, and those are useless in trying to have a discussion on this subject.
I'm finished with his nonsense.
So does "bodily autonom"y mean not being able to stop others from injecting experimental vaccines into it, or not? Talk about not answering questions....
DeleteIf I can force her her to get a vaccine, I can most certainly force her to carry to term.
DeleteIt's all for "the good of society" and "the other" after all.
DeleteNobody is being forced to get the vaccine. Proven by the fact that 3 in 10 American adults remain unvaccinated. btw, contrary to the Beamish stupidity on your blog, people who say they're never getting vaccinated are 65% White and 58% republican. Compared to 13% Black and 15% Democrat.
DeleteAnd getting vaccinated is something everyone who is eligible should do for the good of public health. btw, your wife and children forcing you to get vaccinated doesn't count. You could have said no. Though I suspect you're using them as an excuse. Like Ted Cruz who blamed his kids when he feld Texas to go to Cancun. Because you're a hypocrite - like the many republican politicians who are vaccinated but rail against "mandates".
Why do you refer to those who don't look like or think like you as the other?
DeleteI'd say that confirms that YOU jc are indded the racist.
I refer to ANYONE who is NOT ME as "the other". That makes me "not the other" and not, as you try to imply, a "racist".
DeleteDerv,
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting:
"Fifty years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis approved what by the standards of 1971 was a decisively liberal resolution on abortion:
Be it further resolved, that we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."
Randall Balmer, a professor of religion at Dartmouth and the author of a new book, “Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right,” looked at conservative strategizing in a recent op-ed in the Guardian. In his essay, Balmer recounted a 1990 meeting of conservatives in Washington at which Weyrich spoke:
Remember, Weyrich said animatedly, that the religious right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got the movement going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies, including a ban on interracial dating that the university maintained until 2000.
In an email, Balmer wrote, “Opposition to abortion became a convenient diversion — a godsend, really — to distract from what actually motivated their political activism: the defense of racial segregation in evangelical institutions.”
^^It's always 'all about race' for the racist^^
DeleteMinus FJ's denials = the heartbeat of racism.
DeleteIf denial's the heartbeat, asking the question of race is the blood that desires circulation...
DeleteNo. It's a necessary question. You don't solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist. What you do, because you don't want to solve the problem.
DeleteMisapplying a question to the wrong problem hardly ever solves it.
DeleteThe "right" problem (the one you're concerned about) is the errosion of your White supremacy. I'm not interested in solving that "problem".
Delete"My" white supremacy? LOL! I'm not the one who denies his race so as to gain amoral high-ground and thereby argue from the "universal".
DeleteJean Baudrillard, "The Agony of Power"
This discourse of the universal describes a tautological spiral. It is held by the species that considers itself superior to all others and within this species by a minority that considers itself the holder of moral and universal ends forming a veritable democratic feudality. Whatever the case may be there is a major inconsistency with continuing to use a discourse of the universal and a discourse of reference when it has no meaning or effect anywhere, neither with global power, nor in opposition to it, to relativize our concept of the universal with the increasing globalization of the world, discrimination becomes more ferocious. The cartography should not confuse these zones beyond reality with those that still give signs of reality in the same hegemonic of globalization. Even though they do not function in the same way we could even say that the gap separating them is growing, and that something that was only a cultural singularity in a non-unified world becomes real discrimination in a globalized universe. The more the world is globalized, the worse the discrimination. The two universes, the hyper real and the infra real (below or within the real) seem to interpenetrate, but are light years away from each other. The deepest misery and enclaves of luxury coexist in the same geographic space.
Minus Eff Jay: "If I can force her her to get a vaccine, I can most certainly force her to carry to term."
ReplyDeleteThose two subjects cannot be compared. A pregnancy is not transmissible. A deadly virus is.
Your inability to grasp that simple idea shows me and others that your arguments are not serious at all. You're just interested in throwing out clownish counter arguments.
Pure unadulterated selfishness and desire for totall control over the lives and bodies of momen EVERYWHERE is eff jay's and his ilk's most fevered desire.
DeleteA pregnancy isn't transmissible? Not even to the baby? LOL!
DeleteYour inability to grasp this simple concept shows that your arguments are totally non-serious! lol!
DeletePure unadulterated selfishness and desire for totall control over the lives and bodies of momen EVERYWHERE is eff jay's and his ilk's most fevered desire.
DeleteSounds like the basis for a vaccine mandate, huh?
Your inabilility to grasp the complexities of this issue shows conclusively that your arguments are COMPLETELY and TOTALLY non-serious! LOL!
DeleteYou'd be considered lucky if you could grasp your own pecker, RN.
DeleteHow would you know? You have spycams installed where RN lives, pervert?
DeleteNope, just your place.
DeleteThe pervert -FJ has spoken.
DeleteInterpreting your hyper-reality can ONLY be achieved BY a pervert. :)
Deletetrumpers live in an alternate reality. One where pregnancy is transmissible, apparently. Can a pregnancy be transmitted from a woman to a man? Or just from a woman to another woman?
DeleteThe Dalai Lama has said: Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason Buddhist philoshy and spirituality makes a boat load more rational sense than any other spiritual path. At least to millions across the globe anyway. And with the common sense and ethical and moral tenets of Buddhism and its growth in the USA just maybe this nation might have a chance to figure out that the one of Buddhism's guiding principles, do no harm (one can assume if all choices of action would create harm and no action was not an option the one creating the least harm would be taken) is the only truly sensible path. I'm sure efff jay and sock puppets would disagree.
The Dalai Lama wants to euthanize defective children? Who knew?
DeleteKill everything that makes MY life inconvenient or uncomfortable. We should start with Democrats.
You really are a functioning IDIOT joe con, or whoever the F you really are.
Delete...better than a mentally non-functioning one like you, RN.
DeleteI'll take THAT any DAY of the week over accepting the gutteral bullshit you barf up EVERY day.
DeleteYou'd be the expert on gutteral bullsh*t and barf....
ReplyDeleteMinus Eff Jay: "A pregnancy isn't transmissible? Not even to the baby? LOL!"
ReplyDeleteDefinition of transmissible
: capable of being transmitted
transmissible diseases
Well, if you can link to an incident where a pregnancy was transmitted to a baby, then we'll say you have a point.
Right now, though, that point seems to be the shape of the dunce cap on your head.
Where do babies get their genes from then? They aren't "transmitted" to him through the process known as "pregnancy"?
DeleteDidn't they ever teach you sex ed?
pregnant
Delete[ˈpreɡnənt]
ADJECTIVE
(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
"she was heavily pregnant with her second child" · [more]
synonyms:
expecting a baby · having a baby · with a baby on the way · having a child · [more]
full of meaning; significant or suggestive
funny, the definition isn't "zygote implantation"... it's all about "children/ babies"....
Deletewould you prefer the verb?
Deleteimpregnate
[imˈpreɡˌnāt]
VERB
make (a woman or female animal) pregnant.
synonyms:
make pregnant · get pregnant · inseminate · fertilize · fecundate · get with child
biology
fertilize (a female reproductive cell or ovum).
(be impregnated with)
soak or saturate (something) with a substance.
"wood that had been impregnated with preservative"
synonyms:
infuse · soak · steep · saturate · drench · permeate · suffuse · imbue · pervade · fill · load · charge
imbue with feelings or qualities.
"an atmosphere impregnated with tension"
synonyms:
pervade · spread through · fill · filter through · diffuse through · imbue · [more]
Whoda thunk that all THAT could happen, with NOTHING being "transmissible" orr "transmitted"...
DeleteWho knew that according to pShaw, sperm's a "disease". lol!
Delete...and a zygote is so "pregnant" with possibilities, that it can even divide and create another human being... it's "twin".
DeleteYou CANNOT transmit a pregnancy. You can transmit a virus.
ReplyDeleteYour attempts to look intelligent are epic fails.
There is no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus.
You're not interested in a discussion, only in making points, and your points are inane.
There is no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus.
Delete...and the price of tea in China today is....
Cluck, cluck, cluck said con man joe as he trumpets his embarrassing lack of knowledge.
ReplyDelete^^Has an obvious chicken fetish^^
DeleteIndeed you do!
DeleteJoeCon wrote: "A pregnancy isn't transmissible? Not even to the baby? LOL!"
ReplyDeleteIn the English language, that sentence means the writer is surprised to hear that "a pregnancy isn't transmissible even to the baby."
I answered that pregnancy is NOT transmissible to the fetus. JoeCon's statement is absurd. Pregnancy cannot be transmitted to anyone or anything; and to further provide JoeCon with information he lacks, I posted this:
"There is no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus."
So that JoeCon would understand that is the only way anything can be transmitted between mother and fetus.
JoeCon answered: "There is no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus.
...and the price of tea in China today is..."
Which implies he already knew that. So.
What in the name of god's green teeth is he talking about when he wrote:
"A pregnancy isn't transmissible? Not even to the baby? LOL!"
None of the above matters, anyway; it's all wordplay and obfuscation on JoeCon's part.
JoeCon revealed himself in this comment he made upthread:
"Kill everything that makes MY life inconvenient or uncomfortable. We should start with Democrats."
Wow! He gives so much power to millions and millions and millions of people who identify with a political party! According to JoeCon, Democrats MAKE his life "inconvenient."
There you have it: JoeCon blames millions and millions of Americans who do not share his political beliefs for his misery! Poor dear! And this crusader for the sanctity of life would like to have those millions and millions killed to relieve him of inconveniences!
That, Derve, is all we need to know about JoeCon's inner moral life.
An egg, floating down a fallopian tube meets a sperm and is "fertilized". It then divides into two, and both implant on the woman's uterine wall. Which pregnancy, the original cell or the divided cell, wasn't transmitted by the pregnancy? How did these babies not play any parts in the pregnancy?
Deletebtw - How are virus' transmitted?
The world is currently aborting babies at the rate of 1.67 every second and pShaw CHEERS!
DeleteThat says all we need to know about pShaw's "moral life".
Wow! I did the math. Did you jc?
DeleteCurrent world population - 7
Billion.
Wonder how, all those millions of babies not born would have affected the world poverty level, politics, environment, etc. We do have limited resources and unless cared for and compassionately managed the human race itself may die off sooner raher than later. Mot thay YOU jc gives a flying fig.
Do you see the interconnectedness of everything jc? How humans have, in a 150 year span, managed to put mother earth and all sentient beings at risk due to human induced climate change. Or is greed and ignorance your thing?
DeleteYour eugenics program to rid the world of poor brown people is working, RN. No wonder you love abortion so much! Given the surplus criminality of African-Americans and Hispanics, just look what it's done for America's crime rate!
DeleteEach year in the United States, about 926,000 abortions take place, which account for about 20% (1 in 5) of pregnancies in our nation. Sixty-five percent of these abortions are occurring when the woman is seven weeks pregnant or more. The pro-life movement has successfully reduced the number of abortions, but they have not been able to end it.
DeleteAs we seek strategy for the continuing fights, it’s important to identity who has abortions. Who are the women we need to reach with the message that the unborn child’s life is valuable?
Race
FACT: Not every state reports abortion by ethnicity, but those that do reveal that abortions to blacks and Hispanic women account for 55.4% of the 405,795 abortions reported by race. This number is disproportionate considering the fact that black and Hispanic women only comprise roughly 29% of the total U.S. population.
You jc, eff jay, as well as your full stable of ignorant sock puppets can go shit in your (their) hats.
DeleteYou intentionally mischaracerize my point and claim I "love"abortions. I don't. Never have, never will. But please, live your ignorrance. You need it or you'd probably kill yourself.
Donald tRump loves abortions. If the abortion snuffs out the life of a potential heir. He has too many already (maybe he'd like to get rid of Eric).
DeleteTrump can follow the traditions of primogeniture, and nobody can interfere with that decision regardless of the number of heirs.
DeleteMinus Eff Ja
ReplyDeleteMinus Eff Jay/JoeCon wrote: "The world is currently aborting babies at the rate of 1.67 every second and pShaw CHEERS!
That says all we need to know about pShaw's "moral life".
JHC, you're an idiot!
Snopes: Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that [former] U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions.
DeleteDuring a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion:
"Given [Trump's] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion"?
“Such an interesting question", he said. "So what's your next question?" [end].
Obviously the answer is yes. Under Minus FJ's worldview, the man bears no responsibility. However, if the man pays for the abortion, surely that confers responsibility... i.e. Dotard paid for 8 "murders".
Officials are elected to perform the immoral tasks, like punish lawbreakers, that allow citizens not do them, and thereby remain moral.
DeleteYou don't want "over-morally" people in those jobs. It would give them PTSD.
I, for one, want them on that wall!
DeleteJoseph de'Maistre, "St Petersburg Diaries"
DeleteTo come now to detail, let us start with human justice. Wishing men to be governed by men at least in their external actions, God has given sovereigns the supreme prerogative of punishing crimes, in which above all they are his representatives....
This formidable prerogative of which I have just spoken results in the necessary existence of a man destined to inflict on criminals the punishments awarded by human justice; and this man is in fact found everywhere, without there being any means of explaining how; for reason cannot discern in human nature any motive which could lead men to this calling. I am sure, gentlemen, that you are too accustomed to reflection not to have pondered often on the executioner. Who is then this inexplicable being who has preferred to all the pleasant, lucrative, honest, and even honorable jobs that present themselves in hundreds to human power and dexterity that of torturing and putting to death his fellow creatures? Are this head and this heart made like ours? Do they not hold something peculiar and foreign to our nature? For my own part, I do not doubt this. He is made like us externally; he is born like us but he is an extraordinary being, and for him to exist in the human family a particular decree, a FIAT of the creative power is necessary. He is a species to himself. Look at the place he holds in public opinion and see if you can understand how he can ignore or affront this opinion! Scarcely have the authorities fixed his dwelling-place, scarcely has he taken possession of it, than the other houses seem to shrink back until they no longer overlook his. In the midst of this solitude and this kind of vacuum that forms around him, he lives alone with his woman and his offspring who make the human voice known to him, for without them he would know only groans. A dismal signal is given; a minor judicial official comes to his house to warn him that he is needed; he leaves; he arrives at some public place packed with a dense and throbbing crowd. A poisoner, a parricide, or a blasphemer is thrown to him; he seizes him, he stretches him on the ground, he ties him to a horizontal cross, he raises it up: then a dreadful silence falls, and nothing can be heard except the crack of bones breaking under the crossbar and the howls of the victim. He unfastens him; he carries him to a wheel: the shattered limbs interweave with the spokes; the head falls; the hair stands on end, and the mouth, open like a furnace, gives out spasmodically only a few blood-spattered words calling for death to come. He is finished: his heart flutters, but it is with joy; he congratulates himself, he says sincerely, No one can break men on the wheel better than I. He steps down; he stretches out his blood-stained hand, and justice throws into it from a distance a few pieces of gold which he carries through a double row of men drawing back with horror. He sits down to a meal and eats; then to bed, where he sleeps. And next day, on waking, he thinks of anything other than what he did the day before. Is this a man? Yes: God receives him in his temples and permits him to pray. He is not a criminal, yet it is impossible to say, for example, that he is virtuous, that he is an honest man, that he is estimable, and so on. No moral praise can be appropriate for him, since this assumes relationships with men, and he has none.
And yet all grandeur, all power, all subordination rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world, and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple, and society disappears. God, who is the author of sovereignty, is the author also of chastisement: he has built our world on these two poles; for Jehovah is the master of the two poles, and on these he makes the world turn.[1 Samuel 2:8.]
for mankind is too weak to ever move "beyond the Law".
DeleteNietzsche, "Genealogy of Moral, Part II"
If the power and the self-confidence of a community keeps growing, the criminal law grows constantly milder. Every weakening and profound jeopardizing of the community brings the harsher forms of criminal law to light once more. The "creditor" always became proportionally more human as he became richer. Finally the amount of his wealth itself establishes how much damage he can sustain without suffering from it. It would not be impossible to imagine a society with a consciousness of its own power which allowed itself the most privileged luxury which it can have—letting its criminals go free without punishment. "Why should I really bother about my parasites," it would then say. "May they live and prosper—for that I am still sufficiently strong!" . . . Justice, which started by stating "Everything is capable of being paid for, everything must be paid off" ends at that point, by covering its eyes and letting the person incapable of payment go free—it ends, as every good thing on earth ends, by doing away with itself. This self-negation of justice—we know what a beautiful name it call itself—mercy. It goes without saying that mercy remains the privilege of the most powerful man, or even better, his movement beyond the law.
La clemenza de Tito is dead. Ours is a merciless/ bureaucratic/ cybernetic "system" of justice, now.
DeleteDerv, I don't think many people would have a difficult time believing that the serial adulterer (who shagged porn stars while his 3rd wife was having his 5th child) had several women get abortions. And yeah, that would (by Mr. Multiple Personality's logic) make him a murderer. However, the cultists would still worship him because they believe Trump was sent to America by God Almighty to "own the libs!" LOL!
ReplyDeleteHe does own them. He's still in their heads a year after leaving office.
Delete