SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[Red Dead Redemption]

Wow, you are like a broken record,

 

So as a general point, are you ok with late-term abortions, and do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks?

And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

Also, as I asked previously, do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks?

Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

And what is your answer...

With that said, I still would like an answer to the question on whether you believe its ok for a woman without exceptions to have an abortion at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks.

its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.

you are afraid to answer a question.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase.

 

You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply.

 

Wow, you are like a broken record, and reaching for stretch examples to justify a point that makes no sense at all. The question I am posing to you is at the heart of the late-term abortion ban debate, something that both sides of the aisle should be able to reach consensus on. So in posing this straightforward question, you are coming up with all sorts of scenarios to distract. Taking your scenarios into the gun control debate, it would be like arguing that we should allow individuals to purchase semi-automatic machine guns or bazookas in case a gang or group of terrorists invade their home and try to take out their family.

 

If your plan is to continue to dodge this question by reclaiming that its not straightforward then there is no need to respond. If I wanted a broken record I could go buy one and crack it over my leg.

 

 

LOL. You really think you have something on me with your question, don't you? It's so cute! You are adorable!

You seem to get really agitated when people don't respond to your questions. It seems to have flustered you to the point where it is interfering with your ability to comprehend the content of others' posts; mine, AR, Zoogs, etc, because you were so focused on wanting to get an answer to your question. Well, I don't want to see you suffer anymore so I will give you your simple answer to your simple question, however incomplete it might be. Are you ready? You'd better sit down for it...here it comes... No, I am not okay with late-term abortions at 26, 31 or even 36 weeks (are those the right numbers you used? I can't remember, LOL) Whew! What a relief. You know, that was scary! Are you okay now? Can you breathe easier, or do you still have the vapors? I'll bet you won't even do anything with that info. Now that that has been settled, perhaps you can now re-read the responses of AR, Zoogs, me, etc. without distraction and perhaps comprehend them better. You think it should be so simple to reach a consensus, but clearly it's not, which you'd understand if you'd read the posts of many others from both sides instead of worrying about whether or not you're going to get an answer to your "question".

 

As for the part I bolded, I have repeatedly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, that would qualify for an "exception" so that is not even relevant to the question I have posed.

See, you were so distracted with your foot-stomping wanting an answer to your "question", you fail to grasp the concept of the unknown being the rule, not the exception. If the unknowns were known, then you would know about them and be able to grant them an exception, because you know about it. But if the unknown is unknown, then you cannot grant an exception for it because you don't even know about it, ya know?

 

As for bringing up our miscarriage, that was a direct response to your inference that I am not aware of pregnancy and the associated risks.

Since you seem to be obsessed with questions, I should have pointed out that that was a rhetorical question. I wasn't going to badger you for an actual answer like how you badgered others. Whatever anecdotal experiences you may have had does not mean you are capable of awareness outside of your scope.

 

I'm not sure if you have been through the process as a parent, but most parents who live through the entire life cycle understand the process, the risks, etc...

This part where you are being deliberately obtuse is especially precious, where you feign pondering that you are not sure I "have been through the process as parent", considering that the post you replied to above actually contains my text where I quite literally mentioned some of my experience and "process" as a parent, then pointed out that it, like yours, was irrelevant. Did you not see that, or perhaps your mind was clouded by your desire to get an answer to your "question"?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase.

 

You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply.

Wow, you are like a broken record, and reaching for stretch examples to justify a point that makes no sense at all. The question I am posing to you is at the heart of the late-term abortion ban debate, something that both sides of the aisle should be able to reach consensus on. So in posing this straightforward question, you are coming up with all sorts of scenarios to distract. Taking your scenarios into the gun control debate, it would be like arguing that we should allow individuals to purchase semi-automatic machine guns or bazookas in case a gang or group of terrorists invade their home and try to take out their family.

 

If your plan is to continue to dodge this question by reclaiming that its not straightforward then there is no need to respond. If I wanted a broken record I could go buy one and crack it over my leg.

LOL. You really think you have something on me with your question, don't you? It's so cute! You are adorable!

You seem to get really agitated when people don't respond to your questions. It seems to have flustered you to the point where it is interfering with your ability to comprehend the content of others' posts; mine, AR, Zoogs, etc, because you were so focused on wanting to get an answer to your question. Well, I don't want to see you suffer anymore so I will give you your simple answer to your simple question, however incomplete it might be. Are you ready? You'd better sit down for it...here it comes... No, I am not okay with late-term abortions at 26, 31 or even 36 weeks (are those the right numbers you used? I can't remember, LOL) Whew! What a relief. You know, that was scary! Are you okay now? Can you breathe easier, or do you still have the vapors? Now that that has been settled, perhaps you can now re-read the responses of AR, Zoogs, me, etc. without distraction and perhaps comprehend them better. You think it should be so simple to reach a consensus, but clearly it's not, which you'd understand if you'd read the posts of many others from both sides instead of worrying about whether or not you're going to get an answer to your "question".

As for the part I bolded, I have repeatedly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, that would qualify for an "exception" so that is not even relevant to the question I have posed.

See, you were so distracted with your foot-stomping wanting an answer to your "question", you fail to grasp the concept of the unknown being the rule, not the exception. If the unknowns were known, then you would know about them and be able to grant them an exception, because you know about it. But if the unknown is unknown, then you cannot grant an exception for it because you don't even know about it, ya know?

As for bringing up our miscarriage, that was a direct response to your inference that I am not aware of pregnancy and the associated risks.

Since you seem to be obsessed with questions, I should have pointed out that that was a rhetorical question. I wasn't going to badger you for an actual answer like how you badgered others. Whatever anecdotal experiences you may have had does not mean you are capable of awareness outside of your scope.

I'm not sure if you have been through the process as a parent, but most parents who live through the entire life cycle understand the process, the risks, etc...

This part where you are being deliberately obtuse is especially precious, where you feign pondering that you are not sure I "have been through the process as parent", considering that the post you replied to above actually contains my text where I quite literally mentioned some of my experience and "process" as a parent, then pointed out that it, like yours, was irrelevant. Did you not see that, or perhaps your mind was clouded by your desire to get an answer to your "question"?

Wow you are defensive and obviously flustered...hopefully its not from too much reading of your thesaurus.

[AR Husker Fan]

Abortion Laws Tumble Across the Country

Since Monday, laws restricting abortion and non-abortion Planned Parenthood funding have already been temporarily or permanently wiped out in six states. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a new case Friday challenging a whopping seven of Louisiana's new abortion restrictions. And on the heels of Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced an effort to pursue repealing laws in eight states through legislatures. (Even lawmakers hostile to abortion may prefer the less expensive option of repealing a law, rather than having to defend one that is unlikely to stand after the Supreme Court's decision.)

LINK

[Making Chimichangas]

Oh look, it's huskerfan2000's abortion thread!

 

But in all seriousness, this is one of the most f*cked-up things about our country - that we have a large portion of our country (and across the world I'm sure) who believe it's OK to kill babies.

 

If you believe in god and think the bible is the word of god, then killing babies, children, slaughtering pregnant women, etc...are ALL condoned by "god."

 

Would you like me to post the relevant bible verses?

 

People who think "god" is pro-life have obviously never read the bible.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies.

This is not a truth. If men carried babies, we'd still be having this discussion. It's not about men vs women, it's about whether or not that's a life being ended.

 

 

I think it is true. And, if men could get pregnant, not only would an abortion procedure be legal and no one would be ostracized for having one, but there would be abortion clinics on practically every street corner.

[Landlord]

If you believe in god and think the bible is the word of god, then killing babies, children, slaughtering pregnant women, etc...are ALL condoned by "god."

 

Would you like me to post the relevant bible verses?

 

People who think "god" is pro-life have obviously never read the bible.

 

 

 

You should have put the quotation marks around "condoned" instead of around God.

 

If you do any really fair research into Old Testament writings, you'll see that depictions of God, as written and recorded by people, change and grow and develop as human society has. You'll also see that either God, if God actually exists, or at least human understanding of the idea of God, shows Him condescending into the culture at the time and working patiently through and within it. I can see how a shallow criticism will lead to the "God is a wrathful genocidal maniac" idea, but it's not really God who changes; it's humans, and specifically human society.

[Making Chimichangas]

@Landlord of Memorial Stadium

 

Shallow criticism is reading the bible and coming to the conclusion that god is a wrathful, genocidal, manic? You cannot be serious. I wasn't expecting to be called incompetent or dumb right out of the gate, but here we are. In verse after verse, god condones murder, mass-murder, slavery, genocide, rape, killing of children, etc. If god exists, it is not moral, it is not good, and it darn sure doesn't give two hoots about people.

 

If the bible is not to be taken as it is written, then what's the point of having it? Why does a god who "loves" you need to threaten you with damnation if you don't love and worship it? That's not unconditional love, that's a narcissistic, ego-driven maniac. Factor in the penchant for murder and blood lust and I don't see how any fair reading of the bible doesn't bring someone to the conclusion god is a murderous sociopath.

 

Not trying to be rude or disrespectful to your view here, but your notion that god works patiently through people is, frankly, a load of malarkey. So an all-knowing, omnipotent god doesn't know that humans will misconstrue its words? An all-knowing, omnipotent god can't correct things like that? An all-knowing, omnipotent god who loves you will sit idly by as people bomb, murder, torture, and commit the worst atrocities in its name? Seriously?

 

Back to the point of this thread as it pertains to abortion: god if it exists is not pro-life because it has killed so many children that it would be a mass murderer based on that alone.

[admo]

^ I do not agree with those personal opinions. There are many people of faith in this world, more articulate than I, that could probably help answer those questions you have.

[Making Chimichangas]

^ I do not agree with those personal opinions. There are many people of faith in this world, more articulate than I, that could probably help answer those questions you have.

 

The questions I posed were rhetorical.

[Landlord]

Not trying to be rude or disrespectful to your view here, but your notion that god works patiently through people is, frankly, a load of malarkey. So an all-knowing, omnipotent god doesn't know that humans will misconstrue its words?

 

 

Of course He/It does/would.

 

Here's the thing. Language is hard, you know? There is an asymptotic fidelity involved in any medium of communication where I can never know the true essence of exactly what you're thinking/saying, because you have to dumb it down into a form that can be easily comprehended, ie, through language.

 

The only way for humans to not misconstrue God's words is for humans to be gods themselves. Otherwise, we're going to mess a lot of sh#t up. For example, the intellectually lazy assertions of God as this blood-thirsty wrathful tyrant (weird how you are attributing such human-based personality descriptions of God, yet the writers of the Bible aren't allowed to do that because it's God), instead of an omnipotent being that we can't really accurately understand or put into words.

 

The God of the Bible manifested in most clear and obvious form in the person of Jesus. Show me any instances of Jesus condoning or getting off on any of the horrific things you mentioned.

[huskerfan2000]

nm