House passes 20 week abortion ban.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am sure that coined "right-wing PC" phrase doesn't work well for your confirmation Bias like Pro-choice, but it is a more accurate phrase for the Pro-Choice Movement than Pro-Choice. Using the phrase Pro-Choice is also an easy way to subdue the natural emotional response one might have for supporting the termination of unborn humans.

By the way I was born premature at week 26. *Normal human emotional response intended.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Around when the spirit enters through the pineal gland.

I don't imagine you have any proof of that one???
but let me get this straight...
not only should women have to pay more in insurance because of their reproductive role in life is considered a pre-existing condition by insurance companies and the republicans seem hell bent on removing anything in the law that protects those kinds of people from being overcharged to the point where it's not affordable.. not only should they have to pay for a maternity rider. not only should they have to pay for their birth control out of pocket......
but.... they should have to also pay for monthly or bi-monthly pregnancy tests also so they can detect their pregnancy earlier than their bodies would allow them to???

ya know what, it would be easier and less costly to women if they just decided to say no to sex, married, or unmarried, regardless of financial status... JUST SAY NO!! I bet ya ten to one if those republican legislatures were to find themselves cut off by their wives and their mistresses, and found the rest of the nation's men in the same spot they would decide to stop using women's reproductive systems as a way to get votes!!!

a reply to: RogueWaterC1

Did you have a point?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You think 50% of American women want to have their right to vote taken away???

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You think 50% of American women want to have their right to vote taken away???

No, wiseass, I think 50% of American women voted their conscience last November and have been blasted for it by the people on the supposed "women's rights are everything to us" side because those women didn't "vote the right way." Tell me, just for kicks and giggles, when was the last time a prominent Conservative made any sort of flap over *how* a particular group of women voted? Since November, I can show you multiple disparagements from prominent Democrats directed against women who "didn't vote the right way" last November... cognitive dissonance, the air reeks of it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Around when the spirit enters through the pineal gland.

not only should they have to pay for their birth control out of pocket......
but.... they should have to also pay for monthly or bi-monthly pregnancy tests also so they can detect their pregnancy earlier than their bodies would allow them to???

Those things should be universally covered, but given what's at stake, doing a bimonthly pregnancy tests shouldn't be a problem.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't believe that 50% of american women voted for trump...
matter of fact I would say that would be danged near impossible since only 58% the eligible voters showed up to vote.
I don't even believe that 50% of the women who voted voted for trump since the vote was closer to 50/50 between the two candidates (and I am being kind since hillary in reality got more actual votes) and where the percentage of men who voted for trump was over 50%, the percentage of women who voted for hillary, I do believe was over 50%.

and for most SANE people, the decision as to who to vote for is made taking into consideration more than one area..
alot of women voted for trump because they believed he might do better when it came to economic issues while believe it or not, some women voted for trump because they believed that it was against god's ordained plan to have a women leader.
but, would any of these women want themselves, their daughters, their best friend to suffer through a complicated pregnancy that presented the potential to leave them unable to have children, or with permanent injury to their internal organs, or death being denied an abortion up to the point where they are at death's door and need intervention to save their life???
you are right, most women want some restrictions on abortion, but I don't think any women wants abortions banned entirely.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

how they hell do you know what would be a problem for any given women???
as someone who's walked everywhere she wanted to go till she was close to 30..
as someone who used to go hauling three kids under the age of 3 four blocks to the nearest store on foot to buy a days worth of food for them to eat...
as someone who's had to try to feed those kids on a $60 a month food budget...

I really want to know!!!

gee, it it seems that what would be at stake would be around $10 of that $60 dollar food budget I was speaking about....
no worries, instead of eating every other day, I could just go ahead and eat every two or three days I guess!!!

so, where's you proof of the times when the spirit enters the fetus again???
or should we make that sacrifice because of your hunch???

a reply to: dawnstar

Like I said, it should be covered.

We talking about human life, not convenience. I'm sorry, but how hard could it be to do a pregnancy test once a month?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, dingleflop, what you responded to was this ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Then you can work on taking the vote away from all these silly gals, can't ya?

And you told me that 50% of women voted in favor of that. So, you can blame me for your reading mistakes if you want to, but the point is that the exact same mentality that is willing to deprive a woman’s right to the automony of her body as your posts are celebrating would probably have no issue with taking away a woman’s right to vote.

Women voting for Trump does not suggest they 100% in line with every single one of his stated policies and I KNOW you know better than to try that kind of blatant conflation.

You can keep crying about what Hillary says or Michelle says or Madeline says ... but the fact is that there is distinct difference between the two majority Parties in this country on Women’s rights (which is not merely the right to choose).

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

for some women, it might be easier to divorce their husband, live celebate and go on welfare than come up with the funds!!
and what should be is never what is, never has been, never will be, so saying that these things should be covered is really quite irrelevant. what is is that we have a congress that has tried what three times so far to
cut funding to planned parenthood and remove the mandates that required insurance cover birth control and maternity care at no extra charge. and they were trying so hard to do that, they neglected to extend the children's health insurance program that so many depend on for their kids.
and they keep trying to pass these abortion laws that seem to not even take into consideration the health of the pregnant women...
we've had women jailed when their only offense was they miscarried their baby.
we've had women forced to have c-sections against their will.
we've even had a women collaspe on a catholic hospitals emergency room floor while they were trying to send her back home for the third time because she was miscarrying!!

sex is not worth all this bull....!!!

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: dawnstar

Like I said, it should be covered.

We talking about human life, not convenience. I'm sorry, but how hard could it be to do a pregnancy test once a month?

Fear of pregnancy shouldn't be pre-occupying a woman's mind all the time. A woman doing a pregnancy test every month would probably be diagnosed with some kind of obsessive disorder these day.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: dawnstar


I think it is a crime to qualify the value of life via 'birth defects'. This bill is a compromise. Neither side of the issue will be satisfied.


It is a compromise I can live with.


Good bill.

I think it's a crime we put humans lower on the medical compassion totem pole than animals are. Oh yes, yes, we DO give animals with malformed/unviable fetuses abortions.

Think about that, you're essentially advocating we're not as worthy as an animal is of the ability to skip living with crippling, painful medical problems. Hell, we're not even as worthy as a DOG of being euthanized when we're terminally ill.

That's a damn sick & twisted outlook on who deserves that medical compassion & why.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Around when the spirit enters through the pineal gland.

not only should they have to pay for their birth control out of pocket......
but.... they should have to also pay for monthly or bi-monthly pregnancy tests also so they can detect their pregnancy earlier than their bodies would allow them to???

Those things should be universally covered, but given what's at stake, doing a bimonthly pregnancy tests shouldn't be a problem.

Because, buying pads, tampons, other feminine care products, birth control pills, annual checks under the hood, are not enough, as it is.

Now we all have to buy pregnancy tests, too.

Better buy em in bulk.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: dawnstar


I think it is a crime to qualify the value of life via 'birth defects'. This bill is a compromise. Neither side of the issue will be satisfied.


It is a compromise I can live with.


Good bill.

I think it's a crime we put humans lower on the medical compassion totem pole than animals are. Oh yes, yes, we DO give animals with malformed/unviable fetuses abortions.

Think about that, you're essentially advocating we're not as worthy as an animal is of the ability to skip living with crippling, painful medical problems. Hell, we're not even as worthy as a DOG of being euthanized when we're terminally ill.

That's a damn sick & twisted outlook on who deserves that medical compassion & why.

On the other hand you completely ignore the human being that is developing. No merit, no worth, no consideration from you whatsoever.

I give you back your adjectives. Sick and twisted.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I kind of think I quantified what I was talking about at the beginning of the thread.

I was talking about cases like these:

www.washingtonian.com...

www.ourbodiesourselves.org...

www.dailydot.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.patheos.com...

if all that is being offered to the fetus is a short life of pain and suffering to be honest I think it is sick and twisted that a bunch of strangers who have no connection with those involved would want to extend that pain and suffering because they believe their morality is superior.
to me it would be better to allow that spirit to be free from that sick vessel and be allowed to search for another one that has at least the potential for them to have some meaningful experience while they are here!!
after all, not only should we attempt to preserve life, but we should also strive to reduce the amount of pain and suffering, and grief in the world.

it seems to be that you are the one that isn't giving consideration to anyone, not only do you want to extend the suffering of fetus that are so badly developed physically, but you also want to extend the suffering and grief of the mother, and her family by forcing her to go one carrying a child knowing that that child really haa no chance to live once born... regardless if our modern day medicine has found a way to keep the vessel "alive".
to me, it is just as immoral to keep a spirit trapped in a body that is so non-functional that cannot in any way interact with the world they are living in. which, in some of these stories, it sounds like you would wish to be done.

a reply to: dawnstar

I understand. Let the spirit make that decision. Assumption is the choice of that spirit. Yes?

That mother has complete choice, one for one, until 20 weeks. Complete control. Choose. After that?....sorry, the decision is no longer hers, alone.

That fetus is more often than not, viable. It is no longer merely 'her body' alone.


This bill is a compromise and a pretty good one. I stand by it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

for some reason, I don't believe you even read any of those links I posted!! since in just about all of them, the fetus probably could stay in the womb for years and never become "viable".

but the bill is a piece of crap that will not pass through the supreme court as written unless the supreme court decides to exalt the rights of that fetus above that of the body that is inhabiting because it gives no consideration to any damage that might result from the pregnancy!! it doesn't protect the women's health, just her life.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: nwtrucker

for some reason, I don't believe you even read any of those links I posted!! since in just about all of them, the fetus probably could stay in the womb for years and never become "viable".

but the bill is a piece of crap that will not pass through the supreme court as written unless the supreme court decides to exalt the rights of that fetus above that of the body that is inhabiting because it gives no consideration to any damage that might result from the pregnancy!! it doesn't protect the women's health, just her life.

You are correct. I did not read your links. Your opinion is sufficient for me to discuss the issue with you. Personally, I find links, more often than not, opinion as well. One cannot debate links.

As far as your comment regarding viability, I consider it garbage. When my daughter gave birth pre-maturely-we lost him- a mid-wife visited her. She had interesting data regarding premature births. In Africa, they have no incubators for pre-mature babies. The wrap the infant inside their clothes-for warmth- and continue working the fields. The survival rate is identical with modern intensive care nurseries.

This race has survived and it is obvious these babies were viable else there wouldn't be a human race, would there?
Pregnancy is not an illness.

You'll not change my mind and it is up in the air whether the Senate passes this bill. Either way, I see it as a win-win. If it passes the Senate, it will become law. If it doesn't pass, the GOP will have yet another nail in their coffin and the Third Party will be one step closer.

If it does pass, take solace in the fact that States, like IL., probably Ca. and a few others will ignore it and pay for abortions on demand with State funds despite the Federal law.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You are correct. I did not read your links. Your opinion is sufficient for me to discuss the issue with you. Personally, I find links, more often than not, opinion as well.

so much for denying ignorance, huh?? the way ATS is getting, they might as well just remove that slogan off all their pages. as it is, it took me awhile to find a page that it was on...

after trump came up with his "ripping babies out of mothers a week before they are born" or whatever it was, there were quite a few women who had late term abortions that quite frankly his statement kind of tore them up a bit. they started posting their personal stories about their experiences in different places online. I wouldn't consider them "opinions".
the links I gave were just a few of the many that can be found online if you want to "deny ignorance"... but that choice is up to you.

Pregnancy is not an illness.

no, but pregnancy when combines with some other illness can cause blindness, organ failure, and death!!!

(374/5.3678) WISE Amsterdam - Though US officials have long denied any link between their bombs and the alarming increase in health problems among Micronesians, they have yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why hundreds of jellyfish babies are born to Micronesian mothers. Literally, these babies look like blobs of jelly. These babies are born with no eyes, no heads and do not resemble human beings at all. They are twisted things that breathe for only a few hours. After death, they are buried right away. Mothers are not shown their mutated bodies; it would be too inhumane.

www.wiseinternational.org...

viable-having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus
www.merriam-webster.com...

some babies will never be viable, never be able to survive once they are born.