Alabama: Hey, y'all, watch this! Missouri: Hold my beer.

a reply to: uncommitted

Keep telling yourself that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheRedneck

The only criteria is to detect a heartbeat? So women can get as many abortions as they want within the first month?

And here is a shining example of how much the left understands basic biology.

I was going to explain it, then decided to just leave you in the dark.

It's funnier that way.

To the OP, they are just passing the most restrictive bills possible to push for a SCOTUS review of Roe v Wade.

They have already said that it their intention.

Seems to be working... it's certainly riled up the left.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Where do you draw the line between the moral and ethical reasons for pro life and the medical science and evolutionary survival tho?

I feel it's rather closed minded to pick and choose or use both for a pro life argument.

They are using science to determine of the fetus is alive, but put a moral and ethical twist that all fetuses are people have should have rights. So why not just out right ban abortion. Its a bit hypocritical.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Since when is contraception abortion?

Ever since the pro-life crowd decided that a fertilized egg has rights.

And while most of the fighting these days is over whether birth control will be paid for, some opponents have still not given up on trying to ban it altogether, for example, by trying to put “personhood amendments” on state ballots. These amendments are billed as abortion bans, but their definition of life would also make it a crime to use popular forms of birth control, including the IUD, and perhaps the pill. (The activists are not concerned that the Supreme Court would almost certainly strike down these amendments if they are passed — they insist that they are building a movement.)

ideas.time.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Does anyone get it now? Men get to have a say in the country's laws as well.

These are the all male Supreme Court Justices that decided Roe V Wade in 1973

Chief Justice Warren Burger
Justice William O. Douglas
Justice William J. Brennan
Justice Potter Stewart
Justice Thurgood Marshall
Justice Harry Blackmun
Justice Lewis Powell
Justice Byron White
Justice William Rehnquis

I don't see a single women's name on that court.

I’m still not sure what sort of wizardry is responsible for taking the statement “i don’t want it to be legal to murder human babies” and flipping it to “men want to control woman and take their rights”..


It’s a real fancy trick.

News flash: some men might give a crap, most do not care to control women like that.

“Gosh golly these ladies need to be put in place! Let’s pass a law controlling their bodies just so I feel like a tough guy with my fancy pants”

It doesn’t happen like that.
I’m not saying these republicans are good people with humanity’s best interest in mind.

But sometimes you have to put all your excuses aside and realize some folks just don’t like the idea of dead babies.

a reply to: Lumenari

And here is a shining example of how much the left understands basic biology.

So you are saying that anyone who is in favour of a woman having a choice is on the politically left leaning side in American politics and anyone or is anti a woman have a choice is on the right?

Weird, Trump seems to flip flop on the issue depending on how he feels it will go down with the audience -

www.nbcnews.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not personally sure why it's a decision you would make dependent on your political persuasion, very odd.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It would be nice to finally see the unborn human beings with rights.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Lumenari

And here is a shining example of how much the left understands basic biology.

So you are saying that anyone who is in favour of a woman having a choice is on the politically left leaning side in American politics and anyone or is anti a woman have a choice is on the right?

Weird, Trump seems to flip flop on the issue depending on how he feels it will go down with the audience -

www.nbcnews.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not personally sure why it's a decision you would make dependent on your political persuasion, very odd.

No... I am saying that someone who is asking that if the law means "a woman can have multiple abortions in the first month of pregancy" does not understand basic biology.

I'm leaving you in the dark on the answer too...

Now it's even funnier.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Lumenari

And here is a shining example of how much the left understands basic biology.

So you are saying that anyone who is in favour of a woman having a choice is on the politically left leaning side in American politics and anyone or is anti a woman have a choice is on the right?

Weird, Trump seems to flip flop on the issue depending on how he feels it will go down with the audience -

www.nbcnews.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not personally sure why it's a decision you would make dependent on your political persuasion, very odd.

No... I am saying that someone who is asking that if the law means "a woman can have multiple abortions in the first month of pregancy" does not understand basic biology.

I'm leaving you in the dark on the answer too...

Now it's even funnier.

Well, you clearly can't have multiple abortions in the first month of pregnancy as the first one would do the trick unless it failed, but how do you link that to this being an issue where there is a stark division based on your politically leaning?

a reply to: musicismagic

If it's about survival then you agree that, an abortion should only take place if the women's life is at risk.

a reply to: Lumenari

No... I am saying that someone who is asking that if the law means that a woman can have multiple abortions in the first month does not understand basic biology.

Actually, the poster asked if "women" plural, could have multiple abortions during the first month. It could have been worded better, but I get what the poster is asking.

Millions of women can get 1st month abortions, and we're all good with that kind of "murder", am I right? But, after 6 weeks, now we're talking not okay murder? Just like exceptions for rape and incest, if you believe abortion is murder, then it is also murder to abort your brother's, or your rapist's spawn as well. Or, are we okay with murdering that kind of life?

a reply to: Lumenari

To the OP, they are just passing the most restrictive bills possible to push for a SCOTUS review of Roe v Wade.

Oh, I am well aware of that. The Alabama bill, and I am assuming this Missouri bill, were never meant to be actually used for anything else. But the pro-abortion crowd doesn't seem able to grasp that and I think it's time they got took down a few notches off that high horse of theirs.

Roe vs. Wade was a judicial overreach that took the power of abortion regulation away from the states. It attempted to establish a right where no such right existed or can exist without subjecting abortion providers to slavery. At the time, it served its purpose: a compromise on the Federal level between those who wished to take away all abortions and those who wished all abortion to be legal and easy.

The problem is that Roe vs. Wade has become a stick to be used to attack anyone who thinks an unborn baby is still a human. That has led to late-term, even partial birth abortions becoming more commonplace. Those lame excuses of "you're a man and you should shut up because you're a man" and "Christians shouldn't be using their book to control my life" are nothing more than a way to shut down debate while those who would kill any child that inconvenienced them went about their merry way.

So it's time to remove Roe vs. Wade and hand abortion back to the states where it belongs. Once that is done, hopefully those pro-abortion fanatics will figure out their tricks backfired and will be a little less willing to try them again. I will be working within my state once that happens to try and reach a sensible compromise that respects all rights equally... but previous experience makes it clear that the only way the leftists will listen to reason on this issue is if they are out of power.

And, I have to admit, in the meantime, it's fun watching them squirm. I know many of them have enjoyed tormenting me with illogical fact twisting just to get a rise out of me in the past; now it's my turn. Funny how that works...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Lumenari

And here is a shining example of how much the left understands basic biology.

So you are saying that anyone who is in favour of a woman having a choice is on the politically left leaning side in American politics and anyone or is anti a woman have a choice is on the right?

Weird, Trump seems to flip flop on the issue depending on how he feels it will go down with the audience -

www.nbcnews.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not personally sure why it's a decision you would make dependent on your political persuasion, very odd.

No... I am saying that someone who is asking that if the law means "a woman can have multiple abortions in the first month of pregancy" does not understand basic biology.

I'm leaving you in the dark on the answer too...

Now it's even funnier.

Well, you clearly can't have multiple abortions in the first month of pregnancy as the first one would do the trick unless it failed, but how do you link that to this being an issue where there is a stark division based on your politically leaning?

First off, I'm pro choice, so sorry to burst your bubble there.

However, I don't think that a woman should have an abortion until it has been explained to her that she is, by definition, ending the life of a child.

That's just science sweety.

I also don't think that it should be subsidized by the government, I think it's a States rights issue and not a Federal one and that late term abortions (unless to save the life of the mother) should be considered infanticide.

I was born at 6 1/2 months.

People scream about "a woman's right to her body" but forget that she should give that right up when willingly performing a sexual act that could result in a pregnancy.

She made a conscious choice about what she was doing with her body, after all.

As for my rights to my body as a woman, I can't ask for money for sex so I guess it really isn't my body after all.

I have to get vaccinations... no real choice there.

I can't even walk around in public with no shirt on and a man can... what's up with that?

a reply to: Lumenari

The law says that a heart beat needs to be detected. Considering the heart develops after the brain does. How is a heart beat detected within the first month?

It literally is basic biology. Humans or mammals dont have brain stems let alone brains in the first three weeks.

Technically a woman can have an abortion within the first month. And more than once. According to the law.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just... Bravo on that post.

With all the "her body, her choice" talk going on today I guess it's time for women to choose not to get pregnant.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

The law says that a heart beat needs to be detected. Considering the heart develops after the brain does. How is a heart beat detected within the first month?

It literally is basic biology. Humans or mammals dont have brain stems let alone brains in the first three weeks.

Technically a woman can have an abortion within the first month. And more than once. According to the law.

Buhahahahaha!!!!

Thank you for proving my point that someone such as yourself should not be allowed to have an opinion on the subject.

Still keeping you in the dark though...

It just keeps getting funnier.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That has led to late-term, even partial birth abortions becoming more commonplace.

Partial birth abortions have been illegal in the USA since 2003. en.wikipedia.org...

And, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good. States should decide how they want to handle something as disgusting as abortion.