Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Did you see her last few posts?

I see significant effort to improve!

Too stunning to for me to actually believe just yet, but positive signs.

Seeing same from quite a few folks on other threads as well!

Including some I've had no interaction with yet on this visit.

Barely noticeable for now, but there if you look closely.

Or maybe I just need sleep.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Very sorry to hear about your obamacare problems, we have quite a few similar issues in my family.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Medicaid—a federal/state partnership with shared authority and financing—is a health insurance program for low-income individuals, children, their parents, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion www.ncsl.org...

Twelve states have refused to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of poor Americans without health coverage and Democrats divided over how to respond.

How to bring coverage to Americans in those 12 states is a problem that the creators of the Affordable Care Act never anticipated. The original law expanded Medicaid in all states to cover Americans earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty line ($17,420 for an individual as of 2021) and required states to provide some funding. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that provision unconstitutional and instructed the government to make the program optional.

www.nytimes.com...

The Mississippi Senate on Tuesday rejected two proposals to expand Medicaid to people who work low-wage jobs that don’t provide private health insurance.

www.magnoliastatelive.com...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

A little improvement... very little, but some.

I can only take so much dishonesty before I have to let the frustration out. Call it a personality flaw. I'm too old and it's too cold to go beat up an oak tree.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: TheRedneck

And I'm through on that side note. Don't bother trying to lie to me different.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

A little improvement... very little, but some.

I can only take so much dishonesty before I have to let the frustration out. Call it a personality flaw. I'm too old and it's too cold to go beat up an oak tree.

TheRedneck

If I weren't focused on this single task I'd be right there with you on the lack of patience.

Trying to remind myself that punching oak trees only results in bloody knuckles.

I'll be as patient and demanding for as long as it takes.

Honestly, I didn't expect to see anything except backlash at this point.

Took several weeks on the tds thing just to get past that.

I hope that means quite a few other users quietly want the same thing, but no idea if true or not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Are you trying to make some kind of point?

Redneck and I are already well aware of Obamacare's details, and we both accurately described a couple of it's many significant failings.

While I still applaud your effort to stick with facts and avoid insults, and don't have any problem with posting obamacare articles, why did you do it?

Are you still trying to project blame for Obamacare's failings onto anyone but democrats?

That isn't ever going to work.

Post a million articles if you want.

Won't change a thing.

Maybe you are still a little confused about that dishonesty thing?

Or am I misinterpreting your intention here?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would dearly love to go back to a time when people could honestly debate each other. I actually tried that with Sookiechacha (again! Will I never learn?) and all I got for my trouble was complaints about me being a "troll" for asking for clarification, a refusal to answer, and finally when she relented, she immediately switched the subject and abandoned the discourse.

As it turns out, it was all based on talking points... no reason, no understanding, no logic, no facts.... just "when they say that, you say this." I hate talking points.

But, I will commend you for trying. You have shown the patience of a saint. There is honor in the attempt, even when futile.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

its the miracle of what makes a woman. Its the magic that a woman alone is reserved to create, to grow a human life. Humans, the great stalwart of entropy, the marvel of the Earth capable of not only understanding the world around him, but also himself. Creating this is the greatest magic humans can weave

and now its also slavery.

To think that forcing a 13 year old to bear their rapists child isn't slavery is dumbfounding. To think that forcing any woman to carry and unwanted pregnancy to term is not slavery, is dumbfounding.

You are standing on the grave of 99% of the babies killed by abortion asking about the 1%.
Let's stop the 99% that use it as a form of birth control so they can sleep with whoever, whenever and we can discuss the 1%.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Are you trying to make some kind of point?

Yeah. That Mississippi has the highest rate of infant and maternal mortality and child hunger rates in the nations. They don't care about women, fetuses or born babies. If they did, they'd be more proactive and do something about that, first. This is on Mississippi, not Obama.

a reply to: Quadrivium

If it is such a small number, what is the harm of including the exception for them?
It was claimed by someone that there was some kind of unspoken agreement that the women/girl agreed to carry a pregnancy to term... and since we are discussing matters of law, it kind of sounds like they want the law to treat that unspoken agreement with as much integrity as a legal contract. So, it is pointed out that rape victims made no such agreement. And when it comes to young preteen girls, it wouldn't matter if you thought they consented or not... no contracts made by young children without a parent standing behind them are considered valid, are they?
So we are back to the why should the fetus suffer because of the rapists actions and then comes the undue burden argument and yous throw a hussy fit!! Why ain't I discussing which ones of the 99% of graves should have had the right to life? Will, if all of that 1% had the right to life overshadowing whatever undue burden their mothers placed on them.
I guess they all do!

a reply to: TheRedneck

The first thing I look for in new abortion laws is what the exceptions are. I expect a few of them to be there. Protection for the life AND HEALTH of the mother, a rape and incest clause, and a clause allowing for fetal abnormalities. Of those three, I feel the one for the life and health of the mother is the most important. If that isn't in the law, I am just gonna keep telling ya it is unconstitutional regardless of what else the law says. If the law is forcing the someone to sacrifice either of those for the sake of another, well it isn't a sacrifice it is closer to state sponsored assault and murder.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium

If it is such a small number, what is the harm of including the exception for them?

When have I or anyone stated that there shouldn't be an exception?
What I said is "Let's stop the 99% and we can discuss the 1%".
You and others have to use that 1% to try and justify the 99%, it is the only argument you have.

It was claimed by someone that there was some kind of unspoken agreement that the women/girl agreed to carry a pregnancy to term... and since we are discussing matters of law, it kind of sounds like they want the law to treat that unspoken agreement with as much integrity as a legal contract.

That was me. Yes, they make an agreement with their partner to partake in the act of procreation. They made the choice knowing the possible result of that action.
If a child is created, because of that agreement, it should not have to pay, with their life, due to buyers remorse.

So, it is pointed out that rape victims made no such agreement. And when it comes to young preteen girls, it wouldn't matter if you thought they consented or not... no contracts made by young children without a parent standing behind them are considered valid, are they?

Are these these the same "young children" that can get an abortion without parental consent??

So we are back to the why should the fetus suffer because of the rapists actions and then comes the undue burden argument and yous throw a hussy fit!! Why ain't I discussing which ones of the 99% of graves should have had the right to life? Will, if all of that 1% had the right to life overshadowing whatever undue burden their mothers placed on them.
I guess they all do!

Honestly, I tried, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

It's simple.
Since 1973, when RVW won, there have been +-66,000,000 abortions in the US.
99% of those abortions were from people that made a choice to partake in the act of creating a baby.
The only person without a choice in those +-65,000,000 deaths were the ones who were killed.
Many in this thread are only stating the obvious, that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

a reply to: TheRedneck

As it turns out, it was all based on talking points... no reason, no understanding, no logic, no facts.... just "when they say that, you say this." I hate talking points.

You forgot Feelz. Lots of feelz in those arguments.
ETA:
Oh, some "bait and switch" was present as well.

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't disagree with that. So why are you arguing with me? Why did you make a false accusation against me and not retract it? Why are you harping over things that almost everyone agrees with?

You harm your own cause by doing that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

When you support laws that don't include them and then claim that the number affected isn't worthy on consideration, that we can hash that out later, as it a women in the hospital enduring a miscarriage is gonna get up out of that bed, file the court papers, attend a hearing, and somehow get a reprieve before the damage is done?

I don't believe any child should recieve any type of medical treatment without full knowledge from the parent. I think it is dangerous. Although, I see there might be some cases where it might be necessary.
If that child is pregnant because her father took advantage of her, should he really have a say as to weather she gets and abortion or not?

No, they aren't stating that.. and even if they are, they are assuming that that 99% is using it as birth control, making further assumptions that they are because they don't want to raise a child. Many were on birth control and many are because they want to avoid the pregnancy.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe you didn't say it, maybe it was another person and I confused the two of you. If so, sorry. I am trying to correct the problem by training my mind to say someone said instead of you said...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe you didn't say it, maybe it was another person and I confused the two of you. If so, sorry. I am trying to correct the problem by training my mind to say someone said instead of you said...

It's just a misundersatnding on Redneck's part. You were addressing Ghostsdogood.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium

When you support laws that don't include them and then claim that the number affected isn't worthy on consideration, that we can hash that out later,

Can you even see your hypocrisy in that statement?
You are saying it is absolutely fine for 60 million babies to give their life so the other 6 hundred thousand could die as well.

as it a women in the hospital enduring a miscarriage is gonna get up out of that bed, file the court papers, attend a hearing, and somehow get a reprieve before the damage is done?

Now you are just making stuff up.
How is a miscarriage the same as an induced abortion?

I don't believe any child should recieve any type of medical treatment without full knowledge from the parent. I think it is dangerous. Although, I see there might be some cases where it might be necessary.
If that child is pregnant because her father took advantage of her, should he really have a say as to weather she gets and abortion or not?

No, they aren't stating that.. and even if they are, they are assuming that that 99% is using it as birth control, making further assumptions that they are because they don't want to raise a child. Many were on birth control and many are because they want to avoid the pregnancy.

I disagree.
If you are on birth control, knowing it is not 100% effective, and get pregnant it is still a choice you and your partner made.
Once that choice is made an innocent human should not lose their life later when abortion is used a secondary form of birth control.

a reply to: dawnstar

Maybe you didn't say it, maybe it was another person and I confused the two of you. If so, sorry. I am trying to correct the problem by training my mind to say someone said instead of you said...

Apology accepted.

TheRedneck