NO Jars Of Urine Or Feces Found Or Confiscated At Texas Abortion Ban Protest

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What are these entitlements you speak of?? Are they the corporate pigs at the trough??

reply to post by GrantedBail


Actually the Fed Govt. told Detroit too stop competing with ,,Toyota,,,that they couldnt,,but then agin subsities by the Govt's,, involved,, ie free trade,,put in the final,, nail.,,besides they had automation,, kinda like henry ford.

reply to post by BobAthome


Got a link to that bs story. So, what happened to all the US's other manufacturing?? I'll wait right here waiting for your response.

reply to post by GrantedBail


links are my life experiences,, but being bull #,,why bother waiting?? move on,, as they say.

reply to post by BobAthome


Nope. You are not getting off that easy. Make a statement, back it up. I say you are not telling the truth.

reply to post by GrantedBail


and i say ur too lazy too check it out for yourself.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Dear GrantedBail,

I understand that you have a tremendous amount of passion that's been brought to the front over this situation. That's about all I understand.

They are getting all of "y'all" worked up about NOTHING. Yeah, I said it, NOTHING.

Who is "they?" And if it is nothing, why did all the protesters show up? They thought it was something. Are they controlled by the "they?"

Spying, murdering of journalists, NDAA part 2 et al

Those are all terrible, and I think Congress, and Special Prosecutors should go after the administration for these and more. I agree with you.

This is what they do, they did in California last week with the SC decisions to remand the gay marriage bill back the the lower court. Then all the freaks are spending all their time and efforts on that.....

Who are the freaks? I thought the case was over and no one was spending time on it anymore, except for some discussion.

Are we saying the same thing?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What are these entitlements you speak of?? Are they the corporate pigs at the trough??

Entitlement Programs.

reply to post by windword


You're still using arbitrary stereotypes. Millions of women are pro-life. For any number of reasons, but generally a support of life and not wanting to end a pregnancy as a letter of convenience.

reply to post by charles1952


Hi Charles,

Who is "they?" And if it is nothing, why did all the protesters show up? They thought it was something. Are they controlled by the "they?"

Because these are those "red meat" issues that get everyone's panties in a wad. And the flame is fanned by the media. "Oh noes there were bags of feces and tampons". Do you realize that they are laughing at those that buy that story. It's like the "War on Christmas" that never was but every year for the last 5 years I hear about it.

I ask you where are the protestors regarding Snowden's revelations?? Where are the protestors for those poor men in Guantanamo for 12 years. Where is the outrage over wiretapping journalists?? Our supposed fourth column?? Where are the protesters of the NDAA?? Where are the protestors of the total dismantling of our Constitution??

And yes they are having baby cows here in California over the prop 8 decision. They are filing crap left and right to stop the issuances of any marriage licenses to "the gays". They are ranting and raving about the depravity of our State and so on and so forth. So STUPID, in light of all of the other issues that need attention.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There's nothing arbitrary about the pro-life crowd. Life begins at conception for them, and those methods of birth control that most women are using are NOT pro-life methods, as they end a pregnancy under the pro-life definition of "pregnancy."

You can't have it both ways. If life begins at conception, contraception has a tendency to end life.

Since 98% of sexually active women, of child bearing age, are using said birth control methods, your arbitrary claim that millions of women are pro-life, is false.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm sorry if I come to this with less energy than you do. Maybe it's my upbringing or something, but the tampon issue doesn't seem to be important anymore.

Assume for a minute that the jars of paint and everything else are just imaginary. We do know they were planning on throwing something. If nothing else, the orange paper and the tampons beyond those necessary for personal use. But really, I don't care much if they threw those things. They throw them, the police arrest them or escort them from the grounds, problem solved.

I do have trouble that this was a scheme to make the protesters look bad. They were doing a pretty good job of it themselves. Preventing the people's representatives from doing their work (getting labelled as "sore losers" in the process), and chanting "Hail, Satan," pretty well finished them off as far as reputation goes.

Charles,

Do you deny that this was a lie, put forth in order to slander the pro-choice female protesters?

I don't know. We've got the DPS saying the stuff was there and they didn't keep it. I don't know what they gain from making it up. The protesters were allowed in after all. And the DPS gets nothing but attacks for it's efforts.

On the other other hand, the protesters say they brought some stuff to throw, but it was all harmless stuff. I know what the protesters gain from denying the jars.

So we have two opposite stories, and I have only heard a reason for one side to lie, but do I know the truth for certain? No. Am I leaning? Yes.

So, only one women with loads of feminine hygiene products prompted the ban, not jars of fecal matter and urine.

By saying that's what "prompted" it, they're saying that when they saw one woman come in with that stuff, they put up an alert for officers to check for it in case there was more. It's pretty much always one event that "prompts" something.

This bill is a big deal, but I'm certain that the courts will shoot it down. It's unconstitutional on so many levels.

So, unlike GrantedBail, you think it's a big deal. I'm sure you'll be able to resolve that little disagreement.

If the courts are going to shoot it down, you don't have to worry, let's go on to something else. As far as being unconstitutional, the posters and the law seem to agree the 20 week restriction is constitutional. Perhaps requiring doctors to have admitting priveleges is what you're referring to? Any way, it will be heard by the courts, and I'll be delighted to talk with you about it then. The Supreme Court may get to it next year, unless they see it as an emergency.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by GrantedBail

Dear GrantedBail,

There are a number of things you have which I wish I could share, but life in California isn't one of them. I'm at the mercy of the Media, I know, but I keep hearing the wierdest stories coming from that part of the world. Oh, well, I'm sure you don't envy our winters either.

I'm becoming surprised at how much alike our conclusions are.

And the flame is fanned by the media. "Oh noes there were bags of feces and tampons". Do you realize that they are laughing at those that buy that story.

I agree with you that we're being distracted, especially away from important federal issues. Add to your list Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the decision not to enforce laws, or create new ones that haven't seen the inside of Congress. Oh, I quite agree.

The current issue in Texas, should interest a few Texas citizens, but it has no effect on anyone else. Let's tackle the serious subjects, as you say.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Assume for a minute that the jars of paint and everything else are just imaginary. We do know they were planning on throwing something. If nothing else, the orange paper and the tampons beyond those necessary for personal use. But really, I don't care much if they threw those things. They throw them, the police arrest them or escort them from the grounds, problem solved.

We don't know anything of the kind. I can't find any documentation of anything being thrown during the protests. Like I said, perhaps that one women who had a load of "feminine hygiene" products intended to pass them out for people to hold up like candles..........we don't know. Nothing WAS thrown.

If the police found jars of fecal matter and urine or paint, and had good intel that there was a plan to throw their contents around, then the police had probably cause to make arrests. But they didn't. Personally, seeing those large crowds in the lobby and along the stairs, I can't see how a plan of throwing body fluids around would get anywhere near the lawmakers. It would only soil the protesters. Makes no sense.

I do have trouble that this was a scheme to make the protesters look bad. They were doing a pretty good job of it themselves. Preventing the people's representatives from doing their work (getting labelled as "sore losers" in the process), and chanting "Hail, Satan," pretty well finished them off as far as reputation goes.

I saw a video of a large pro-life crowd, all fired up and singing "Amazing Grace" loudly, stifling the voices of the opposition. I saw a group of about 5 teenage girls start to chant "Hail Satan" and another women step in front of the camera to add her single "Hail Satan". You understand that was a reaction to the overbearing, holier than thou, forced religious values that the pro-life community is seeking to exert over the rest of the female population.

I noticed that before the song, one pro-lifer was loudly giving her testimony of her own, sad abortion story. Hypocrite. She had a choice and made her choice, now she's fighting to take that choice away from others.

On the other other hand, the protesters say they brought some stuff to throw, but it was all harmless stuff. I know what the protesters gain from denying the jars.

I don't believe that. The protesters weren't throwing anything around.

If the courts are going to shoot it down, you don't have to worry, let's go on to something else. As far as being unconstitutional, the posters and the law seem to agree the 20 week restriction is constitutional. Perhaps requiring doctors to have admitting priveleges is what you're referring to? Any way, it will be heard by the courts, and I'll be delighted to talk with you about it then. The Supreme Court may get to it next year, unless they see it as an emergency.

Exercising democratic rights, voicing opposition and demonstrating to stop a perceived bad laws is not only a citizens right, it's a duty. We can't passively sit back and say, oh well, we'll be silent now, and go to (expensive) court later. That's not the right way to do things, in my opinion.

As far as the 20 week ban, that's not what this bill is about. It's about ignoring the medical community and the American Medical Association's definition of pregnancy, at fertilization, and redefining it to conception. Not a medical consensus.

It's about ignoring the Supreme Court Roe V Wade decision of a woman's right to abort up to viability, and deciding that an uneducated and uninformed perception of possible fetal pain should be the cut off point instead. What's next, forced C-sections so the fetus doesn't have to feel the pain of labor and birth? If these lawmakers are so concerned about the perception of the possibility of fetal pain during an abortion at whatever arbitrary time they feel like claiming a fetus feels pain, and think that the fetus' right NOT to experience pain is greater than a woman's choice, I have an answer. Morphine injections for the fetus'! (Yeah, that's harsh, but......)

At the same time, they're placing new restrictions and regulations on already operational and existing clinics, rather than new clinics, like most architectural laws do. They're requiring expensive and hard to get hospital admittance privileges for doctors, that aren't necessary. This has already been stricken down in 3 other states an unconstitutional.

Additionally, these restriction and new regulations are unnecessary, as abortions are relatively safe.

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There's nothing arbitrary about the pro-life crowd. Life begins at conception for them, and those methods of birth control that most women are using are NOT pro-life methods, as they end a pregnancy under the pro-life definition of "pregnancy."

You can't have it both ways. If life begins at conception, contraception has a tendency to end life.

Since 98% of sexually active women, of child bearing age, are using said birth control methods, your arbitrary claim that millions of women are pro-life, is false.

Again, that's not accurate. The ultra-religious view it that way, most people consider it to be a viable pregnancy only when the fertilized egg attaches to the uteral wall.

reply to post by windword

As far as the 20 week ban, that's not what this bill is about. It's about ignoring the medical community and the American Medical Association's definition of pregnancy, at fertilization, and redefining it to conception. Not a medical consensus.

OOPs, I made a typo here, This should say implantation instead of fertilization. My bad.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Again, that's not accurate. The ultra-religious view it that way, most people consider it to be a viable pregnancy only when the fertilized egg attaches to the uteral wall.

Uh, No. The pro-life consensus is, and we hear this chanted all the time, "Life begins at conception"! And that's what this Texas bill states. "Life begins at fertilization."

You can't have it both ways, NuT.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Again, that's not accurate. The ultra-religious view it that way, most people consider it to be a viable pregnancy only when the fertilized egg attaches to the uteral wall.

Uh, No. The pro-life consensus is, and we hear this chanted all the time, "Life begins at conception"! And that's what this Texas bill states. "Life begins at fertilization."

You can't have it both ways, NuT.

Well, I'm not Texas or a Texan. Not am I a lawmaker, or someone who makes or approves of the slogan on banners. I can tell you however the debate amongst Christians. The ultra-religious view a human being as sacred from the time the viable sperm fertilizes the egg, consequently they are against birth control. Most view it as a sacred human being after implanting in the uteral wall, and consequently are not against birth control.