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

originally posted by: joejack1949
a reply to: Quadrivium

Would you say that a person who does not want children should never have sex?

Or maybe give them up for adoption to parents who do want them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Does nothing for the women if it is the pregnancy she wants to avoid...

a reply to: Quadrivium

I don't trust pseudoscience nor religiously tainted moral outrage.

a reply to: dawnstar

Can a majority of the population decide who gets to enjoy their rights and who they can strip them away from?

It is ironic that you said this and it is exactly what you are advocating for.
Your argument is the 3/5ths clause all over again but you don't even consider them 3/5ths human.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium

Maybe they foresee a future where they may want children further down the line...
Maybe a few years when they are financially better off... maybe after the women's cancer is in remission and they feel she is out of danger...
Whatever the reason... she doesn't want children at this time, maybe wont for a few years..

That can be arranged and is reversible. Better than murder of someone they agreed to try and create.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

I don't trust pseudoscience nor religiously tainted moral outrage.

Show me where I have posted either.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Every one of your posts in this thread is tainted with religiously tainted outrage, backed up with pseudoscience.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Every one of your posts in this thread is tainted with religiously tainted outrage, backed up with pseudoscience.

Show me and explain your example.
ETA:
There is ONE where I mentioned religion. It was in a reply to Ketsuko a few pages back.
I was explaining why people try to move this subject to the religious narrative. Most of the time it's not the religious who do so. It's those who can't debate biology and try to make it all about their FEELZ.

a reply to: Quadrivium
I could say the reverse when it comes to these abortion laws.. they want to exalt the rights of the fetus, even when those fetuses are known to be in such a condition that they will never become viable and will pose a risk to the mother's health.. over the rights of the mother.

a reply to: Quadrivium

LOL

Honey, you can't see it. You're flashing around biology terms to prove your moral outrage is valid.
You're all about the "feelz" and fetal "feelz".
Oh! The Humanity! Think of the children!

LOL

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium
I could say the reverse when it comes to these abortion laws.. they want to exalt the rights of the fetus, even when those fetuses are known to be in such a condition that they will never become viable and will pose a risk to the mother's health.. over the rights of the mother.

OK...
Now I am gonna make a religious post. I usually don't but this hit close to home.
www.abovetopsecret.com... from 2012.

What if She Would Have Said Yes?

Almost 39 years ago,
a woman made a choice.
She made a choice for me,
because I did not have a voice.

She was hemorrhaging badly;
Blood was everywhere.
To the hospital she went
for the pain she could not bear

The doctors searched
but only one heartbeat they found.
It was hers and hers alone;
The other did not make a sound.

They scheduled a surgery
called a DNC.
They told her it was necessary
to rid her body of ME!

The day before the surgery
a nurse checked her again.
The look on her face
was just short of a grin.

A tiny heartbeat she found
which brought the doctor to the room.
He listened himself,
yet his look was of gloom

“The baby is not viable,
and will be born brain dead
It will be a burden on your family.
How about an abortion?” he said.

She argued with the doctor,
but he would not give way
“You have three boys already.
Why put them through this disarray?”

“He will never walk or talk,
or do anything for himself
The rest of your family?
You may as well but their lives on a shelf”.

My mother was strong
and I can almost hear her say;
“He can be born a two headed monkey
But I am having him anyway”.

A few months later,
a baby boy was born
The doctors were shocked,
For there were no reasons to mourn.

They checked the baby,
looking for some sign.
Of things they had told her,
but it was not HIS design.

Now, almost 39 years later,
I have three boys of my own.
I am healthy and intelligent.
How had she known?

I thank God for my mother
and His guiding hand.
When faced with the choice,
my mother made a stand.

She chose not to abort me.
I am happy I confess.
No need for me to worry about
"What if she had said yes"?

This is what a religious post looks like from me Sookie. Just for reference.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

LOL

Honey, you can't see it. You're flashing around biology terms to prove your moral outrage is valid.
You're all about the "feelz" and fetal "feelz".
Oh! The Humanity! Think of the children!

LOL

How do you "flash around biology terms".
You do not want to debate the science because you can't. Maybe you don't understand where Babies come from? The stork?
You don't want to talk about the facts science brings to the argument. You just want to tell us how it hurts your feelz.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Ummm... ya...
Sterialization isn't 100% effective.
Can a women force her husband to get sterilized?
If the answer is no, then I am just gonna take it to mean... she should just schedule the more invasive, more expensive tubal ligation....
And since I mentioned a cancer patient, I am just gonna interpret that to mean her allowing a very risky surgery to prevent a very risky pregnancy is a suitable solution, better than just saying, nope, no sex!!

a reply to: Quadrivium

It was the mother's choice...
the state did not make it for her!!!
Another women under the same circumstances might choose differently. I mean, maybe she doesn't want to leave her born children so early in life!
That is what leaving up to the people really means!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium

It was the mother's choice...
the state did not make it for her!!!
Another women under the same circumstances might choose differently. I mean, maybe she doesn't want to leave her born children so early in life!
That is what leaving up to the people really means!!

As I said, let's stop the 99% and we can talk about the 1%.

a reply to: Quadrivium
And, in the meantime we can just refuse to acknowledge that the small number of women AND CHILDREN have any rights to life, to health, to liberty, to bodily autonomy... while we are supposed to take all those people screaming about how masks and vaccine mandates are infringing on their rights with any amount of seriousness...

You will never stop the 99% ... you will only strip the rights of the minority.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Granitebones

Well, if the women has all these icky hormones flowing through her system preventing her from making rational decisions when it come to her pregnancy, like you claim....
Husbands probably shouldn't be leaving the kids in her care when he goes off to work...
You are the one suggesting that a womens hormones make her irrational and not trustworthy to make decisions, not me. Although, I will acknowledge that the hormonal changes in some women during some pregnancies may seem to appear a tad bit batty.

I made no such suggestion. I stated that such views do exist.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Quadrivium
And, in the meantime we can just refuse to acknowledge that the small number of women AND CHILDREN have any rights to life, to health, to liberty, to bodily autonomy... while we are supposed to take all those people screaming about how masks and vaccine mandates are infringing on their rights with any amount of seriousness...

You will never stop the 99% ... you will only strip the rights of the minority.

I am sure someone thought roughly the same thing when the 3/5ths clause was abolished.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Every one of your posts in this thread is tainted with religiously tainted outrage, backed up with pseudoscience.

The projection is strong with this one.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I will go as far as Roe V Wade has gone.

In other words, you will ignore the question. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Roe v Wade.

If you ever wonder why I am so flippant with you at times, this is why. You cannot even bring yourself to question your own beliefs. So why should anyone post anything meaningful to you?

Oh, well, back to the lulz...

TheRedneck