Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

a reply to: timewarpedbrain7

Its no that complicated,, it will be no packing of court, but the democrats are playing their wild card, that many Republican women will vote for more abortion friendly candidates, that will be sold in mid term elections as the choice to keep abortion legal in their states, even if they will not vote for democrats in general elections, this will help keep a hold on democrat stares and maybe get a few more.

a reply to: Snarl

Well shoot, it happened to me and therefore my daughters who were on it for acne and other hormonal issues as we were on the same plan. Had to pay out of pocket.

They also at times will cover some types of birth control but not all. Some women cannot use all methods you know.

Funny, you'll take a line from planned parenthood stating "most", but many pro life want all planned parenthood clinics gone. Heaven forbid women get affordable reproductive exams, birth control and other reproductive services.

Take your man-hate somewhere else. Geeze.

You love to paint such a broad stroke without even taking a second to consider that men actually are human beings too and have rights too.

What about decent, kind, hard-working loving men who want to keep and provide for a baby but have ZERO paternal rights if a woman opts to abort? They don't matter, don't count? You make it sound like sex is merely tolerated by women, forced upon us by deranged lust filled men seeking to destroy women at every turn. Like pregnancy is ALL the man's fault. Its sexist, hateful and gross, frankly.

How many times can I say GMAFB?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No. I'm trying to propose an alternative method to reduce abortion risks by licensing the act of procreation and parenthood as part of a "kids are government property" initiative to maximize the welfare of our defenseless youths before and after the gestation process has completed, because it's the best possible answer to human rights. When they are adults, the parents take over as the primary authority in a person's life because the kids are now graduated from administrative cultivation and fully equipped to participate in a healthy society.

a reply to: frogs453


You're correct. Implicit in what I’m saying it will end abortion is what you say, safe abortion.

And it will add a burden to women in red states who want an abortion since now all they can do is go to blue states and get an abortion. And you're right, it will have detrimental consequences for women, without a doubt in those red states.

Sadly this is not about protecting precious fetuses "as anti abortions" rant, this a political move and a very well crafted one.

And that is just deceiving the voters in the nation.

Plain and simple.

And investigation is been called for Mike Davis SCOTUS Marshall immediately.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

a reply to: SideEyeEverything

Why should a man get to determine whether a woman has to go through something that has the potential to kill her, cause health issues, affect all aspects of her life, her ability to support herself in some cases, etc? With the ability at anytime to maybe still have to provide some financial support though often they find ways around it, yet leave her with the child never to be seen again while she bears full reposonsilbilty of caring for the child that she had because he claimed he wanted it so badly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

I didn't lose anything because this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a competition. Your inability to address and reasonably counter any of my remarks is more revealing than anything I've said.

a reply to: marg6043

Considering how hard this thread ran ... imagine what it will be like if this actually goes mainstream as an issue.

You could also imagine what it would be like to see the overreach of the Federal Government reduced a smidgen.

It'll all be water under the bridge and forgotten about a couple days after the decision is penned.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

I didn't lose anything because this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a competition. Your inability to address and reasonably counter any of my remarks is more revealing than anything I've said.

You did lose. -chuckle-

That's why I never get into a fight with either of you though. Always good to know who is smarter than you are and not argue.

Oh ... did I mention ... you lost.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Yes and poor and indigenous women will have a very tough time getting out of state, or other women who may have to miss even a longer period of work to travel however far to get it done. Then with some of these laws, they or the driver might be sued? Ridiculous.

I feel so badly for the 12 year old who will have to bear her own grandchild. Smdh.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

I didn't lose anything because this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a competition. Your inability to address and reasonably counter any of my remarks is more revealing than anything I've said.

Your inability to accept the science and base your position on emotions and word-play are revealing.

If this BS continues like I think it will, if the Evangical Right wing gets it way....

It's just a matter of time until women that get an abortion will be tried for murder if they return to a state that outlaws abortion.

Slippery slope just gets steeper and slicker with every passing day. Government deciding medical procedures for women on a religious basis.

Accuse them of witchcraft and burn them at the stake, like in the good old days....History repeating itself.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

I didn't lose anything because this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a competition. Your inability to address and reasonably counter any of my remarks is more revealing than anything I've said.

Your inability to accept the science and base your position on emotions and word-play are revealing.

I'm simply leveling the playing field by suggesting legislation that holds both genders accountable for their reproductive lifestyles instead of punishing exclusively women because the surplus of men who tend to be selfish immature or closed minded and like to command the parameters and ethics of female anatomy. No wonder you're so irate over this topic and keep insisting that I only talk about the points you brought to the table.

If it's not your foetus then why do you care so much about what other adults do with their reproductive lifestyles? Hmm? 🤔

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: SideEyeEverything

Why should a man get to determine whether a woman has to go through something that has the potential to kill her, cause health issues, affect all aspects of her life, her ability to support herself in some cases, etc? With the ability at anytime to maybe still have to provide some financial support though often they find ways around it, yet leave her with the child never to be seen again while she bears full reposonsilbilty of caring for the child that she had because he claimed he wanted it so badly.

Why do you assume that all women who have abortions do so because they are forced to rather than perhaps they don't give AF about anything but themselves?

Every pro-abortion argument assumes:
the woman is helpless
the woman is blameless
the woman was somehow coerced into either having sex or having the baby
the woman is in danger, health wise or domestically

It is hard to stomach that some women just might be careless, selfish or simply don't want to deal with the consequences of their own "female empowerment", isn't it?

But yes, lets keep up the misandry for the sake of "reproductive rights."

And while I personally think it is murder, I'm not particularly in favor of broad sweeping legislation to make it illegal.
I think it should fall on the states. With thoughtful and compassionate, clear language that defines how to deal with minors, rape, incest, etc.

a reply to: frogs453

Hyperbole much?

Interestingly, Judge Alito who wrote this leaked draft opinion said when he was testifying before the senate, he respected the Row V Wade opinion based on what they call stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.) and didn’t support overturning it…

I guess the only stars he saw were he getting voted on that lifetime SCOTUS!

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And already it has begun.

(and so it begins. . . )


The de-humanization of the unborn human.

Because if you don't think of them as living, growing, humans, then you can do whatever you want to them.

Explain to me why impregnation is considered a human right and abortion isn't. By law, any consenting adult of any background with any qualification or lack thereof is granted the ability to reproduce but not the ability to terminate gestation. If I didn't know better, I'd say this isn't about enforcing family values but making sure the population stays at peak numbers regardless of how many children are removed and rehoused by the state. If abortion is unethical and borderline sinful because human rights, it reasonably follows that parenthood must be licensed and regulated by the state to ensure the maximum welfare of children nationwide...because human rights. Unless that kind of thing stops being relevant the moment they are born?

An unborn living human is just that; an unborn living human.

Now you and others can try to de-humanize the unborn living human, but wouldn't you be ignoring the science?

Just like LSU, you either didn't read my remarks because it's a waste of your precious time, or you put minimal thought and energy into your response because it's a waste of your precious time. Why bother at all.

lol

you're trying to get us to accept your definition of an unborn human being as something else.

Accept tthe fact that the unborn human being is an unborn human being and perhaps we can debate.

No.

Aaand that's when you lost the argument.

I didn't lose anything because this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a competition. Your inability to address and reasonably counter any of my remarks is more revealing than anything I've said.

You did lose. -chuckle-

That's why I never get into a fight with either of you though. Always good to know who is smarter than you are and not argue.

Oh ... did I mention ... you lost.

I know you are but what am I?