Congratulations, you took freedom away…

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Please produce the number of cases since Roe vs. Wade decision where the State M.E. and the local courts ruled that a baby was murdered by abortion. You do understand that murder requires a body that can be identified by BIRTHDATE (for one), right?

Now I'm not asking for your parroting religious dogma, or your opinion or feeling. I want FACTS. If you can't produce them, that means you're just another babbling Christo-fascist who blows smoke when faced with a question that you can't honestly answer without contradicting yourself.

I'm still waiting for that explanation.

im an atheist.

the facts are, using the definition of life, the zygot/blastocyst/fetus/baby is alive at every point from the moment of conception. The only question is when you are comfortable ending that unique human life. When you kill babies, you are being a murderer.

Atheists don't truck with theocratic based rulings in any shape, form or matter. So given the topic, forgive me if I find your claim dubious at best.

The facts are you and your ilk keep blathering on about "killing babies". I asked for a documented case for such....given that murder of any kind has to be determined by a State Medical Examiner. That requires a body, NOT a zygote or blastocyst. They don't have birth days.
A developing fetus is NOT a baby by any medical definition, and a premature birth requires all types of heroic medical acts and technology for a chance that premature baby (Baby being outside the womb) to develop further to the point that it can breath and eat on it's own. I would like to see where you got your "definition of life" in this regard.

So I ask you again, where is your proof that a birthed baby was murdered? Now I don't want another rehash of religious dogma on the subject like you just gave. Show me the medical records where an M.E. presented evidence in a court of law that Doctor So&So purposely caused the death of a living, breathing BIRTHED BABY.

If you're going to waste my time with just a parrot of the SOS you previously gave, then I won't waste time and effort responding. The objective reader will see your failure. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Did the court also take away from the government and give the freedom to individuals to carry guns and pray in public places?

Let me explain it to you:

If your idea of "freedom" infringes upon my idea of "freedom", then a compromise has to be met to accommodate both.

That is why the framers of the Constitution made damned sure that you had freedom of religion (to worship in the church of your choice and follow its rules) and freedom from religion (not to worship or believe in/of a deity, or have your livelihood dictated by others religion).
Compromises come (or came) in the form of "Christmas" and "Jewish" holidays.

That is why State and Federal rules limited where and how you can have the "right to bear arms", as to not endanger others should you deem it necessary (for any reason) to use said firearm. This is why in some states you can have a high powered hunting rifle on an open rack on the back of your vehicle, while in others you have to have a special permit (or you use to) to carry a concealed handgun. Compromises came in the form of States regulating their own gun laws to a large degree, while the Fed banned a limited number of weapons from civilian use in ALL 50 states (i.e., military issue & full automatic weapons).

The right wing faction of the SCOTUS seems intent or a complete reversal of all this.

 

[gemini104104]

It’s actually the right to Privacy, which was much larger than abortion. It was the right to make basic personal decisions that most directly affect who we as individuals are.

The conservatives could easily have left that right alone and carved Abortion out of it. Instead these guys took it away giving the government the power to once again regulate access to birth control, who we can marry and any other number of personal decisions.

They took power away from individuals and gave it to the government.

In the U.S. and despite the gutter war seditious repukes and their insurrectionist gutter mob have raging on against Democracy, society and the common decency of humanity on Earth, and at also using their miserable creatures who vote against their own interest who are probably ok at making to hell with tRump and the GOP, what they manage to conspire in the gutter to take away from the common decency of humanity and its wellbeing can be put back as has been the case for generations. It's an atrocity that the evolutional process has regressed backward at a portion of humanity becoming nothing but uncivilized barbarians who are incapable of either supporting or coexisting in a civilized global society.

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

Let me deconstruct your response sentence by sentence:

1) On the contrary, the SCOTUS determines that states do not have the right to make abortion available in any state regardless of circumstance, and there is NO right to privacy regarding their decision. They have essentially opened the door for states to make abortion unconstitutional and to enforce such a stance by any means necessary...they have made that legal! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54513499 https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099455863/data-privacy-and-clinic-safety-after-roe-v-wade

2) See links in #1.

3) Law making followed it's legal course to the SCOTUS on both counts ... The SCOTUS just didn't decide to rule without anyone filing a case.

4) Your last sentence is pure supposition and conjecture....please provide documentation, because your opinion is not fact.

Once again, the question of how you equate removing choice with keeping in step with the Constitution and Bill of Rights has yet to be answered by the cheerleaders for this latest SCOTUS decision.

Your interpretation of the ruling is severely flawed. It makes no decision whatsoever on abortion itself. It merely says elected officials in state legislatures are responsible for that not the judicial branch. It even hints at Congress itself passing abortion law. Not often do you see any government entity give up power and this ruling did exactly that. It was a big win for our constitution being respected and kept intact

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

Read the map, genius....then tell that to the people in the red color states and such.

Who can go to any neighboring state if they want an abortion

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Let me deconstruct your response sentence by sentence:

1) On the contrary, the SCOTUS determines that states do not have the right to make abortion available in any state regardless of circumstance, and there is NO right to privacy regarding their decision. They have essentially opened the door for states to make abortion unconstitutional and to enforce such a stance by any means necessary...they have made that legal! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54513499 https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/10994...ter-roe-v-wade

2) See links in #1.

3) Law making followed it's legal course to the SCOTUS on both counts ... The SCOTUS just didn't decide to rule without anyone filing a case.

4) Your last sentence is pure supposition and conjecture....please provide documentation, because your opinion is not fact.

Once again, the question of how you equate removing choice with keeping in step with the Constitution and Bill of Rights has yet to be answered by the cheerleaders for this latest SCOTUS decision.

Your interpretation of the ruling is severely flawed. It makes no decision whatsoever on abortion itself. It merely says elected officials in state legislatures are responsible for that not the judicial branch. It even hints at Congress itself passing abortion law. Not often do you see any government entity give up power and this ruling did exactly that. It was a big win for our constitution being respected and kept intact

Again, a sentence by sentence deconstruction:

1. I make no "interpretation" but state clearly and plainly the FACTS and the logical conclusion of said facts from the ruling. The links I provided in the previous bare witness to this....the information in said links that YOU HAVE NOT AND APPARENTLY CANNOT LOGICALLY AND FACTUALLY REFUTE.

2. You are either painfully unaware of the topic, basically incorrect regarding the ruling itself or a bad liar. Please read the following carefully and comprehensively (especially the first paragraph), because we ain't talking about the weather here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

3. It states a hell of a lot more than your misleading and simplistic assertion. I strongly urge you to review the dissenting remarks of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer in the link provided in #2 here.

4 - 6. Pure supposition and conjecture that ignores the nuances and many conclusions of what has actually happened.

The question remains: how does rescinding a law and allowing states to rule against choice in a private medical decision keep in step with the Constitution and Bill of Rights emphasis on freedom?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Read the map, genius....then tell that to the people in the red color states and such.

Who can go to any neighboring state if they want an abortion

Assuming that the neighboring state is not of the same BS Christo-fascist mindset, as the map shows. Making the choice as difficult or near impossible as they can.

Here's the thing: No one is asking you & yours a damned thing.....it's a private decision between the woman, her partner/husband (if that is the case) and the doctor (if she has a primary healthcare physician). None of your tax dollars are funding such ... that old canard by the Christo-fascists has been put to bed numerous times. And no one is putting a gun to anyone's head saying "you must have an abortion". So mind your own damned business, because the same mindset you push here can be used to have states ban contraception of any kind. Hell, why not stop all this nonsense at the source? Make vasectomy mandatory for all males until they can prove financial and emotional maturity to be fathers? Or tubal ligation for all females with the same requirements for motherhood? If you're going to justify this latest BS, why not just be honest and go whole hog? It would be the theocratic thing to do.

 

[Niche Political Commentor]

Are you saying the sperm and egg were dead prior to fertilization of the egg?

nope they are alive too as they are cellular life, but they aren't a unique human because they don't have a full chromosomal set.

 

[Niche Political Commentor]

Atheists don't truck with theocratic based rulings in any shape, form or matter. So given the topic, forgive me if I find your claim dubious at best.

The facts are you and your ilk keep blathering on about "killing babies". I asked for a documented case for such....given that murder of any kind has to be determined by a State Medical Examiner. That requires a body, NOT a zygote or blastocyst. They don't have birth days.
A developing fetus is NOT a baby by any medical definition, and a premature birth requires all types of heroic medical acts and technology for a chance that premature baby (Baby being outside the womb) to develop further to the point that it can breath and eat on it's own. I would like to see where you got your "definition of life" in this regard.

So I ask you again, where is your proof that a birthed baby was murdered? Now I don't want another rehash of religious dogma on the subject like you just gave. Show me the medical records where an M.E. presented evidence in a court of law that Doctor So&So purposely caused the death of a living, breathing BIRTHED BABY.

If you're going to waste my time with just a parrot of the SOS you previously gave, then I won't waste time and effort responding. The objective reader will see your failure. Carry on.

you fucking retard i've been an atheist on this forum for like 2 decades. pay attention.

once fertilized, we have a unique human life. aborting it is killing it, and depending at what stage your perform the abortion, it is murder. no religious belief needed.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Dutch Uncle]

nope they are alive too as they are cellular life, but they aren't a unique human because they don't have a full chromosomal set.

WTF does "unique human" have to do with it? Have you heard of identical twins? Triplets? Every skin cell with a nucleus that you shed, cut off, bleed, shit or puke is a "unique human" with a "full chromosomal set".

Are you saying that artificially fertilized frozen eggs are humans and that it's murder to destroy them? Doesn't that sound a bit wacky to you?

 

[Niche Political Commentor]

WTF does "unique human" have to do with it? Have you heard of identical twins? Triplets? Every skin cell with a nucleus that you shed, cut off, bleed, shit or puke is a "unique human" with a "full chromosomal set".

Are you saying that artificially fertilized frozen eggs are humans and that it's murder to destroy them? Doesn't that sound a bit wacky to you?

can you read my fucking posts? i am okay killing blastocysts and zygotes and early stage fetuses. god knows i dont want a shit kicking kid running around

but at some point, past 3 months, when it has a heart and a brain, you are being a murderer. you can be against abortion without being religious.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

can you read my fucking posts? i am okay killing blastocysts and zygotes and early stage fetuses. god knows i dont want a shit kicking kid running around

but at some point, past 3 months, when it has a heart and a brain, you are being a murderer. you can be against abortion without being religious.

Good! Common ground.

Agreed, that, at some stage of growth the fetus becomes a human being. 24 weeks used to be the standard, later for deformed fetuses such as the one with no brain a few years back. All the religious wackos got all bent out of shape about it.

I'm good with a scientific definition leaning toward sentience as a definition over just looking like a simian.

https://www.newsweek.com/strict-abo...hout-brain-skull-knowing-it-would-die-1440531
Strict Abortion Law Forced Woman to Give Birth to Baby Without a Brain or Skull, Knowing It Would Die
BY KASHMIRA GANDER ON 6/3/19 AT 5:00 PM EDT

n abortion provider has spoken of treating a woman who was forced to give birth to a baby she knew would die as she wasn't allowed access to an abortion.

In an essay entitled "The Myth of Choice," published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, an anonymous doctor wrote of a patient whose fetus had no brain or no skull, but only a stem.

"This condition has no survivors. None," the doctor wrote.

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

Again, a sentence by sentence deconstruction:

1. I make no "interpretation" but state clearly and plainly the FACTS and the logical conclusion of said facts from the ruling. The links I provided in the previous bare witness to this....the information in said links that YOU HAVE NOT AND APPARENTLY CANNOT LOGICALLY AND FACTUALLY REFUTE.

2. You are either painfully unaware of the topic, basically incorrect regarding the ruling itself or a bad liar. Please read the following carefully and comprehensively (especially the first paragraph), because we ain't talking about the weather here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

3. It states a hell of a lot more than your misleading and simplistic assertion. I strongly urge you to review the dissenting remarks of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer in the link provided in #2 here.

4 - 6. Pure supposition and conjecture that ignores the nuances and many conclusions of what has actually happened.

The question remains: how does rescinding a law and allowing states to rule against choice in a private medical decision keep in step with the Constitution and Bill of Rights emphasis on freedom?

The decision gives freedom back. RW took that freedom away. Now elected officials answerable to the voters will make abortion laws instead of a few judges for life in black robes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The decision gives freedom back. RW took that freedom away. Now elected officials answerable to the voters will make abortion laws instead of a few judges for life in black robes.

Only a fucking moron believes stripping Americans of rights is a good thing.

This decision will go down in history as being fucked up like the Dred Scott Decision.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

Assuming that the neighboring state is not of the same BS Christo-fascist mindset, as the map shows. Making the choice as difficult or near impossible as they can.

Here's the thing: No one is asking you & yours a damned thing.....it's a private decision between the woman, her partner/husband (if that is the case) and the doctor (if she has a primary healthcare physician). None of your tax dollars are funding such ... that old canard by the Christo-fascists has been put to bed numerous times. And no one is putting a gun to anyone's head saying "you must have an abortion". So mind your own damned business, because the same mindset you push here can be used to have states ban contraception of any kind. Hell, why not stop all this nonsense at the source? Make vasectomy mandatory for all males until they can prove financial and emotional maturity to be fathers? Or tubal ligation for all females with the same requirements for motherhood? If you're going to justify this latest BS, why not just be honest and go whole hog? It would be the theocratic thing to do.

Abortion is unique in that your personal decision ends another persons life. The only real question is when does a fetus become a person with the right to live. Most reasonable people think that's around the first trimester and that's a reasonable cut off date to abort. Most states will immediately have laws that reflect that opinion and over time all will. RW being imposed nation wide did nothing but prolong the abortion debate and now we can get down to business and settle it. Even Ruth saw this coming and said it was the only way to do it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Abortion is unique in that your personal decision ends another persons life. The only real question is when does a fetus become a person with the right to live. Most reasonable people think that's around the first trimester and that's a reasonable cut off date to abort. Most states will immediately have laws that reflect that opinion and over time all will. RW being imposed nation wide did nothing but prolong the abortion debate and now we can get down to business and settle it. Even Ruth saw this coming and said it was the only way to do it.

Which of these, if either, is a "person"? It's okay if you don't know or refuse to answer because the answer is obvious to anyone who isn't sucking Pedo Don's cock.

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

Which of these, if either, is a "person"? It's okay if you don't know or refuse to answer because the answer is obvious to anyone who isn't sucking Pedo Don's cock.

Not 3 months old so not relavant.


"Month Three of Pregnancy

By the end of the third month of pregnancy, your baby is fully formed. Your baby has arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes and can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not 3 months old so not relavant.


"Month Three of Pregnancy

By the end of the third month of pregnancy, your baby is fully formed. Your baby has arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes and can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming."

So you agree three months is about the time a fetus becomes a person? If so, I can agree with that given it's a normal baby with a normal brain.

 

[Sawyerloggingon]

So you agree three months is about the time a fetus becomes a person? If so, I can agree with that given it's a normal baby with a normal brain.

That's been my position all along. I've been very clear on that.