Donald Trump

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when this thread was about the LIAR-IN-CHIEF ?

This issue is relevant to the admin.  Also, it will be a campaign issue on the left.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when this thread was about the LIAR-IN-CHIEF ?

This issue is relevant to the admin.  Also, it will be a campaign issue on the left.  

And on the right!

Spiritual_Chaos

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?

I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 

But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.

Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.

How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when this thread was about the LIAR-IN-CHIEF ?

This issue is relevant to the admin.  Also, it will be a campaign issue on the left.  

Okay then....

There is NO such thing as a "post-birth" abortion.
It is a fearmongering term from the right wingosphere.

Abortion should always be...
Affordable 
Available on demand 
Legal
Safe
Womans choice/decision

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when this thread was about the LIAR-IN-CHIEF ?

This issue is relevant to the admin.  Also, it will be a campaign issue on the left.  

Okay then....

There is NO such thing as a "post-birth" abortion.
It is a fearmongering term from the right wingosphere.

Abortion should always be...
Affordable 
Available on demand 
Legal
Safe
Womans choice/decision

Agreed, and polls show people are becoming more pro choice, not less so.  The movement in these red states is running counter to the population at large.   That's why it's a good campaign issue as well.  

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?

I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 

But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.

Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?

Because extremes are bad.  There shouldn't be abortions for all situations and on the flip side abortions shouldn't be totally illegal like in Alabama (not totally illegal but you know what I mean).  And like I said I have no clue what that middle is.  

And who here is disagreeing with having an abortion if the woman's life is in danger (which is what you are describing I believe)?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. 

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.

Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy. 

But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.

Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?

I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little. 

16 weeks is in no way viable. 

mcgruff10

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.

Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy. 

But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.

Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?

I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little. 

16 weeks is in no way viable. 

This I know. But four months into a pregnancy you decide to terminate?  That s what inscratch my head  about. 

PJ_Soul

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no other way for it, that fetus is nobody's business but that woman's until it is no longer a part of her own body. If people are uncomfortable with that, tough shit. There is no way around it, since women are the ones who bear all the children. I think it is absolutely offensive and dangerous for anyone to assume they can tell a woman what to do with anything inside of her, no matter what it is. I guess if anti-choicers really wanted to, the could start having babies exclusively via test tube, and then all their problems would be over. Fetus-in-a-bag... the next big investment opportunity.

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no other way for it, that fetus is nobody's business but that woman's until it is no longer a part of her own body. If people are uncomfortable with that, tough shit. There is no way around it, since women are the ones who bear all the children. I think it is absolutely offensive and dangerous for anyone to assume they can tell a woman what to do with anything inside of her, no matter what it is. I guess if anti-choicers really wanted to, the could start having babies exclusively via test tube, and then all their problems would be over. Fetus-in-a-bag... the next big investment opportunity.

So the father gets no say at all? (Providing it is not rape or incest)

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no other way for it, that fetus is nobody's business but that woman's until it is no longer a part of her own body. If people are uncomfortable with that, tough shit. There is no way around it, since women are the ones who bear all the children. I think it is absolutely offensive and dangerous for anyone to assume they can tell a woman what to do with anything inside of her, no matter what it is. I guess if anti-choicers really wanted to, the could start having babies exclusively via test tube, and then all their problems would be over. Fetus-in-a-bag... the next big investment opportunity.

So the father gets no say at all? (Providing it is not rape or incest)

Nope, sorry. I know it sucks, but blame biology. It is INSIDE her body. A man cannot have a say about what is done to the insides of a woman's body. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Maybe men should get more serious about their own birth control, eh?

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect

"But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.

Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  

Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 

Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  

No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 

Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.

Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.

Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy. 

But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.

Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?

I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little. 

16 weeks is in no way viable. 

This I know. But four months into a pregnancy you decide to terminate?  That s what inscratch my head  about. 

I don't think you'd be scratching your head about this if you had any idea about all the issues related to the decision to potentially terminate a pregnancy, including first becoming aware of the pregnancy, which for some women takes quite a while, for a variety of reasons. Then there can be quite a long and difficult decision making process of assessing all the relevant factors such as whether the guy is going to be interested and supportive or not, whether there is family support, how this will factor into work or school or other life goals, not to mention the whole area of health issues and assessment of things like fetal anomalies, which can take weeks. That's not even taking into account how difficult it is to access abortion in many areas - there are literally some states with only a handful of abortion providers in the entire state, and those ones operate under credible death threats on a daily basis. How does a young or low income women travel 250 miles to get to a clinic where protesters are going to be shouting at her outside, particularly if the bullshit laws require more than one appointment and a "waiting period"? There is so much going on that you are trivializing when you say "four months into a pregnancy you decide to terminate?"

PJ_Soul

Indeed. So many things also prevent women from knowing they are pregnant until far along. Many women have very irregular periods, to the point where they rarely have one at all, so that is no indication for some. Others keep getting their periods while pregnant, at least for a while. That kind of thing. It can actually be quite easy to get along 12 weeks or more without even knowing you're pregnant, and then, in the USA, like Often said, all the barriers to getting an abortion could easily stretch that further. 

Not that ANY of that is the point. None of it matters. Us women must have control over our own guts, and that is really the only relevant point IMHO.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no other way for it, that fetus is nobody's business but that woman's until it is no longer a part of her own body. If people are uncomfortable with that, tough shit. There is no way around it, since women are the ones who bear all the children. I think it is absolutely offensive and dangerous for anyone to assume they can tell a woman what to do with anything inside of her, no matter what it is. I guess if anti-choicers really wanted to, the could start having babies exclusively via test tube, and then all their problems would be over. Fetus-in-a-bag... the next big investment opportunity.

So the father gets no say at all? (Providing it is not rape or incest)

Nope, sorry. I know it sucks, but blame biology. It is INSIDE her body. A man cannot have a say about what is done to the insides of a woman's body. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Maybe men should get more serious about their own birth control, eh?

ding ding ding

cincybearcat

Man - if only there was an abortion thread. 

See what happens when there is a thread that just about everyone left (if not everyone left) here already agree with? 

Tired of posting “trump is an ass”. Let’s talk about WW2 and figure out how to blame America! Let’s talk about abortion!!! Hahah y’all crack me up.

Halifax2TheMax

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/world/asia/trump-japan.html

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.

I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 

What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 

Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.

So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a

I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).

But What does that mean in practice?

That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.

I guess the basic problem is the "child"(when now it would be considered to be a child) inside are not allowed to have that complete control of their own internal organs. Not to sound like Mike Pence.

I believe my two brothers were 8 weeks early, so that means 7 months old. They were in a "kuvös" (whatever that's called in english - "incubator" maybe?) for a while at the hospital but then everything were normal, and better off than me today I would think my mom would say. Do you think an abortion at 7 months would be a-ok if the woman felt like it?

Just asking questions out of curiosity, with you being so certain of your stance.

EDIT: Wait my sister now said they were 12 weeks early. But that sounds extreme... I know one of my brothers weight less than 1 kilogram (35.27 oz) and the doctor asked if my mom and dad wanted to "emergency baptise" them both incase they would not make it.

As far as I'm concerned, because there is no other way for it, that fetus is nobody's business but that woman's until it is no longer a part of her own body. If people are uncomfortable with that, tough shit. There is no way around it, since women are the ones who bear all the children. I think it is absolutely offensive and dangerous for anyone to assume they can tell a woman what to do with anything inside of her, no matter what it is. I guess if anti-choicers really wanted to, the could start having babies exclusively via test tube, and then all their problems would be over. Fetus-in-a-bag... the next big investment opportunity.

So the father gets no say at all? (Providing it is not rape or incest)

Nope, sorry. I know it sucks, but blame biology. It is INSIDE her body. A man cannot have a say about what is done to the insides of a woman's body. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Maybe men should get more serious about their own birth control, eh?

ding ding ding

Yeah I definitely agree with that. 

mcgruff10

cincybearcat said:

Man - if only there was an abortion thread. 

See what happens when there is a thread that just about everyone left (if not everyone left) here already agree with? 

Tired of posting “trump is an ass”. Let’s talk about WW2 and figure out how to blame America! Let’s talk about abortion!!! Hahah y’all crack me up.

I thought it was a great day of debating!  I just did a half hour of cardio and now doing some chest while listening to pj.  I feel good.  
But yeah reading “fuck trump” and “trump is an idiot” gets really old. 

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Man - if only there was an abortion thread. 

See what happens when there is a thread that just about everyone left (if not everyone left) here already agree with? 

Tired of posting “trump is an ass”. Let’s talk about WW2 and figure out how to blame America! Let’s talk about abortion!!! Hahah y’all crack me up.

I thought it was a great day of debating!  I just did a half hour of cardio and now doing some chest while listening to pj.  I feel good.  
But yeah reading “fuck trump” and “trump is an idiot” gets really old. 

Exactly.. talk about whatever the hell you want.  We reel it back in eventually.  Who cares?

Halifax2TheMax

So old it’s normal.