How To Push Back Against A Republican Dodge On Abortion
I write this knowing this advice will come too late for many. We are currently in the midst of "debate season" where candidates for office face each other across a stage and trade political blows. Many such debates have already happened, which is what prompted me to write.
In these debates, Republicans have adopted a: "No I'm not, you are!" playground response on the issue of abortion. Republicans, obviously, are the ones trying to strip rights and freedoms away from women. This is, again pretty obviously, extreme. The only question Republicans really face about their abortion position is: "How much of an extremist are you?" Which Draconian laws do they support? Which exceptions would they allow to these Draconian laws?
So Republicans are trying hard to turn this label around. They are attempting to paint Democrats as the "extremists" on abortion, by blurring the line between medically-necessary abortions and elective abortions. "Elective" means (using the right-wing term) "abortion on demand." Any woman can walk into any abortion provider and get an abortion, and she does not have to give a reason for it. Her reasons are personal and her own.
Roe v. Wade set the limit for such abortions at "fetal viability," or the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's body (with plenty of medical devices and support, usually) -- or roughly 22 to 24 weeks of gestation.
Beyond that, the rare instances of abortion are all medical in nature. They are not whims. They are not some sort of snap decision on the woman's part. But that's precisely what Republicans want voters to think -- and to also think that Democrats are somehow fighting hard for abortions (again, as they put it) "all the way up to the time of birth." My, my, what an extreme position, they accuse.
Some Democrats seem rather flat-footed when faced with this. They know it is a trap. If they start talking about elective-versus-medical or even start talking about the number of weeks of gestation, then the Republican has won because the Democrat is now playing defense on his chosen field.
But there is a way to answer it, without getting too technical and off into the weeds. It is to react viscerally, pointing out what the tragic and heart-wrenching reality is, as opposed to the false image the Republicans want everyone to believe is somehow grotesquely true.
So my column today is an extended talking point. Either some Democrats can still use this in debate, or Democrats should start utilizing it generally, even beyond this year's midterms. Because Republicans really shouldn't get away with this false narrative for a second.
[Note: Ideally, the person delivering this answer would be a Democratic woman and mother, but it really works for any supporter of abortion rights. And because most of them are, I also assumed that the Republican making such an odious claim would be a male.]
A Democrat's debate answer to Republican "extremist" nonsense on abortion
My opponent is desperately trying to paint a picture that is just not reality. He accuses me of somehow supporting elective abortion up to the day of delivery. In his twisted fantasy world, some women carry a baby for eight months or more, and then wake up one day and suddenly decide they don't want to have a baby any more. So they go to their doctor and ask for an abortion. This is not only hideously false, it is both ridiculous and insulting to any woman who has actually had a late-term abortion.
Let me clue you in, since you obviously have no clue about motherhood, no clue about pregnancy, no clue about abortion, and indeed no clue about women whatsoever. What you are suggesting is false. It does not happen, period. Let me educate you, since you are obviously quite ignorant about these subjects and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt why clueless male legislators simply should not be making these decisions at all for any woman.
In the first place, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, fewer than two percent of all abortions happen beyond the 21st week of pregnancy. Over 98 percent of abortions -- including all the elective ones -- happen precisely within the time period that used to be protected under Roe v. Wade. Late-term abortions are very rare -- and for good reason.
In the second place, I defy you to present me a single case of any woman in America that got a purely elective abortion anywhere near the "time of birth," as you put it. Once again: they do not happen, period.
In the third case, since you quite obviously have no idea what expectant mothers go through, allow me to explain to you what you are so snidely and rudely condemning. When a woman is in her third trimester, she is ready and willing to have a baby -- or at least that was true before Republicans began taking women's freedoms away from them and trying to force them to give birth. That woman wants to be a mother. She wants that child. Ask one, she'll tell you.
But her doctor comes to her with the most traumatic news any mother-to-be can get: her fetus has a serious congenital disorder and is so malformed that it might not even survive until birth. If it does, it will certainly die very soon after. Or it would be so medically dangerous for the woman to continue her pregnancy she will risk serious problems herself, up to and including dying.
That is the horrific and tragic position these women find themselves in. They want a healthy baby, sometimes desperately. But suddenly that is not possible. So they are faced with an agonizing choice.
This is the point where my opponent thinks the men who sit on some legislative committee should be the ones to decide what happens.
Again, because you so obviously do not understand these things, no woman demands an elective abortion just before giving birth. It is an painful insult to any woman who has been through such an agonizing experience to even suggest such a thing. Shame on you!
I end where I began. This is exactly why clueless politicians -- most of them male -- should not be the ones making crucial and life-changing medical decisions for women. They and their doctors should be the only ones making such deeply personal medical decisions. That is what I support. The freedom for women and doctors to make these painful choices without any fear.
Republicans support whatever the most extreme of them demand. They want rape victims to be forced to carry their rapists' babies to term. They want incest victims to also be forced to give birth. They want to force 10-year-old girls to become mothers. They throw a dart at the wall and come up with some magic number of weeks of gestation at which they morally disapprove of elective abortion. These darts used to start at 20 weeks, but have moved progressively lower -- 15 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 weeks -- because they have no clue at all what any of these numbers actually means to a pregnant woman.
There is only one extremist on this stage, and it is the man who wants to dictate to you and your daughters what freedoms they will allow you to have with your own body. Because they think doing so would benefit them politically.
To me, that is the abomination here.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTERS:
OK, I have been getting an increasing number of complaints about behavior here. Comments here are "unreadable" is about the most polite of these....
So tomorrow, just to let everyone know, a new day dawns. A day of extreme moderation (on my part).
Off-topic comments, starting with Friday's column, will be unceremoniously deleted. Personal vindictiveness of a serious nature will be punished by my issuing "yellow cards."
For the uninitiated, this means getting locked out of the site for an entire week, as a time-out.
Red cards -- complete banishment and exile -- will also be considered.
You have all been warned. Finish up long-running conversations that thread back to much earlier columns, because my "off topic" delete finger will be itchy starting on Friday.
You have been duly warned.
-CW
There's a new sheriff in town and his name is Dark CW. You da man.
To me, that is the abomination here.
The abomination here has been aborted.
I heart abortion!
There are also the cases involving an early caesarian because of risks to the mother. They save the baby if they can. Would they rather have the mother die, and often the baby with her?
I'd also ask the forced-birth lot why they want to force women to die after miscarriages rather than having life-saving treatment, and how that is pro-life.
Perhaps forced-birthers could also be asked whether they promote free pre- and post-natal care to protect the unborn and newly born. (I doubt they care at all about the women.)
Perfectly stated, CW... every single word.
So Republicans are trying hard to turn this label around. They are attempting to paint Democrats as the "extremists" on abortion, by blurring the line between medically-necessary abortions and elective abortions.
Aside from their outright lying about the issue, the righties have also recently taken to mansplaining that women don't really care about the abortion issue and are actually more concerned with economic issues.
Which begs a few questions:
* How is a person being forced by "conservatives" to give birth to her rapist's or relative's (or anyone's) child not an economic issue for her and her family?
* What plans do "conservative" politicians who legislate forced birth onto their female constituents have to fund their draconian mandates?
* You claim you're "pro life," well, what about the life of our children who are the victims of rape or incest?
If anyone attempts to convince you that a Republican majority in the Senate and/or House is somehow going to ease the worldwide inflation due to the pandemic, disruption of supply chains globally, etc. and going to somehow magically lower the price of gas at the pump, they're lying. In a capitalist economy such as we have in the United States, our Congress has precious little control over prices. Make no mistake: Forcing a person to give birth is an economic issue for that person and her family.
On the other hand, the rights of your daughter, your sister, your aunt, and your mother and your family to make their own health decisions regarding their own lives is definitely something for which government does have control... but, make no mistake, only if you allow them to take that right from you.
I suggest everyone take your 18-year-old plus daughters to the polls with you on November 8 to vote for the only Party who will protect her right to her life.
Alternatively, vote early if your state allows it.
Washington DC and 38 states allow in-person early voting.
Our bodies do not belong to the federal or state government.
[1]
About fucking time, Chris!
I'm sooo tired of dealing with groomer douchebag mall cop who contributes nothing whatsoever to this space. He must be paying you pretty well for you to not care about building up our online community.*smh*
On topic, have you addressed (in some column I never saw) why the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure/being secure in one's person and effects doesn't implicitly settle the abortion question? It seems like a no-brainer to me...comments, people?
FPC
One Truss equals 4.1 Mooches...I love it!
[6]
Our bodies do not belong to the federal or state government.
Unless, of course, we are Active Duty, just saying.
CW,
Read you loud and clear. My apologies that it came to this, but it’s your site and your rules rule.
R
Dunno what your branch is/was, Kick, but us Army types called it raising my right hand and swearing away my Constitutional Rights.
[10]
Ditto, here.
Moderator,
OK, I have been getting an increasing number of complaints about behavior here. Comments here are "unreadable" is about the most polite of these....
So tomorrow, just to let everyone know, a new day dawns. A day of extreme moderation (on my part).
Off-topic comments, starting with Friday's column, will be unceremoniously deleted. Personal vindictiveness of a serious nature will be punished by my issuing "yellow cards."
For the uninitiated, this means getting locked out of the site for an entire week, as a time-out.
Red cards -- complete banishment and exile -- will also be considered.
You have all been warned. Finish up long-running conversations that thread back to much earlier columns, because my "off topic" delete finger will be itchy starting on Friday.
You have been duly warned.
I find myself in unique situation of actually agreeing of agreeing with MC..
"About fucking time!!!" :D
This was my hope all along...
But I am curious and hope you will respond to some questions..
I'm sooo tired of dealing with groomer douchebag mall cop who contributes nothing whatsoever to this space. He must be paying you pretty well for you to not care about building up our online community.*smh*
-MC
Where would THIS ^^^ comment fall in your new moderation rule:
Personal vindictiveness of a serious nature will be punished by my issuing "yellow cards."
Would the comment be worthy of a Yellow Card??? Or, because it was a blatant personal attack on the integrity of the moderator, would that go right to a Red Card??
Another question if I may..
Will Party affiliation be a factor in considering moderation??
IE Will a President Trump supporter's comments be moderated differently than a President Trump Hater's comments??
And one final question, if you would indulge me..
I post END OF WATCH tributes for fallen Law Enforcement officers.. Can those be permitted to continue??
I think it's only fair to the denizens of Weigantia® that we be given an idea of exactly how this new moderation will work and how it will be applied...
I look forward to hearing from you with clarification of your new rules..
Thank you...
MtnCaddy
9
Unless, of course, we are Active Duty, just saying.
You definitely make an excellent point; however, in the context of the subject matter and (I would wager) as long as a Democrat controls the White House:
*
Under the Constitution's "Supremacy Clause," federal law supersedes state law, and the current Commander-in-Chief by the name of Joseph Biden, Jr. has no intention of subjecting United States troops to the draconian practices of their "conservative" home states.
*
Yet another reason to keep Republicans out of the White House.
MtnCaddy
8
One Truss equals 4.1 Mooches...I love it!
That's a good one... Scaramucci and his 11 days. Heh.
In these debates, Republicans have adopted a: "No I'm not, you are!" playground response on the issue of abortion.
Just as Democrats have adopted a: NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE!!" playground response on the issue of DEFUND DEMONIZE DEMORALIZE THE POLICE policies...
I am sure you would agree that what is good for the goose is ALSO good for the gander... No??
Republicans, obviously, are the ones trying to strip rights and freedoms away from women.
Not factually accurate..
First off, there never WAS a right or freedom for women to kill their babies.. We had a whole trial down here in Florida a bit ago to RE-AFFIRM that women do not have a right to kill their babies..
SEE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL
Secondly, even if there WAS a stripping of the rights, one must consider which is the lesser of the two evils here..
Which is a worse evil??
Taking away the rights of a person (even if those rights DID exist, which they didn't and don't) or killing an innocent child??
I think the answer to that is self-evident..
The sanctity of life is the over-ridding factor here, in my not-so-humble opinion..
Further, we also must agree on exactly WHAT right you are defending here..
As a birth takes place, when the baby is crowning, the top of the head appearing, the very moment of birth, the attending physician or nurse would take a syringe loaded with formaldehyde, and stab it into the soft spot at the crown of the almost-newborn's head, push the plunger, and extinguish its life at the moment of its beginning.
This is an example of an abortion looks like in CHINA...
Are you talking about a woman's right to do ^^^^^^ THAT?? Is that the right that you believe women should have??
I am sure you would agree that, before we debate the merit's of our two respective positions, we have to define exactly what those positions are..
N'est-ce pas???
ListenWhenYouHear
10
I third that.
Love you, Russ! :)
So Republicans are trying hard to turn this label around. They are attempting to paint Democrats as the "extremists" on abortion, by blurring the line between medically-necessary abortions and elective abortions. "Elective" means (using the right-wing term) "abortion on demand." Any woman can walk into any abortion provider and get an abortion, and she does not have to give a reason for it. Her reasons are personal and her own.
Exactly how is this a "blurring of the line"..
There is clearly a demarcation line between the two forms of Baby Killing..
To put it in to a somewhat related context, it's the difference between elective surgeries and medically necessary surgeries..
I am sure you would agree that there is DEFINITELY a reality-based distinction between the two..
Further, this goes to the point I was making in the above comment...
I guess what I am asking is, do YOU agree with abortion on demand? Should a woman have the right to kill her baby right up to the point that the baby is crowning??
In our earlier discussions, it was universally agreed by all Weigantians® (who bothered to chime in on the question) but one, that there SHOULD be restrictions placed on baby killing..
Would you be in that category?? Would you agree that baby killing at the point of crowning is morally wrong and should be made illegal??
Of course, I completely agree with my fellow Weigantians® that the health of the mother IS the overriding concern..
But beyond that, I feel a pregnant woman does not have the right to kill her baby, whether it's 1 week AFTER birth or 1 week BEFORE birth..
Would you agree with that assessment??
Michale
13
I find myself in unique situation of actually agreeing of agreeing with MC..
He makes a lot of great points, that one.
Would the comment be worthy of a Yellow Card??? Or, because it was a blatant personal attack on the integrity of the moderator, would that go right to a Red Card??
I'm going to be kind and help you out because I see your confusion. MtnCaddy wasn't insulting the integrity of the author/moderator at all; that was definitely an insult intended for someone else.
Before we proceed any further, I feel we need to clarify my use of the term "Baby Killing" instead of the antiseptic term "abortion"..
As a species, humans have a tendency to create euphemisms to mask unpleasantness.. We talk around things and make up cutesy words and definitions so as to avoid calling a spade a spade..
In the issue of abortion, I feel it is important to talk plainly about what is actually happening here..
Yes, talking about babies being killed is extremely unpleasant.. But we have to acknowledge that killing a baby is EXACTLY what we are talking about.
So let's call a spade a spade and say what it is that is really happening here.. A baby is being killed..
That is why I use the term 'baby killing' instead of 'abortion'..
Let's just say that it's my way of keeping things real..
You know me. In the long 16 years (17??) that I have been here in Weigantia, I have ALWAYS been all about calling a spade a spade..
Kick,
He makes a lot of great points, that one.
Well, sometimes..
MC's....
I'm sooo tired of dealing with groomer douchebag mall cop who contributes nothing whatsoever to this space. He must be paying you pretty well for you to not care about building up our online community.*smh*
... was over the top and completely uncalled for...
I'm going to be kind and help you out because I see your confusion.
That would be SWELL!! :D Thank you soo much...
MtnCaddy wasn't insulting the integrity of the author/moderator at all;
Not factually accurate..
By insinuating that the moderator was taking bribes to allow me to comment, MC was clearly casting aspirations on the integrity and character of the moderator..
There can be no other interpretation of MC's comment..
My question is would that insult be considered a YELLOW-CARD offense or a RED-CARD offense..
I am sure you would agree with me that, since we are looking at a much different form of moderation for Weigantia® that we should be given the details on exactly what that will entail..
Thank you for your response.. Your input was sincerely appreciated..
I post END OF WATCH tributes for fallen Law Enforcement officers.. Can those be permitted to continue??
Aren't these easily recognizable as posts that would definitely qualify as "off topic."
If those off-topic posts are allowed by the author, I will definitely be requesting permission to post pie recipes. You simply cannot go wrong with pie.
But getting back to ON TOPIC discussions....
Where was I?? Oh yes.. I had just finished up explaining why I use the term 'baby killing' to accurately assess what it is we are actually talking about here..
Moving on..
Roe v. Wade set the limit for such abortions at "fetal viability," or the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's body (with plenty of medical devices and support, usually) -- or roughly 22 to 24 weeks of gestation.
And there is absolutely NO REASON why states cannot accept this as their guidelines when creating baby killing legislation..
It's the epitome of fear-mongering for the Left that they scream "THE SCOTUS JUST TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO KILL OUR BABIES!!!!" when, in actuality, the SCOTUS did no such thing..
All the SCOTUS did was take the question AWAY from the federal government and place it back to the authority of the states where it belongs..
It is noted by MANY legal scholars including the indominable RBG that ROE should NEVER have been created..
It was a flawed legal decision and all the current SCOTUS did was to make right what once went wrong. :D
Personally, as I have made clear on MANY occasions, I really don't have a problem with allowing SOME abortions..
Unlike the GOP, I don't believe life begins at "Gee.. yer hot..."....
But I ALSO don't believe, as the Left does, that life begins at the first child-related tax-break..
There IS a happy medium where soon-to-be life is not life as we understand life... Personally, I believe the Fetal Heartbeat to be a good and definitive definition of when life begins..
So, abortions prior to that point I would find acceptable.. AFTER that point, it's no longer an abortion.. THEN it becomes 'baby killing'...
I think for future discussions, that will be the determining factor for when I use the term 'abortion' versus when I use the term 'baby killing'..
BEFORE the fetal heartbeat it's an abortion.. AFTER the fetal heartbeat, it's baby killing..
I think that will be a viable way to continue this fruitful discussion..
Kick,
Thank you again for the wonderful response.. :D
Aren't these easily recognizable as posts that would definitely qualify as "off topic."
Yes.. True.. But, as the moderator, he can allow Off Topic comments as he sees fit..
CW was a huge Star Trek fan and Trek (or sci fi in general) discussions were obviously off topic, but they were still allowed..
I am only asking for such consideration to post END OF WATCH comments to honor our fallen LEOs.. I am sure you would agree that we should honor our fallen LEOs and treat them with respect they have earned..
If those off-topic posts are allowed by the author, I will definitely be requesting permission to post pie recipes. You simply cannot go wrong with pie.
EXACTLY my point.. Thank you for agreeing with me..
I do hope the moderator DOES allow you to post your favorite pie recipes.. My lovely wife is a very accomplished cook and I am sure she would love to try out some of your recipes..
Thank you again for the wonderful response, Kick.. :D It is GREATLY appreciated... :D
If those off-topic posts are allowed by the author, I will definitely be requesting permission to post pie recipes. You simply cannot go wrong with pie.
Having said the afore, I am sure you agree that there are definitely different degrees of "honorable" between pie recipes and honoring our fallen LEOs...
But, you DO raise an interesting point..
Will Sunday Weigantian® Music Fest still be allowed?? That is, by strict definition, an OFF TOPIC lalapalooza...
But I feel that it should still be allowed..
I am glad we are getting these discussions out there.. It will be great to know where it all stands in the new Weigantia®...
Thank you again, Kick for the awesome response.. :D
WOW.. I got off on a tangent again.. :D OK going to try to remain on topic here.. :D
Beyond that, the rare instances of abortion are all medical in nature. They are not whims. They are not some sort of snap decision on the woman's part.
I would respectfully point out that THAT assumes facts not in evidence..
In my public safety careers (Law Enforcement, Military, FSO, Security) that spanned 30+ years I have encountered MANY women who use abortion/baby killing as a means of birth control..
MANY, MANY women do this...
That would CERTAINLY fall under the heading of a "whim"...
This is evidenced by the fact that MANY women who are in the public eye actually BRAGGED about their abortions/baby killings...
Certainly THAT would also definitely fall under the "whim" category..
But there is a way to answer it, without getting too technical and off into the weeds. It is to react viscerally, pointing out what the tragic and heart-wrenching reality is, as opposed to the false image the Republicans want everyone to believe is somehow grotesquely true.
In other words, you are advocating that the Left should use a hysterical and emotional argument..
I would have to disagree with that..
It's been my experience that ANY position taken based on emotionalism or fear-mongering is exactly the WRONG position to take..
Granted, it's not ALWAYS the case.. But in THESE circumstances, I would say that it is definitely the WRONG position..
I need to go get ready for work now.. But I definitely will be back and following up on this fascinating discussion!! :D
Michale
16
Just as Democrats have adopted a: NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE!!" playground response on the issue of DEFUND DEMONIZE DEMORALIZE THE POLICE policies...
Your "whataboutism" and repetitive opinion isn't related to the subject matter.
Not factually accurate..
One hundred percent accurate.
First off, there never WAS a right or freedom for women to kill their babies..
Zygotes and embryos do not meet the legal definition of "babies." Also, the right definitely existed: See Roe v. Wade.
We had a whole trial down here in Florida a bit ago to RE-AFFIRM that women do not have a right to kill their babies..
The charges were first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. The legal definition of a child in Florida does not include a zygote or a fetus. So, you are mistaken.
SEE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL
See above.
Secondly, even if there WAS a stripping of the rights, one must consider which is the lesser of the two evils here..
So you're saying Chris was 100% correct; that's what I said.
Which is a worse evil??
Taking away the rights of a person (even if those rights DID exist, which they didn't and don't) or killing an innocent child??
You are wholly incorrect because Roe v. Wade established that right. Additionally, that right to an abortion (the subject of the piece) definitely does still exist in multiple states of America. If it did not and never did, there'd be no reason to discuss that which never existed.
Zygotes and embryos do not meet the legal definition of "children," so your question that incorrectly defines abortion as "murder" (which is a legal term) is rendered moot.
The sanctity of life is the over-ridding factor here, in my not-so-humble opinion..
The "sanctity" of life is a religious concept, definitely not a legal one. Your opinion isn't germane to the discussion but duly noted.
Further, we also must agree on exactly WHAT right you are defending here..
Right to abortion. See Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, if you'd read CW's post, you'd obviously already know he defines that bullshit you posted as "Republican 'extremist' nonsense on abortion."
This is an example of an abortion looks like in CHINA...
Wholly not relevant in America.
Are you talking about a woman's right to do ^^^^^^ THAT?? Is that the right that you believe women should have??
Everyone else is discussing apples while you describe oranges and continue to opine that they're apples, and therefore your description meets CW's definition of "Republican 'extremist' nonsense on abortion." Does that answer your question?
I am sure you would agree that, before we debate the merit's of our two respective positions, we have to define exactly what those positions are..
It's already defined in Roe v. Wade. No one (except you) is discussing China.
N'est-ce pas???
You can leave France out of it also.
My opponent is desperately trying to paint a picture that is just not reality. He accuses me of somehow supporting elective abortion up to the day of delivery. In his twisted fantasy world, some women carry a baby for eight months or more, and then wake up one day and suddenly decide they don't want to have a baby any more. So they go to their doctor and ask for an abortion. This is not only hideously false, it is both ridiculous and insulting to any woman who has actually had a late-term abortion.
That is not so far-fetched as you make it appear to be..
Did you ever watch TWO AND A HALF MEN??
Hilarious show!! If you haven't seen it, you should binge watch it.. Ya got 12 seasons so it will keep ya in laughter for a while.. :D
Anyways, without going into too much detail, the situation is this..
Alan was married to Candy.. Alan got divorced from Candy... Alan wanted to make up and have a baby with Candy.. Candy had just been turned down for a TV Series role (STIFFS Yea, it's as funny as it sounds :D)
So, Candy agreed to have a baby with Alan..
Right before the baby-making was due to commence, Candy got a phone call.. Candy was told that the other actor dropped out (we'll call this other actor Geneviève Bujold) and Candy now has the STIFFS role (Yea, I am chuckling right now as I recall the scene.. :D)
So, now that Candy got the role, Candy no longer wanted to have a baby with Alan...
Now, let's alter the above scenario a bit.. Candy DID go thru with the baby making and got pregnant...
"There was a PIING and she starts to glow and you expect to see three wiseman at the door going, 'We saw a star dood...'..."
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
:D OK apologies.. I am easily distracted.. :D
So, in our alter reality, Candy got pregnant. She is, as they say, with child..
Now postulate a scenario where, 8 months later, Candy is the size of a watermelon and she gets a call that she CAN have the role because the other actor (Geneviève Bujold) who has the role now isn't working out..
We'll say that the actor just didn't work out in the role..
So, here is Candy's dilemma.. She REALLY wants that role.. But she has a baby inside here that is, by ANY definition anyone wants to ascribe to, a real and actual living baby...
So, Candy avails herself of baby killing services and kills her baby..
So, in THAT scenario, a woman would be in the EXACT scenario where she wakes up one morning 8 months pregnant and decides she doesn't want to be a mother and kills her baby...
That is the EXACT scenario your mythical Democrat is claiming is patently false and wrong..
So, this begs the question...
SHOULD Candy be allowed to kill her baby?? A baby that, we all agree here, IS a real and actual baby...
I am sure there are those here who will say, "YES.. Candy should be allowed to kill her baby..."
Now let's muddy the waters a bit more.. Let's postulate a scenario where Candy HAS the baby and it's a week AFTER having the baby..
NOW Candy gets the call that tells here that Geneviève Bujold didn't work out in STIFFS (hehe) and Candy can have the role if Candy wants it.. Candy decides that she CAN'T be a mother and also do the TV series, so Candy kills her baby...
So, let's re-ask the question..
SHOULD Candy be allowed to kill her 1 week old baby so she can take the STIFFS role??
Of course, the ONLY rational answer to this is HELL NO!!! I am sure everyone here would say that, right??
So.....
What is the difference between Candy killing her baby 1 week BEFORE birth (which many of the Left would say is perfectly acceptable) and killing her baby 1 week AFTER birth..
For all intents and purposes and basis of law, it's the EXACT same baby...
So, why would the Left agree that it's OK to kill the baby 1 week before birth but admit that it's NOT OK to kill the baby 1 week AFTER birth..
THAT is the moral dilemma facing the Left as they navigate a post ROE America...
Michale
18
There is clearly a demarcation line between the two forms of Baby Killing..
Zygotes and embryos (still) aren't babies.
To put it in to a somewhat related context, it's the difference between elective surgeries and medically necessary surgeries..
No two people are exactly alike, and no two pregnancies are exactly alike. One person's elective surgery might be another person's medically necessary surgery, and that's precisely why a politician shouldn't be making the decision that should be between a woman, her physician, and her doctor and certainly not your call or the decision of unqualified politicians making blanket decisions for everyone.
I am sure you would agree that there is DEFINITELY a reality-based distinction between the two..
If people were like robots and were identical in every way, you'd have a point, but they're not... so you don't.
Further, this goes to the point I was making in the above comment...
Not really.
I guess what I am asking is, do YOU agree with abortion on demand? Should a woman have the right to kill her baby right up to the point that the baby is crowning??
You are meeting the definition he describes. He obviously already explains this in his piece.
In our earlier discussions, it was universally agreed by all Weigantians® (who bothered to chime in on the question) but one, that there SHOULD be restrictions placed on baby killing..
A woman's right to abortion already contained restrictions as outlined in Roe v. Wade. Democrats want to codify Roe v. Wade as federal law. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Kick,
Once again, I *REALLY* appreciate your comment.. I just LOVE responding to them.. :D
Just as Democrats have adopted a: NO I'M NOT, YOU ARE!!" playground response on the issue of DEFUND DEMONIZE DEMORALIZE THE POLICE policies...
Your "whataboutism" and repetitive opinion isn't related to the subject matter.
Republicans, obviously, are the ones trying to strip rights and freedoms away from women.
~ Chris Weigant
Actually, it IS related..
The moderator postulated a GOP tactic and appeared to denigrate that tactic..
I simply pointed out that the Left ALSO uses that exact same tactic and made the logical and rational connection between the two political tactics..
Further, why don't we let the moderator decide what is and is not related to the subject at hand.. Mmm 'kay?? :D
Zygotes and embryos do not meet the legal definition of "babies." Also, the right definitely existed: See Roe v. Wade.
I know.. I already made that point in my comments above.. Thank you for your agreement in that matter.. :D
The charges were first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. The legal definition of a child in Florida does not include a zygote or a fetus. So, you are mistaken.
No, I am not, as I had made that point in MANY of my comments..
Your becoming repetitive, Kick..
So you're saying Chris was 100% correct; that's what I said.
No, that's not what I said.. The moderator chose the WRONG lesser of two evils..
You are wholly incorrect because Roe v. Wade established that right.
ERRONEOUSLY established that right.. As even the indominatable RBG stated..
Zygotes and embryos do not meet the legal definition of "children," so your question that incorrectly defines abortion as "murder" (which is a legal term) is rendered moot.
This is the 3rd time you brought this up and the 3rd time I tell you that I have already stated that this is accurate..
Again.. Repetitive... Probably a good idea to watch that, Kick... :D
The "sanctity" of life is a religious concept, definitely not a legal one.
No, it's not a religious concept.. It's a concept borne of morality.. Ethics..
Your opinion isn't germane to the discussion.
Again, it's not your place to make that determination. That is up to the moderator..
Again.. Repetitive...
Everyone else is discussing apples while you describe oranges and continue to opine that they're apples,
Not at all.. We are all discussion apples..
But YOU insist on making the discussion about the apple that is barely a speck on the tree..
The moderator is making the point that we are talking about an apple that is a week or so from being plucked from the tree...
I have already conceded that the apple that is barely a speck on the tree, there is no problem with pulling that off the tree..
But you refuse to address the point about the apple being a week away from being ripe and pulled from the tree..
I understand why you refuse to address that ready to be born apple.. Because doing so would expose your argument as the brutal baby-killing justification that it is..
So I understand why you refuse to address the actual subject under discussion..
Wholly not relevant in America.
Actually, it is.. Because here in America there exists even MORE brutal ways of accomplishing a late term baby killing..
So, it's completely relevant to the discussion..
You can leave France out of it also.
Only you brought "france" into the discussion.. I was simply speaking French.. One of 6 languages I speak fluently.. :D
Proud DLI Graduate here.. :D
Once again, Kick I want to thank you for your comments..
Anything that allows me to comment even more is always a welcome gesture..
Thanx again.. I really appreciate it.. :D
Kick,
Even MORE chances to comment.. Thanx SOOO much, Kick.. I love how you give me so many opportunities to comment. :D
Zygotes and embryos (still) aren't babies.
We are not discussing zygotes and embroys. And, the repetitiveness is tiresome..
The point is abortions DON'T only happen in the first few weeks.. Almost 50% of abortions happen AFTER a fetal heartbeat is detected..
The fetal heartbeat (contrary to what Stacey BIG LIE Abrams says) is a real medical phenomenon and that is the logical and rational definition of when life begins..
No two people are exactly alike, and no two pregnancies are exactly alike.
Which is completely non sequitur and not relevant to my point..
If people were like robots and were identical in every way, you'd have a point, but they're not... so you don't.
We are not talking about artificial life forms like Commander Data.. As such, your point is not relevant or germane to the discussion..
Not really.
Yes it really was...
You are meeting the definition he describes. He obviously already explains this in his piece
Factually not accurate....
At no point does the moderator define for himself personally what he believes vis a vis when does a baby actually become a baby..
So, I have to point out that you are not factually accurate in this claim..
A woman's right to abortion already contained restrictions as outlined in Roe v. Wade.
So, you agree that the viability point is the defining parameter.. You agree that, after the 20-24 weeks point, baby killing should be restricted.. That, after the 20-24 week point, Roe V Wade does not allow baby killing..
Is that what you are saying?? That's great.. We have common ground! :D
Democrats want to codify Roe v. Wade as federal law. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Demonrats want a lot of things.. That doesn't mean they are going to get them...
I have to run.. Get the grand-babies to the bus stop..
I'll definite follow up on this discussion in a bit..
Thanx again, Kick for setting up so many of my comments.. :D You are really helping me remain on topic..
Your co-operation is greatly appreciated.. :D
Michale
20
Before we proceed any further, I feel we need to clarify my use of the term "Baby Killing" instead of the antiseptic term "abortion"..
No, we really don't. Your term is your opinion. "Abortion" is a term that is legally defined and primarily performed circa 2022 by taking prescribed medication: Mifeprex or Korlym (brand names) a.k.a. mifepristone (generic) a.k.a. RU 486... followed by misoprostol. So you see, in point of fact, the vast majority of abortions do not remotely meet your definition of "elective surgeries" at all.
As a species, humans have a tendency to create euphemisms to mask unpleasantness.. We talk around things and make up cutesy words and definitions so as to avoid calling a spade a spade..
Russ and I don't mince words around here (he is the only one I speak for... with his permission, of course) and we're well versed in "calling a spade a spade." What we don't generally do is refer to a zygote or embryo as a "baby" and an abortion as "murder." They don't meet the definitions you're assigned to them, and that would include the medical definition and the legal definition.
In the issue of abortion, I feel it is important to talk plainly about what is actually happening here..
In the issue of scrambled eggs, I feel it is important to talk plainly about what is actually happening: Chicken killing. *shakes head*
Yes, talking about babies being killed is extremely unpleasant.. But we have to acknowledge that killing a baby is EXACTLY what we are talking about.
Nope. You don't get to define medical terms and legal terms that are already defined in federal and state law. When/if a state changes their legal definition of a zygote/embryo/fetus to meet your definition, try again.
So let's call a spade a spade and say what it is that is really happening here.. A baby is being killed..
Incorrect medically and incorrect legally.
Pie is ALWAYS on-topic
Pie is ALWAYS on-topic
That remains to be seen... :D
Michale
21
Well, sometimes..
I like MtnCaddy a lot.
... was over the top and completely uncalled for...
Oh, I disagree. MtnCaddy is very talented in the area of calling a spade a spade and keeping things real.
[snip]
Not factually accurate..
One hundred percent accurate since MtnCaddy states unequivocally what he's tired of; I believe the man knows exactly what he's tired of and... spade/spade.
By insinuating that the moderator was taking bribes to allow me to comment, MC was clearly casting aspirations on the integrity and character of the moderator..
Nope. You are confusing "aspirations" with "aspersions"... big difference. You are also confusing MtnCaddy's speculation with an insult toward CW, which it wasn't. He merely speculated that you were paying CW enough to allow CW to forego seeking to grow the forum via additional commenters, whereas you confused (twisted) his words with a "bribe" for you to even post on the forum... a definite difference from what he "said."
There can be no other interpretation of MC's comment..
Yes, there can, particularly if you forego all the word confusion/twisting.
My question is would that insult be considered a YELLOW-CARD offense or a RED-CARD offense..
I wasn't confused about your question.
I am sure you would agree with me that, since we are looking at a much different form of moderation for Weigantia® that we should be given the details on exactly what that will entail..
You would be incorrect. It did not take me a "long 16 years (17??)" to know exactly what that will entail. I have actually been known to quote the author's wishes regarding the issue. If you don't believe me, ask Don Harris. Oh, right; scratch the preceding sentence.
Kick...
:D Thank you soo much for your responses.. :D I love the opportunity to exercise my gray matter.. :D
No, we really don't. Your term is your opinion.
Of course the term is my opinion.. I think that's exactly what I stated.. But thank you for your confirmation..
I agree that "abortion" is the proper term when we are discussing "zygotes and embryos"..
But once a heartbeat is detected, the term "zygotes and embryos" do not apply.. At THAT point, we are discussing a baby.. And the term 'baby killing' is more than appropriate albeit politically incorrect..
I understand your opinion differs.. You want to equivocate the facts to make them less harsh and more palatable to un-informed..
I won't begrudge you your use of the political term.. You DO have a political agenda to adhere to.. I completely understand that.. :D
What we don't generally do is refer to a zygote or embryo as a "baby" and an abortion as "murder." They don't meet the definitions you're assigned to them, and that would include the medical definition and the legal definition.
Not factually accurate..
There are MANY instances where people have been charged with murder for killing an unborn child..
I can provide many examples of such legal prosecutions if you require..
In the issue of scrambled eggs, I feel it is important to talk plainly about what is actually happening: Chicken killing. *shakes head*
If we were talking about animal killings, you would have a valid argument..
But we're talking about human beings, so you don't.. :D
Nope. You don't get to define medical terms and legal terms that are already defined in federal and state law.
And yet, I just did.. :D
When/if a state changes their legal definition of a zygote/embryo/fetus to meet your definition, try again.
We're not talking about zygotes or embryos.. We're talking about a life form with a human heartbeat..
Again, I understand your need to keep the discussion centered on zygotes and embryos.. It's the only way that your argument can work..
But we're not talking about zygotes and embryos..
We are talking about apples and you want to talk about Eskimos.. :D
Incorrect medically and incorrect legally.
According to SCIENCE and according to the law..
You are factually not accurate.. :D
Thanx again for keeping the discussion going, Kick.. I couldn't have done it without ya... : D
Kick,
I like MtnCaddy a lot.
That much is obvious.. :D
Nope. You are confusing "aspirations" with "aspersions"...
Nope.. I was not confused.. My spell-checker was..
Yes, MC was casting aspersions on the character of the moderator..
I am glad we agree on that point..
He merely speculated that you were paying CW enough to allow CW to forego seeking to grow the forum
Yes.. AKA a bribe.. MC was claiming that I was bribing the moderator so that the moderator would allow me to comment here in Weigantia®..
That is a direct personal attack on the character and integrity of the moderator..
I wasn't confused about your question.
And yet, the facts clearly show otherwise.. :D
Once again, thank you for your responses, Kick..
They are greatly appreciated! :D
Now I need to find out where I left off with regards to the moderator's commentary...
It does not happen, period. Let me educate you, since you are obviously quite ignorant about these subjects and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt why clueless male legislators simply should not be making these decisions at all for any woman.
Not factually accurate..
A full 10% of baby killings are considered "late term" IE within the last trimester.
In the second place, I defy you to present me a single case of any woman in America that got a purely elective abortion anywhere near the "time of birth," as you put it. Once again: they do not happen, period.
Not factually accurate..
There are MANY details shared within the #SHOUTYOURABORTION and #CELEBRATEYOURABORTION online groups that describe EXACTLY what you claim did not happen..
When a woman is in her third trimester, she is ready and willing to have a baby -- or at least that was true before Republicans began taking women's freedoms away from them and trying to force them to give birth.
Hmmmmm...
So what you are saying is that ALL women are "ready and willing to have a baby" in the third trimester...
But NOW that Roe V Wade has been discarded onto the trash heap of history where it belongs, NOW women in the 3rd trimester are pissed off at that and NOW they DON'T want to have their babies??
Are you saying that women in the 3rd Trimester are NOW not "ready and willing" to have their babies out of spite!!???
That's crazy, I am sure you would agree...
That woman wants to be a mother. She wants that child. Ask one, she'll tell you.
So, this supposed Left Winger castigates the GOP for speaking for all women and then turns around and speaks for all women??
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
I'm just sayin'... :D
But her doctor comes to her with the most traumatic news any mother-to-be can get: her fetus has a serious congenital disorder and is so malformed that it might not even survive until birth. If it does, it will certainly die very soon after. Or it would be so medically dangerous for the woman to continue her pregnancy she will risk serious problems herself, up to and including dying.
There hasn't been ANYONE on the pro-baby side of the issue that has claimed that a woman should be forced to give birth if it endangers the life of the mother..
This is a red-herring argument that is not factually valid..
This is the point where my opponent thinks the men who sit on some legislative committee should be the ones to decide what happens.
Beyond the FACT that many on those committees are women, it's a point of fact that NO ONE, men or women, on the PRO BABY side of the equation has stated that the life of the mother is NOT a consideration..
Michale
23
It's the epitome of fear-mongering for the Left that they scream "THE SCOTUS JUST TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO KILL OUR BABIES!!!!"
No one is saying that. They're saying they overturned Roe v. Wade which granted a federal right that has since been removed.
...when, in actuality, the SCOTUS did no such thing..
They overturned the federal right to obtain an abortion. You can claim that they didn't until the cows come home, and you'll still be incorrect.
If a liberal SCOTUS took away your right to carry a firearm unless you were part of a well-regulated militia (not out of the realm of possibility since those words are definitely contained in the Second Amendment), I do not believe for one second that you would make the asinine claim that the SCOTUS didn't remove a right.
All the SCOTUS did was take the question AWAY from the federal government and place it back to the authority of the states where it belongs..
Exactly, the SCOTUS removed the constitutional right. The SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade established that it was a constitutional right based on right to privacy. The SCOTUS circa 2022 removed that constitutional right. Hence, the right was removed. This isn't at all complicated.
It is noted by MANY legal scholars including the indominable RBG that ROE should NEVER have been created..
Totally incorrect as has been proven on this board ad nauseam. Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor. She believed abortion was a right and that Roe should have been decided based on the equal protection clause.
Michale
24
Yes.. True.. But, as the moderator, he can allow Off Topic comments as he sees fit..
Obviously, and you've wasted no time whatsoever trying to obtain permission for you to continue posting totally off topic.
CW was a huge Star Trek fan and Trek (or sci fi in general) discussions were obviously off topic, but they were still allowed..
Yes, I know. I've been known to quote him with his wishes.
I am only asking for such consideration to post END OF WATCH comments to honor our fallen LEOs.. I am sure you would agree that we should honor our fallen LEOs and treat them with respect they have earned..
I don't feel it honors our fallen LEOs to post their names on another man's political blog. If posters wish to honor "our fallen LEOs," there are multiple other websites on which they do that.
EXACTLY my point.. Thank you for agreeing with me..
Note to self: Michale needs instruction in sarcasm.
I do hope the moderator DOES allow you to post your favorite pie recipes..
There are thousands of them. If I start now, I could be finished honoring pie in a decade or so. /sarcasm
Our Imaginary Friend who art in GQP-Heaven, hallowed be thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy misogynist will be done in the US as it is in Iran.
Give us this day our daily hypocrisy and forgive us the abortions we pay for and we will never forgive those who abort against us.
And lead us not into reason, but deliver us from choice.
For Thine is the self-righteousness and the hocus pocus and the cognitive dissonance forever and ever.
Or else.
There is only one extremist on this stage, and it is the man who wants to dictate to you and your daughters what freedoms they will allow you to have with your own body. Because they think doing so would benefit them politically.
And yet, the FACT remains... The SCIENTIFICLY PROVEN fact remains..
NO ONE is talking about the WOMAN'S body..
We are talking about the BABY'S body...
And that life deserves as MUCH consideration (if not more) as the life of the mother, up to (but not including) the death of the mother..
Elective baby killings happen.. This is fact...
And laws should be created to PREVENT these from happening if the life of the mother is NOT threatened..
Kick,
Awesome!! More comments to respond to!! :D Thanx..
Obviously, and you've wasted no time whatsoever trying to obtain permission for you to continue posting totally off topic.
Yes.. I wasted no time in trying to secure permission to continue to honor my fallen brethren.. As a police officer myself, I consider it a sacred privilege to honor my fellow fallen LEOs in such a manner..
Apologies if you have a problem with that, but.. well.. It's your problem..
:D
Yes, I know.
OK, then.. So what's the problem? If the moderator allows LEO and Trek and Pie and Music Fest comments, where exactly is your problem??
I don't feel it honors our fallen LEOs to post their names on another man's political blog.
I respect your opinion..
If posters wish to honor "our fallen LEOs," there are multiple other websites on which they do that.
But you just don't want them honored in Weigantia®.. Why, exactly??
There are thousands of them. If I start now, I could be finished honoring pie in a decade or so. /sarcasm
Well, if the moderator allows it, then I say more power to ya..
I still don't understand what your problem is....
Our Imaginary Friend who art in GQP-Heaven, hallowed be thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy misogynist will be done in the US as it is in Iran.
Give us this day our daily hypocrisy and forgive us the abortions we pay for and we will never forgive those who abort against us.
And lead us not into reason, but deliver us from choice.
For Thine is the self-righteousness and the hocus pocus and the cognitive dissonance forever and ever.
Or else.
Amen.... :D
Kick,
Awesome!! :D
No one is saying that. They're saying they overturned Roe v. Wade which granted a federal right that has since been removed.
And replaced it with an issue that is better addressed by the states..
Even RBG said that this is as it should be..
Basically, abortion/baby killing is decided by DEMOCRACY..
As it was in Kansas...
No one who is a patriotic American should have ANY problem with this..
If a liberal SCOTUS took away your right to carry a firearm unless you were part of a well-regulated militia (not out of the realm of possibility since those words are definitely contained in the Second Amendment), I do not believe for one second that you would make the asinine claim that the SCOTUS didn't remove a right.
The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the Constitution.. It's unequivocal..
There is no valid claim of Constitutional analogy to abortion/baby killing..
Once again, you are comparing apples and eskimos..
Thanx again for your comments, Kick.. They are VERY greatly appreciated.. :D
Allow me to take a poll here...
Postulate a scenario where we have the technology where we can terminate a pregnancy and STILL save the life of the child...
Basically women can terminate their pregnancies without killing a human being...
Under THOSE circumstances, would ya'all support a law to make all conventional abortions/baby killings illegal..
Bonus points for explaining why/why not.. :D
Michale
30
Actually, it IS related..
"Whataboutism" by definition is a counteraccusation that raises a different issue. It sometimes borders on fallacy.
The moderator postulated a GOP tactic and appeared to denigrate that tactic..
He spent an entire column denigrating that tactic. Your responses resembled the tactic that he definitely denigrated. Your whataboutism was superfluous.
I simply pointed out that the Left ALSO uses that exact same tactic and made the logical and rational connection between the two political tactics..
I believe that's what you thought you did, but your "whataboutism" simply changed the topic of discussion for a fleeting moment and did nothing to disprove his statement. Allow me to demonstrate.
CW: Republicans eat Boston cream pie.
Michale: Democrats eat cherry pie too, and here's the recipe from China.
Kick: We're discussing Republicans, and who gives a shit about Chinese cherry pie?
Further, why don't we let the moderator decide what is and is not related to the subject at hand.. Mmm 'kay?? :D
I don't need the author to explain to me that he wasn't discussing your "whataboutism."
Your becoming repetitive, Kick..
You're projecting.
No, that's not what I said.. The moderator chose the WRONG lesser of two evils..
You missed the point. He wasn't choosing the "lesser of two evils," he was refuting the asinine Republican extemist talking points.
ERRONEOUSLY established that right.. As even the indominatable RBG stated..
It's disingenuous and outright misinformation to keep repeating the asinine claim that RBG thought abortion wasn't a right just because she thought Roe should have been decided under the Right to Equal Protection and not the Right to Privacy.
This is the 3rd time you brought this up and the 3rd time I tell you that I have already stated that this is accurate..
Yes, I am accurate.
The "sanctity" of life is a religious concept, definitely not a legal one.
No, it's not a religious concept..
Pray tell, then: What exactly do you think "sanctity" means? Rhetorical question. It's a religious concept by definition.
It's a concept borne of morality.. Ethics..
Incorrect. It literally means holy, sacred, and that's definitely a religious concept. It's not an either/or proposition, though, since religion definitely defines morality, although not all religions share equal definitions regarding the morality of abortion... varying even among the Abrahamic religions of which Christianity departs from Judaism. There's a good argument that the right to abortion is a First Amendment issue due to the fact that termination of a pregnancy is not only permitted in Judaism but sometimes required.
Again, it's not your place to make that determination. That is up to the moderator..
Your opinion of the "over-ridding factor here" (sic) isn't germane to CW's talking points for Democrats. No politician in a political debate will be answering a question regarding whether or not they agree with Michale's opinion. I don't need the author to explain that to me.
But you refuse to address the point about the apple being a week away from being ripe and pulled from the tree..
I have no need to address your personal opinion. CW spent an entire column nailing down the talking point perfectly, and I've already agreed with him. Your personal opinion isn't a factor here.
I understand why you refuse to address that ready to be born apple.. Because doing so would expose your argument as the brutal baby-killing justification that it is..
You obviously don't understand. I've already stated unequivocally that CW stated it perfectly. The column wasn't about you and your opinion.
Only you brought "france" into the discussion.. I was simply speaking French..
It's "France"... a proper noun.
One of 6 languages I speak fluently..
Sure you do, and I have a unicorn that farts rainbows.
I would think it self evident that an apple is not the same thing as a tree, and eating apple pie is not the same as chopping down the apple tree. The former is healthy and delicious, the latter senseless and destructive. Keep up, guys!
I would think it self evident that an apple is not the same thing as a tree, and eating apple pie is not the same as chopping down the apple tree.
How does that relay in the context of abortions and baby killings???
Michale
31
We are not discussing zygotes and embroys. And, the repetitiveness is tiresome..
Yes, we are. A fertilized egg goes through multiple changes before it becomes a viable baby. If you don't understand those stages of development, then you might want to rethink giving lectures to anyone regarding the subject.
The point is abortions DON'T only happen in the first few weeks..
State the obvious.
Almost 50% of abortions happen AFTER a fetal heartbeat is detected..
Scientifically incorrect. We've already discussed this on this forum that it's not actually a heartbeat (fetal pole) and not even a fetus at six weeks (it's still an embryo). An embryo doesn't have a heart and isn't yet a fetus at six weeks.
The fetal heartbeat (contrary to what Stacey BIG LIE Abrams says) is a real medical phenomenon and that is the logical and rational definition of when life begins..
Non serious.
Which is completely non sequitur and not relevant to my point..
You're comparing having an abortion to "elective surgeries and medically necessary surgeries." If you think abortion is non sequitur, then I'm pretty close to done discussing this with you. An elective surgery/abortion for one person might be a wholly necessary surgery/abortion for another person. For instance, children being mandated to give forced birth.
We are not talking about artificial life forms like Commander Data.. As such, your point is not relevant or germane to the discussion..
Non serious. I said nothing about "Commander Data." I said that one person's elective surgery is another person's medically necessary surgery and people aren't robots. One size does not fit all like you and the right-wing politicians seem to want to claim.
Demonrats want a lot of things.. That doesn't mean they are going to get them...
You want to continue to hurl your terms on this forum that dehumanize Democrats? Grow up.
Hey Kick,
You have way the hell more patience than I trying to deal with @m, whose comments suggest that he didn't read the column closely, if at all. Unless and until I see otherwise he's still simply a more sophisticated but equally useless Don Harris... thus leaving me still searching for a cogent conservative outside of Hillsdale College and Jordan Peterson.
On the bright side @m, this morning may have been the first time this year that I read all of your comments (except for the End of Watch thing which doesn't belong here. If you want to honor people in a profession that you have obviously long aspired to* can't you do better than polluting Weigantia? Make a contribution or something.) I regularly visit Fox, Newsmax and OAN to check on the dark side, so all those long boldified unattribited (and unlinked) quotes are a deal killer for me.
*No, I don't believe you were a LEO and I'm doubtful you are a Veteran. This from your own words.
On topic...
For the record I am against ANY restrictions whatsoever on women's rights to control their own lives. It's worse than a solution in search of a non existent problem, because it was used slippery slope style to whittle down women's 4th Amendment rights to the point where this final leap into The Handmaiden's Tale would hopefully prove not so politically costly to the Repugs.
Michale
36
I agree that "abortion" is the proper term when we are discussing "zygotes and embryos"..
Your personal opinion doesn't change science.
But once a heartbeat is detected, the term "zygotes and embryos" do not apply..
It's not a fetal heartbeat that's detected around six weeks, it's only described as such. At around six weeks, it's still an embryo.
At THAT point, we are discussing a baby..
You are discussing a baby; your personal opinion doesn't change the science and magically constitute a "baby."
I understand your opinion differs.. You want to equivocate the facts to make them less harsh and more palatable to un-informed..
Stop putting words in my mouth and assigning traits to me that don't exist.
I won't begrudge you your use of the political term.. You DO have a political agenda to adhere to.. I completely understand that.. :D
You're projecting again.
There are MANY instances where people have been charged with murder for killing an unborn child..
Not relevant to CW's talking point.
If we were talking about animal killings, you would have a valid argument..
And yet, I just did.. :D
You gave your opinion that isn't relevant to law or science.
Again, I understand your need to keep the discussion centered on zygotes and embryos..
You're talking "fetal heartbeart." I'm telling you what is heard at six weeks is neither a heartbeat nor a fetus.
It's the only way that your argument can work..
Incorrect. I can see why you're confused, though. You just claimed humans weren't animals. You might want to get an education regarding the subject matter before you attempt to give lectures on it.
Michale
37
Nope.. I was not confused.. My spell-checker was..
Learn to spell so you won't confuse it and seem confused to other people.
Yes, MC was casting aspersions on the character of the moderator..
We don't agree he was casting; we do agree you meant "aspersions" even if you confused your spell checker.
I am glad we agree on that point..
We don't agree on the casting.
Yes.. AKA a bribe.. MC was claiming that I was bribing the moderator so that the moderator would allow me to comment here in Weigantia®..
I disagree. He above all others knows that you didn't pay the author when you reneged on your bet. Why would he therefore make the claim that you "bribed" CW in order to post knowing full well that you actually stiffed him. You need sarcasm explained? Rhetorical question.
That is a direct personal attack on the character and integrity of the moderator..
Nope. If you don't believe me, ask him.
Michale
38
A full 10% of baby killings are considered "late term" IE within the last trimester.
Incorrect. The last trimester begins at 28 weeks. The CDC data reports <1% of abortions were performed at ?21 weeks' gestation:
Not factually accurate..
There are MANY details shared within the #SHOUTYOURABORTION and #CELEBRATEYOURABORTION online groups that describe EXACTLY what you claim did not happen..
You don't think people with a political agenda would lie on the Internet, do you? Nah... that would never happen! /sarcasm
So what you are saying is that ALL women are "ready and willing to have a baby" in the third trimester...
You're doing that thing where you just invent stuff to fit your political narrative.
So, this supposed Left Winger castigates the GOP for speaking for all women and then turns around and speaks for all women??
No, the Leftie castigates the GOP for legislating forced birth for women and then proves the Republican "extremist" talking point is BS.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
You should give that one a rest. People will think it's the only argument you've got. Oh, wait.
There hasn't been ANYONE on the pro-baby side of the issue that has claimed that a woman should be forced to give birth if it endangers the life of the mother..
Incorrect.
This is a red-herring argument that is not factually valid..
Incorrect.
Beyond the FACT that many on those committees are women, it's a point of fact that NO ONE, men or women, on the PRO BABY side of the equation has stated that the life of the mother is NOT a consideration..
Incorrect.
John From Censornati
41
Our Imaginary Friend who art in GQP-Heaven, hallowed be thy multiple names and personalities.
Heh. :)
Awesome sauce!! So many comments to respond to!! :D
And here I was concerned that remaining on topic would cut into my comment count!! :D
MC,
You have way the hell more patience than I trying to deal with @m, whose comments suggest that he didn't read the column closely, if at all. Unless and until I see otherwise he's still simply a more sophisticated but equally useless Don Harris... thus leaving me still searching for a cogent conservative outside of Hillsdale College and Jordan Peterson.
On the bright side @m, this morning may have been the first time this year that I read all of your comments (except for the End of Watch thing which doesn't belong here. If you want to honor people in a profession that you have obviously long aspired to* can't you do better than polluting Weigantia? Make a contribution or something.) I regularly visit Fox, Newsmax and OAN to check on the dark side, so all those long boldified unattribited (and unlinked) quotes are a deal killer for me.
*No, I don't believe you were a LEO and I'm doubtful you are a Veteran. This from your own words.
This entire part is off topic (as you yourself admits) and, frankly toes the line of a personal attack...
I mean, MC... I could go in depth of your admitted Dishonorable Discharge and the fact that you can't call yourself a Veteran with a DD...
But I won't go in depth to that because it is off-topic and borders on a personal attack..
I WILL, however, relay two facts...
#1. My LEO and Military bona-fides are well established as factual..
#2. Your belief that my public safety career is not factual is solely and completely based on your political bigotry and hate and not on ANY supporting facts whatsoever..
Given that, what you believe is completely and totally not relevant to anything..
NOW.. I'll move on to the ON TOPIC part of your comment..
For the record I am against ANY restrictions whatsoever on women's rights to control their own lives.
Yes.. I believe I have noted that you are alone amongst ALL the Weigantians® who believes that a woman has the right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth.. This calls into question the moderator's claim that "NO ONE is talking about unlimited baby killing up to the point of birth.."
Obviously there ARE Demonrats who DO believe that killing the baby right up to the point of birth is acceptable.. As you yourself have proven..
It's worse than a solution in search of a non existent problem, because it was used slippery slope style to whittle down women's 4th Amendment rights to the point where this final leap into The Handmaiden's Tale would hopefully prove not so politically costly to the Repugs.
I would VERY much like to see how you can tie baby killing restrictions to the 4th Amendment...
By all means.. Do tell.. :D
Michale
42
NO ONE is talking about the WOMAN'S body..
We are talking about the BABY'S body...
This is not an either/or proposition. If someone is discussing an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus, they're fooling themselves if they believe a "WOMAN'S body" or even a 10-year-old child's body isn't a consideration.
And that life deserves as MUCH consideration (if not more) as the life of the mother, up to (but not including) the death of the mother..
You are entitled to your misguided opinion; you aren't entitled to dictate what goes on in another person's womb because it's not yours.
You're on record stating that a cake baker in Colorado should not be forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, but you believe a woman should be forced to give birth to her rapist' baby. You see the problem?
And laws should be created to PREVENT these from happening if the life of the mother is NOT threatened..
You're not qualified or entitled to decide whether or not a woman or child's life is threatened and neither is Congress. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. If you don't like others having an abortion and want to force them to give birth, go find another baker.
MC,
Apologies.. There IS a portion of your Off Topic rant I would like to address...
(except for the End of Watch thing which doesn't belong here. If you want to honor people in a profession that you have obviously long aspired to* can't you do better than polluting Weigantia? Make a contribution or something.)
So, you feel that honoring fallen LEOs amounts to pollution???
Well.. OK.. :^/
Such an attitude IS in keeping with Demonrats and their Cop Hate... So I guess it should not be surprising at all..
Hey Kick,
If I "bribed" CW to post comment #1, you know what? There's no rules or laws against that on either end of the transaction. He's also free to charge people to use his website - even charge different rates. There's nothing unethical or shameful about it. Freedom!
Conversely, Dear Orange Leader runs around bragging about making and taking illegal bribes. He doesn't appear as if he thinks he's casting aspersions on himself, but much like his marks, he's pretty stupid.
You're on record stating that a cake baker in Colorado should not be forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, but you believe a woman should be forced to give birth to her rapist' baby. You see the problem?
Nope.. I don't see a problem..
If a woman is raped and wants to terminate the pregnancy, she should do so before there is a fetal heartbeat...
NO ONE would have a problem with that..
But if your fantasy rape victim carries the baby for 8 months and THEN tries to kill her baby, she should be prevented from doing so..
You're not qualified or entitled to decide whether or not a woman or child's life is threatened and neither is Congress.
Neither is the SCOTUS.. Which is why Roe V Wade was bad law..
It's a question that should be decided by the states in a DEMOCRATIC process..
Which is exactly what the SCOTUS made happen..
But it IS interesting that you admit that Congress shouldn't have any say..
So, you would oppose Congress codifying Roe V Wade into federal law..
That's a surprising admission from you, Kick.. :D
Kick,
Thanx again for your comments.. As I mentioned I was afraid being limited to ON TOPIC comments only might put a dent in my comment count..
Thank you for showing me that it wont.. :D
Pray tell, then: What exactly do you think "sanctity" means? Rhetorical question. It's a religious concept by definition.
If we were talking about JUST 'sanctity' you would have a point..
But we're not, so you don't..
We were discussing SANCTITY OF LIFE which has basis in both religion AND ethics...
I was referring to the ethics argument.
"What we call law is nothing more or less than the public’s collective belief, their conviction of what right and wrong is. Whether it’s about murder, kidnapping, or running a red light, society decides what the rules are. In a democratic republic, we do that through the legislature by electing people who share our views. That’s how laws happen. We also set up a constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is very carefully considered because it decides what the other laws may and may not do, and therefore it protects us against our transitory passions. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, or in this case the constitutional principles embodied in those laws, as they apply to reality. In Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court went too far. It legislated; it changed the law in a way not anticipated by the drafters, and that was an error. All a reversal of Roe will do is return the abortion issue to the state legislatures, where it belongs."
-President Jack Ryan, THE BEAR AND THE DRAGON
Life imitates art.. :D The above was written 22 years ago.. :D
Roe V Wade was wrongly decided... Even RBG stated as such...
When SCOTUS threw RvW on the trash heap of history, the SCOTUS merely returned the issue to the states where it belongs..
So the issue could be decided within the DEMOCRATIC process..
Why do ya'all have such a problem with actual DEMOCRACY???
Incorrect. It literally means holy, sacred, and that's definitely a religious concept.
Again, if we were talking about SANCTITY, you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't..
We are talking about SANCTITY OF LIFE.. Which is an ETHICAL discussion, not a religious one..
Or are you saying that ONLY religious people have a respect for life and that those who are NOT religious have no respect for life and don't respect the "sanctity of life??
Is that what you are saying??
Michale
43
Apologies if you have a problem with that, but.. well.. It's your problem..
It's my opinion, not a problem.
OK, then.. So what's the problem? If the moderator allows LEO and Trek and Pie and Music Fest comments, where exactly is your problem??
I gave an opinion regarding your fallen LEO posts, I don't appreciate you extrapolating that out to include the other things you listed as if I gave an opinion about them also, which I most certainly did not (yet).
I think anyone posting the names of fallen police officers on a political blog constitutes the politicization of their deaths and does not honor them at all. I would be mortified if somebody posted my best friend's name on a right-wing political blog in order to honor her, and I can assure you her family wouldn't want her death posted on a political blog where a bunch of Trump supporters were worshiping the twice-impeached criminal former president and talking political issues. Same thing in reverse for one of my cousins who is a Republican having his name politicized on a lefty political forum; him and my aunt would be mortified.
It does not honor deceased officers to politicize their deaths in a manner they or their families wouldn't approve. Just my opinion.
As for all those other things: Don't Stop Me Now
I respect your opinion..
Then kindly don't extrapolate from it or refer to it as a "problem."
Michale
45
And replaced it with an issue that is better addressed by the states..
I disagree.
Even RBG said that this is as it should be..
No she most certainly did not. She said that abortion should be a federal right of women based on the Equal Protection Clause.
Basically, abortion/baby killing is decided by DEMOCRACY..
Federal democracy is no less democracy than state democracy. In fact, federal law supersedes state law as outlined in the United States Constitution... the Supremacy Clause.
No one who is a patriotic American should have ANY problem with this..
I'm not responding to this asinine BS of yours where you make the inference that anyone who disagrees with your political opinion isn't patriotic.
The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the Constitution.. It's unequivocal..
It unequivocally states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"... which could one day be decided (as it's actually written" to require that a person be part of a well-regulated Militia in order to "keep and bear" them.
You seem to not understand that the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade decided that women had a constitutional right to an abortion. You seem to also not understand that Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion based on Equal Protection. You seem to also not understand that a future SCOTUS could interpret the Second Amendment in a different manner and require that you belong to a well-regulted Militia in order to "keep and bear arms."
There is no valid claim of Constitutional analogy to abortion/baby killing..
You seem to not understand that there was a constitutional right established via Roe. You also seem to not understand that overturning Roe removed that constitutional right and that the Second Amendment could also be reinterpreted in a manner that would remove a right to bear arms to limit it as written on its face.
Once again, you are comparing apples and eskimos..
Nope.
Michale
46
Allow me to take a poll here...
Granted.
Postulate a scenario where we have the technology where we can terminate a pregnancy and STILL save the life of the child...
That's not a poll. What part of "terminate" is confusing? Rhetorical question.
Kick,
Once again.. Thanx so much for your comments.. I love it!! :D
I gave an opinion regarding your fallen LEO posts, I don't appreciate you extrapolating that out to include the other things you listed as if I gave an opinion about them also, which I most certainly did not (yet).
Ahhh.. So, you are fine with the other things, but JUST have a problem with comments honoring fallen LEOs.. Much like MC says those comments that honor fallen LEOs are "polluting"....
Given ya'all's political leanings, I can readily understand WHY ya'all feel that way..
K sara sara...
Federal democracy is no less democracy than state democracy.
Not factually accurate..
In the state democracy, it's the VOTERS who actually decide the issue.. As in the case of Kansas...
In a federal democracy, it's politicians who decide the issues..
So, you are not factually accurate when you claim that state democracy and federal democracy is the same..
That's not a poll. What part of "terminate" is confusing? Rhetorical question.
It WAS a poll.. You just ignored the POLL part...
Allow me to correct you..
Postulate a scenario where we have the technology where we can terminate a pregnancy and STILL save the life of the child...
Basically women can terminate their pregnancies without killing a human being...
POLL PART....
Under THOSE circumstances, would ya'all support a law to make all conventional abortions/baby killings illegal..
Bonus points for explaining why/why not.. :D
Care to actually answer the poll??
It unequivocally states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"... which could one day be decided (as it's actually written" to require that a person be part of a well-regulated Militia in order to "keep and bear" them.
Again.. Not factually accurate..
At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" meant "well run" or "efficient".. It had nothing to do with ANY government rules or regulations..
Further, the plain text of the 2nd simply uses the militia part of the 2nd as an EXAMPLE of WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
The 2nd could have easily said this:
Being that self-defence and defence of the innocent are inalienable human rights, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That would have had the exact same meaning and impact that the current 2nd has..
Further, papers and documents of the time period on which the Constitution was based prove quite clearly that the meaning was that the people have the right to keep and bear arms completely and separate from any 'militia' issue..
Finally, there are MANY State Constitutions that clarify the point that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is for self-defense and defense of others completely separate from any issue regarding militias..
So, no matter how ya want to spin things, you are wrong, Kick.. :D
But thanx again for the comments.. :D They are REALLY appreciated.. :D
I am gonna be in REAL hurtin' status if Kick ever stops addressing my comments!! :D
heh
MtnCaddy
51
Hey Kick,
Hey you.
You have way the hell more patience than I trying to deal with @m, whose comments suggest that he didn't read the column closely, if at all.
I definitely get the feeling he doesn't understand that the SCOTUS decided abortion was a constitutional right because he keeps making the claim that nothing was taken away; that's a demonstrably false statement. A constitutional right was determined to exist by the SCOTUS in Roe and determined not to exist in Dobbs. Anyone claiming nothing was removed is confused and not paying attention for nigh on near 50 years. The right existed; now it does not. Anybody claiming it never existed is confused or lying.
... thus leaving me still searching for a cogent conservative outside of Hillsdale College and Jordan Peterson.
Heh.
On topic...
For the record I am against ANY restrictions whatsoever on women's rights to control their own lives.
You and me and RBG.
For those who don't agree with abortion, don't have one. For those who want to write laws that mandate a victim of rape or incest be forced to give birth: Eat shit, pound sand, find another cake baker.
For the record I am against ANY restrictions whatsoever on women's rights to control their own lives.
You and me and RBG.
So, you feel that a woman has a right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth...
That's interesting..
So, I guess there are TWO people in Weigantia® who think that women should have unrestricted access to baby killing for any reason whatsoever up to the point of birth..
Well, OK.. We'll just have to disagree on that.. :D
For the record there are absolutely NO FACTS to even SUPPORT the claim that RBG was for unrestricted baby killing up to the point of birth..
NO FACTS WHATSOEVER...
It is against my religious beliefs to make babies for rapists and criminals.
If you think the cake baker shouldn't have to bake for a same-sex couple, then you shouldn't expect a female to make a baby for a rapist.
It is against my religious beliefs to make babies for rapists and criminals.
Which means that you are for killing an innocent life for the crimes of their father..
OK... If that's how you feel about it.. More power to ya.. :^/
If you think the cake baker shouldn't have to bake for a same-sex couple, then you shouldn't expect a female to make a baby for a rapist.
And we're back to comparing apples and eskimos.. :eyeroll:
Michale
56
This entire part is off topic (as you yourself admits) and, frankly toes the line of a personal attack...
You (again) made the claim above in [43] that you are a police officer. If that's off topic, then you probably shouldn't have posted it. If MtnCaddy reads one of your admittedly off-topic claims and says he doesn't believe you, it's patently ridiculous to lecture him on going off topic and making a personal attack.
Your belief that my public safety career is not factual is solely and completely based on your political bigotry and hate and not on ANY supporting facts whatsoever..
You don't seriously believe that you get to throw out terms like "solely and completely" and "bigotry and hate" and then claim to read people's minds should be taken seriously around here, do you? Not really a question.
Given that, what you believe is completely and totally not relevant to anything..
Incorrect. What you claim he believes doesn't qualify as a fact; it just doesn't. Also, what he posted is relevant to the claim you made in a post in this commentary at [43].
NOW.. I'll move on to the ON TOPIC part of your comment..
Like I said, you made the claim above, MtnCaddy simply responded; busting him is rather pointless under the circumstances such as they are.
Yes.. I believe I have noted that you are alone amongst ALL the Weigantians® who believes that a woman has the right to kill her baby right up to the point of birth..
You can't know possibly know what everyone believes, and CW has proven your repetitive claptrap is nothing but Republican extremism with his excellent talking point.
This calls into question the moderator's claim that "NO ONE is talking about unlimited baby killing up to the point of birth.."
It's a talking point for Democrats. You should probably go back and read it. It wasn't about you or your personal beliefs or even MtnCaddy and his beliefs.
Do you need "talking point" explained to you?
I would VERY much like to see how you can tie baby killing restrictions to the 4th Amendment...
You need the Fourth Amendment explained to you about bodily seizure and the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures... and yet you scoff at anyone who deigns to question your claim that you're a police officer. Wow.
Michale
58
Such an attitude IS in keeping with Demonrats and their Cop Hate... So I guess it should not be surprising at all..
Knock off the effing dehumanization of those who don't share your political beliefs. On the other hand, I'm obviously not the only one who believes it doesn't "honor the fallen" the least little bit when you politicize their deaths on a political chat board wherein you use that same "mouth" of yours to dehumanize other people.
You understanding any of this?
Michale
58
Such an attitude IS in keeping with Demonrats and their Cop Hate... So I guess it should not be surprising at all..
Knock off the effing dehumanization of those who don't share your political beliefs. On the other hand, I'm obviously not the only one who believes it doesn't "honor the fallen" the least little bit when you politicize their deaths on a political chat board wherein you use that same "mouth" of yours to dehumanize other people.
You understanding any of this?
Kick,
Awesome!! More comments!! Keep them coming!! :D
You (again) made the claim above in [43] that you are a police officer.
Just stating a fact.. I am actually retired but, like Marines, there is really no such thing as a "FORMER" police officer..
"Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are"
-James Woods, THE HARD WAY...
If that's off topic, then you probably shouldn't have posted it.
It was made in response to YOUR comment about objecting to comments honoring fallen LEOs.. Which was in response to MY question to the moderator regarding whether such honor comments would be allowed..
Regardless, MC pursuing that line of comments in the manner he did would likely be considered OFF TOPIC...
And here we are..
You don't seriously believe that you get to throw out terms like "solely and completely" and "bigotry and hate" and then claim to read people's minds should be taken seriously around here, do you? Not really a question.
I call them as I see them.. Since there are absolutely ZERO FACTS to support MC's questioning of my LEO bona fides, the ONLY logical conclusion is that his questioning simply comes from his hate of LEOs in general (a common occurrence amongst drug addicts who have bad experience with LEOs) and my political persuasion in particular..
Irregardless of all THAT, do you honestly believe that my personal life is ON TOPIC here in this discussion??
You can't know possibly know what everyone believes,
Those that have answered the questions previously, I can certainly say I know what they believe..
Both JL and Liz have conceded that they DO support abortion restrictions at SOME point in a woman's pregnancy..
It's a talking point for Democrats.
Yes it is.. And it has the same validity that ya'all ascribe to Republican talking points.. :D
Thank you for that concession.. :D
You need the Fourth Amendment explained to you
In the context of Demonrats and their baby killing attitudes..
Yes.. I very much need to have that connection explained to me..
Would you like to do the honors?? :D
Once again.. Thanx so much for your comments.. I thought I was done for the night and yet.. here you are!!! :D WOOT!! :D
Knock off the effing dehumanization of those who don't share your political beliefs.
I simply point out the Demonrat's natural reaction of hating LEOs.. The facts that prove this are as overwhelming as they are conclusive..
You understanding any of this?
Absolutely.. You hate cops and don't like to see them honored...
I completely understand.. 1000% unequivocally understand..
Well, this has been a really fun day.. :D
I am hopeful that this will signal a new beginning for Weigantia® where we can discuss things without gross and perverse attacks on family members..
That has been my goal this entire time and it looks like that goal has been realized..
"I love it when a plan comes together!"
-Hannibal Smith, THE A-TEAM
:D
I look forward to the weekend with fun and exciting debates and discussions..
I'll see ya'all in the morning.. :D
John From Censornati
59
Hey Kick
Hey you.
If I "bribed" CW to post comment #1, you know what?
What?
There's no rules or laws against that on either end of the transaction.
You are dead-on-balls accurate.
He's also free to charge people to use his website - even charge different rates.
You speak of capitalism, and you speak actual facts!
There's nothing unethical or shameful about it.
I totally agree with you, John (not to be confused with the other John). And in all honesty, I wish CW would charge posters... (how?)... by the letter!
Freedom!
Damn right!
Conversely, Dear Orange Leader runs around bragging about making and taking illegal bribes. He doesn't appear as if he thinks he's casting aspersions on himself, but much like his marks, he's pretty stupid.
Dumb Orange is also on record asking a book author not to tell anyone that it was him who handed over classified documents to the journalist.
Now I ask you: Why would Bob Woodward have to "tell" when he could simply roll tape?
Michale
60
Nope.. I don't see a problem..
I believe you're incapable.
If a woman is raped and wants to terminate the pregnancy, she should do so before there is a fetal heartbeat...
That isn't possible in multiple states that have no exception for rape. I'm not going to continue to explain this to someone who seems incapable of grasping the concept.
NO ONE would have a problem with that..
Incorrect (again). Multiple states have already criminalized abortion in case of rape.
But if your fantasy rape victim carries the baby for 8 months and THEN tries to kill her baby, she should be prevented from doing so..
Your Republican extremist talking point has already been ripped to shreds by CW, and I've already proven that your third trimester claim of 10% was incorrect by a long shot and amount to less than 1%.
Neither is the SCOTUS..
I agree.
Which is why Roe V Wade was bad law..
Incorrect. It's why the Roe decision contained strict language regarding physicians.
It's a question that should be decided by the states in a DEMOCRATIC process..
Federal laws are no less "democratic" than state laws and, in fact, supersede them. I've heard your opinion, and I disagree.
But it IS interesting that you admit that Congress shouldn't have any say..
Incorrect. I've made my belief that Congress should codify Roe without equivocation. I cannot help that you confused my statement that Congress isn't qualified to decide whether or not a woman or child's life is threatened with my belief that Roe should be codified; that's your mistake. Roe should be codified precisely because it contains language regarding a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions along with language regarding physicians who are qualified.
So, you would oppose Congress codifying Roe V Wade into federal law..
So, you would oppose paying attention to what I posted so as not to confuse one issue with a wholly different issue. What part of lawmakers aren't qualified to make a one-size-fits-all medical decision for women is confusing? That is exactly the reason that Roe should be codified. Duh.
That's a surprising admission from you, Kick..
I'll certainly admit to your obvious confusion when it frequently appears, but you're incorrect if you think it is likely to surprise anyone.
Michale
61
If we were talking about JUST 'sanctity' you would have a point..
You said it wasn't a religious concept; you were wrong.
We were discussing SANCTITY OF LIFE which has basis in both religion AND ethics...
Yes, I definitely already explained to you that you were wrong to claim it wasn't a religious concept. Maybe you'll stop making that claim, but I doubt it. Next time you're prattling on and on about "sanctity," you'll claim it isn't a religious concept.
I was referring to the ethics argument.
But you claimed it wasn't a religious concept which is patently incorrect.
Roe V Wade was wrongly decided... Even RBG stated as such...
Your argument using this element fails (again); RBG who believed it was a constitutional right does nothing to fortify your claim that it isn't. You're spinning your wheels with that claptrap.
When SCOTUS threw RvW on the trash heap of history, the SCOTUS merely returned the issue to the states where it belongs..
Incorrect. They removed a federal constitutional right that existed for near half a century. Claiming that they merely returned it is a lie, and I can't help your obvious confusion.
So the issue could be decided within the DEMOCRATIC process..
I'm done explaining that democracy exists at the federal level and isn't solely under the purview of the states.
Michale
62
Again, if we were talking about SANCTITY, you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't..
This is just dumb.
We are talking about SANCTITY OF LIFE.. Which is an ETHICAL discussion, not a religious one..
Double dumb.
Or are you saying that ONLY religious people have a respect for life and that those who are NOT religious have no respect for life and don't respect the "sanctity of life??
Beyond dumb.
Is that what you are saying??
I'm saying it's a religious concept... whether or not you understand it to be or are wholly unable to grasp the fact that "sanctity" refers to life as "holy" and "sacred" and is a religious concept despite all your protestations to the contrary.
Michale
66
Ahhh.. So, you are fine with the other things, but JUST have a problem with comments honoring fallen LEOs.. Much like MC says those comments that honor fallen LEOs are "polluting"....
I said it's politicizing them on a political board where you use that same "mouth" of yours to dehumanize others. I assure you that not everyone whose name you post wants their name politicized next to fascist rants.
Given ya'all's political leanings, I can readily understand WHY ya'all feel that way..
No, I don't think you do understand that it's politicization of an officer's death on a board where you denigrate in terms that dehumanize and patronize others. Why would anyone want to include them among that fascist-type dehumanizing filth?
Not factually accurate..
In the state democracy, it's the VOTERS who actually decide the issue.. As in the case of Kansas...
That's one example and doesn't change the fact that federal representatives are no less elected than the legislatures making decisions.
In a federal democracy, it's politicians who decide the issues..
Who are no less elected than state politicians. If you're inferring that every state will have a straight-up vote on abortion, you're incorrect. Some will, most will not.
So, you are not factually accurate when you claim that state democracy and federal democracy is the same..
I did not claim they were the same. I said democracy at the federal level is no less democracy. Do you need elected representatives explained to you? To claim that state democracy is some kind of magic bullet that outweighs democracy at the federal level is an exercise in ignoring the Supremacy Clause wherein federal law supersedes the laws of the states.
Under THOSE circumstances, would ya'all support a law to make all conventional abortions/baby killings illegal..
I already answered this. What part of termination is confusing at all?
Care to actually answer the poll??
You answered it already with your use of the term "termination."
Again.. Not factually accurate..
Yes, the Second Amendment can be reinterpreted by a future SCOTUS (or any SCOTUS). You claiming that isn't accurate proves a lot about your knowledge base.
At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" meant "well run" or "efficient".. It had nothing to do with ANY government rules or regulations..
Your interpretation isn't relevant unless you're on the SCOTUS. If you think a future SCOTUS can't reinterpret the Second Amendment, you're not thinking.
Further, the plain text of the 2nd simply uses the militia part of the 2nd as an EXAMPLE of WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Again, your multitude of opinions regarding the Second Amendment aren't the issue. A future SCOTUS can reinterpret the constitution and take away a constitutional right you currently have. If you don't believe they can, see Dobbs (abortion).
Finally, there are MANY State Constitutions that clarify the point that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is for self-defense and defense of others completely separate from any issue regarding militias..
But then the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution supersedes state laws. That was pretty much the entire point. Your opinion doesn't factor into a SCOTUS decision that would reinterpret a constitutional right.
So, no matter how ya want to spin things, you are wrong, Kick..
The spin is all yours, and my entire point is that your spin/opinion and your state's spin will not supersede a decision handed down by the SCOTUS as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Sorry I am late. Did I miss anything?
Just kidding. Love ya, Kick! Let's get started...
At 6 weeks there is no actual fetal heartbeat. A heartbeat is not the sound of heart muscle contracting. It is the sound made by the different chambers of the heart opening and closing their valves to push the blood through the body. There are no heart valves in a 6 week old zygote. There are no heart chambers in a 6 week old zygote.
What you are hearing is the rapid contractions of cardiac tissue in the zygote as the heart is being formed. In college, I could place cardiac tissue from a pig into a solution and it would cause the tissue to contract and rapidly.
Again, a "heartbeat" -- the "lub dub" sound we hear -- is the sound of blood being pushed through the chambers of the heart. If you are calling the sound you hear at 6 weeks a "fetal heartbeat", you are not using correct medical terminology and can only be intentionally attempting to deceive people into believing something that you know is not true.
So the earliest that you will actually be able to hear a fetal heartbeat is around week 16.
I am terrible at "cut and paste" today!
This:
What you are hearing is the rapid contractions of cardiac tissue in the zygote as the heart is being formed. In college, I could place cardiac tissue from a pig into a solution and it would cause the tissue to contract and rapidly.
Should have read:
What you are hearing is the rapid contractions of cardiac tissue in the zygote as the heart is being formed. In college, I could place cardiac tissue from a pig into a solution and it would cause the tissue to contract and rapidly. That did not mean we had a pig in our Petri dish. No one would make such a ridiculous claim... unless they were once again trying to deceive you.
Michale
69
So, you feel that a woman has a right to kill her babyright up to the point of birth...
You need your nose rubbed in it? I support the codification of Roe wherein the terms of a woman/female child making decisions in consultation with her family and physician are long established.
That's interesting..
Your confusion isn't interesting.
So, I guess there are TWO people in Weigantia® who think that women should have unrestricted access to baby killing for any reason whatsoever up to the point of birth..
So you're confused and inventing stuff, nothing new.
Well, OK.. We'll just have to disagree on that..
Well, okay. Sorry you're terminally confused about it. I made my position clear. You should learn to read things in context.
For the record there are absolutely NO FACTS to even SUPPORT the claim that RBG was for unrestricted baby killing up to the point of birth..
For the record, no one said that she did. Also for the record, I made my position clear multiple times already, and I can't help your terminal confusion.
Michale
71
Which means that you are for killing an innocent life for the crimes of their father..
Which means you didn't catch my meaning and made an ass out of yourself by incorrectly assuming.
And we're back to comparing apples and eskimos..
And you're back to missing the entire point of the comment. Your right-wing forced birth psychotic bullshit never seems to factor into consideration that women and young girls' lives shouldn't just knee-jerk routinely be marginalized in favor of their rapist's spawn. They have lives too and they shouldn't be victimized twice to satisfy anyone's religious or moral beliefs.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Want to force a woman or young girl to give birth in order to satisfy your personal religious or moral preferences? Eff off.
I am also wanting to go on the record as stating that I am no longer in favor of placing any specific restrictions on a woman's access to abortion that aren't already placed on all medical procedures. (A doctor cannot perform medical procedures on someone not competent in seeking the procedure.)
The reason being that I learned that most third trimester abortions come as the result of the medical discoveries that warrant the removal of the fetus. The fetus may no longer have a heartbeat. If a heartbeat is reason to restrict abortion, then lack of a heartbeat should open the procedure up to everyone. Sadly, removal of a dead fetus that will be stillborn if the woman is forced to carry it to term and give birth... we still call this procedure an "abortion". Which again, highlights how "baby killing" and "murdering babies" are bullshit terms since you CANNOT MURDER SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY DEAD OR WAS NEVER ALIVE! A baby is considered stillborn if it never takes that first breath.
Just because this means a woman CAN technically seek an abortion the 9th month at the moment when she starts to go into labor... it does not mean women ARE doing that or that there are doctors who would be willing to perform such a medical procedure. The competency of a woman -- who has gone that long carrying the fetus and who was excited about giving birth suddenly wanting an abortion -- would definitely be called into question. That would not be normal. However, I would rather risk one case where someone like this is able to receive an abortion than to outlaw the removal of a dead fetus from a woman that just learned the child she had hoped for is dead. Why force her to continue carrying that dead fetus that begins to breakdown in her body almost immediately? That is cruelty that even Dr. Oz would be offended by!
I also have realized that it is ridiculous to stick the "except if it puts the woman's health at risk" exception on abortion... because child birth ALWAYS puts the woman's life at risk! ALWAYS! Try finding a doctor who will guarantee the woman will survive giving birth with them as the physician... that's a doctor with no medical license or malpractice insurance.
If a woman seeks an abortion, do we really have to wait til the rotting fetus in her womb finally causes her to become septic before we remove it? How "at risk" does a woman's health have to be before you feel you can allow her to decide for herself what to do about it?
Michale
75
Just stating a fact.. I am actually retired but, like Marines, there is really no such thing as a "FORMER" police officer..
Incorrect. There is definitely such thing as a "former police officer."
"Being a cop is not what we do, it's who we are"
-James Woods, THE HARD WAY...
Ridiculous bullshit. There is definitely such thing as a former police officer.
It was made in response to YOUR comment about objecting to comments honoring fallen LEOs..
Nevertheless, I did not ask you if you were a police officer nor did I ask you to go off topic at the outset and make your request. So you blaming him for responding to a subject matter which you instigated is ridiculous self-serving nonsense.
Regardless, MC pursuing that line of comments in the manner he did would likely be considered OFF TOPIC...
You brought it up. Kick your own ass if you don't like that he responded.
I call them as I see them.. Since there are absolutely ZERO FACTS to support MC's questioning of my LEO bona fides, the ONLY logical conclusion is that his questioning simply comes from his hate of LEOs in general (a common occurrence amongst drug addicts who have bad experience with LEOs) and my political persuasion in particular..
Bollocks. You've already proven without doubt the wisdom of him questioning your self-described credentials because you originally insinuated you are a policer officer: "As a police officer myself..." Which you've now admitted you're not currently a police officer. While you can claim there is no such thing as a former police officer, that is wholly and demonstrably not factual.
Irregardless of all THAT, do you honestly believe that my personal life is ON TOPIC here in this discussion??
Irregardless isn't actually a word, but I definitely do not believe that's "on topic," in the same manner I don't believe you should politicize the deaths of any other former police officer who is deceased and no longer an officer. Anyway, you brought it up, not MtnCaddy. If you don't want followup comments about your admittedly off-topic personal life, you might want to reconsider the volunteering of false information regarding same.
Those that have answered the questions previously, I can certainly say I know what they believe..
Well, he believes you're not a police officer, and dyou
Both JL and Liz have conceded that they DO support abortion restrictions at SOME point in a woman's pregnancy..
I would definitely let them speak for themselves versus dragging them into a conversation wherein they weren't being discussed. I only speak for Russ, but I have his permission. Russ and I think it's silly to drag others into your conversation trying to prove you know what everyone things... also because it's an exercise that won't prove you know what everyone thinks.
Yes it is.. And it has the same validity that ya'all ascribe to Republican talking points..
I disagree. Republicans are much more prolific liars than the vast majority of Democrats. It used to be more an even distribution of lies among them, but now the Trumpian pathological lying permeates the entire GQP. The outright lies are staggering in number.
Thank you for that concession..
I cannot concede for something I didn't give... so you got nothing.
Michale
76
I simply point out the Demonrat's natural reaction of hating LEOs..
You sound like a fascist circa WWII. Knock it off.
The facts that prove this are as overwhelming as they are conclusive..
Bullshit. Stop dehumanizing people on this forum with those fascist-sounding terms.
Absolutely.. You hate cops and don't like to see them honored...
I don't hate cops. I just don't think it honors them one iota for you to post their names on the same political board where you have dehumanizing facist-like terms being posted all over the forum. I'm serious. Take that fascist dehumanization crap and knock it off.
I completely understand.. 1000% unequivocally understand..
No, I don't believe you do. It's Third Reichian to post that crap... so knock it off.
ListenWhenYouHear
83/84/87
And Russ nails it with his perfect beautiful posts containing the medical facts regarding "fetal heartbeart." Every single word dead on accurate.
Love you, Russ!
CW,
Gotta ask if questioning whether something is factual is considered a personal attack. Michael said:
I WILL, however, relay two facts...
#1. My LEO and Military bona-fides are well established as factual..
#2. Your belief that my public safety career is not factual is solely and completely based on your political bigotry and hate and not on ANY supporting facts whatsoever..
As to #1, in the past Michael has claimed that you, CW, had established his LEO and Military bona-fides as being true. What the hell are "bona-fides", exactly, and how did you establish them for him?
Since they are "well established and factual" as Michael insists, then could you please post them for us to verify. It seems odd that Michael refuses to post them again, since he claims to have done so many times in the past. However, I cannot seem to locate them in any of the archives.
I apologize for losing my temper and making comments that attacked Michael's inability to please his wife sexually and made fun of their swinger lifestyle by resorting to name calling. I realize that these are personal attacks, and I promise not to make fun of the cuckold lifestyle in the future.
Onto #2... What I am less clear on is whether calling out Michael's dishonest overuse of the word "FACT" to describe things that are not factual is going to be considered "a personal attack"? Michael says that disbelief of his claimed employment history is solely and completely based on your political bigotry and hate and not on ANY supporting facts whatsoever. Actually it is based on his own words that he has posted on here.
I do find his posting about fallen law enforcement officers offensive considering he appears to have lied and continues to lie about his "law enforcement career".
I know that I said at the time that I did not want Michael banished for threatening to file a false police report against my husband. Still don't think it is necessary. But I did not realize just how much it was going to make my blood boil every time he accuses Democrats of hating all police and that he is the only one to have any respect for law enforcement on here. That's a very personal attack, CW. Extremely personal! If I am wrong and he truly does have over two and a half decades of law enforcement experience, I will gladly drop the subject and admit I was mistaken. I guess I am asking if that can be respected.
Seriously, Russ?
This is a tired, old discussion that should really end, here and now.
If I was the moderator, I would delete all posts on this subject UNLESS this subject was contained within the headlining piece. Which will happen never.
If I was the moderator, I would delete all posts on this subject UNLESS this subject was contained within the headlining piece. Which will happen never.
Ummm, CW writes about Republicans who lie, create false narratives, who intentionally repeat false statements over and over until people just accept it as being true all the time. He also writes on the damage that we do to ourselves when we just accept this dishonest behavior and fail to call out their lies when we face them. I'm sorry that you are OK with someone disrespecting you all the time. That when someone posts lies, you are more comfortable just accepting those lies than calling the liar out.
Has anyone on here ever made a threat to go after someone you loved because you used their own words to show that they were lying? Have you ever had to go to your loved one's boss and explain that someone has threatened to commit a crime just to be able to hurt a person that they have never met in order to make you suffer? Trust me, it is humbling to sit down with your city's district attorney and have to explain to them how an online troll is targeting YOUR spouse and THEIR employee because YOU angered them.
But thank you so much for standing by while my husband was threatened and you chose not to take sides. Did ya think, "Sure, he made the threat...but that doesn't mean I believe he would ever actually follow through with it."? Plenty of DV victims have that as their epitaph. Michael claims he was in law enforcement... says that his "bona fides" are well documented. I have simply asked to view those well documented "bona fides" that prove he isn't lying. I'm more than happy to admit to being wrong. My argument has been based on Michael's own statements. I know you and Josh get frustrated that Kick and I engage Michael, but if you look closely you'll see that we simply point out where he contradicts himself or is just making shit up. These are not a difference of opinion or political philosophy, these are statements that he makes that are lies. It's 1:45 pm on Sunday, and what he is saying is not true.
And if you only want to see posts that are on topic with CW's posts, is this your way of saying goodbye to your Sunday night music parties? Also, my post was seeking CW's input on the issue. Are you the only one who can complain to him?
HEY CW... I'm gonna yellow card myself on this one! Maybe you'll respond to my posts by next week...
Love ya, Kick!
R
Ummm, give it a freakin' rest.
Russ,
Are you the only one who can complain to him?
Ah, I think I may be the only one around here who doesn't. Heh.
Here's some advice. If you want imput from Chris on this tired old subject, then perhaps a personal email may be in order. Or, you could just keep on posting the same old stuff rught on this thread!
HEY CW... I'm gonna yellow card myself on this one! Maybe you'll respond to my posts by next week...
Excellent!