For pro life supporters of the creation of new criminal statutes

Now come so many anti aborts can not figure out that a single human cell is not a human - such that taking one's morning dump is not killing a bunch of humans.

 

Can you show us at what stage you're a pregnancy that a fetus is a single cell?

Bet you can't.

 

Of course I can't .. as a fetus is never a single cell .. a different stage of pregnancy than the zygote stage .. . Why would you ask such a moronic question ? one to which you know an answer does not exist .. then make a bet .. "bet you can't find an answer"

Prove the moon around some planet in one of the outer galaxies is not made of green cheese "Bet you Cant"

Did you have a good explanation for this behavior? "Bet you don't"

 

I did not bring up the moronic point

 

Historically, laws were written to remove non-white voters from being eligible to vote. The disparities in our criminal justice system aren't there solely because minorities are second class citizens. It's designed to silence their vote.

I don't see any difference in this. It's not about caring about "precious little lives" (because those lives don't matter once the umbilical cord is snipped). It's about silencing women's votes.

*just this week, Trump Jr. basically said that "women's studies is a worthless degree'. We don't demand women to wear burkas but we aren't too far away from the countries we look down upon for devaluing their women.

 

Huh? I know that is a feel-good theory for you and those on your side, but does it even make sense?

What does minority voters have to do with abortion? That seems like a huge huge stretch to try to tie those ideas together.

 

If you think that the only reason laws exist is to disenfranchise minority voters, you might be seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

So that being the case, why do you see laws existing today?

We have laws for a reason.

 

That depends if we know she has had an illegal abortion in the past.

You do realize that any information that is databased could potentially be used against you in the future, don't you? If they are launching an investigation, for some other reason, they might just look up the database. Imagine they suspect the woman may have got an abortion but they don't have quite enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But now throw in, on top of that, that they have evidence strongly suggesting she was pregnant 2 months before then.

 

Yes you did .. "Prove a Fetus is a Single Cell" "Bet You Can't" is moronic is it not ?

And indeed you brought up the other moronic point -- or did you forget. and if not your other silly claim that a single cell is "A Human" - what moronic claim are you referring to ? Lets have some fun Fats .. see where the true silliness lies .. and you already know who wins that contest .. just like you knew a Fetus was not a single cell...

 

Since when has any woman ever gone to an abortion clinic to abort a single cell?

That sounds like an obvious straw man here.

 

Definitely an obvious strawman on your part -- as I never said the above .. although your statement is laughably false.. as a whole lot of women go to the clinic to abort a single cell .. try to get there prior to that in a whole lot of cases.

Yet another hopeless attempt on your part .. .. pretending to be unaware of the fact that the religious right clownshow believes the single cell is a Person .. talking nonsense in a desperate attempt to avoid this fact.

 

I don't think pro-lifers are going to be criminalizing abortion of a single cell.

 

Whats wrong mate .. cat got tongue .. speechless in some kind of scatalogical moribund

Do you .. or do you not .. believe a Person exists at conception -- and should this person have rights - including the right to life ?

Thats two questions 1) 2) two answers por favor .. speak up now - come out from the corner .. or is it "hide and seek" time at the ranch

 

No words are needed. Your argument speaks for itself. Anyone with a reasonable mind can see.

He was rolling his eyes because you're obviously trying to create an argument of extremes. Attempting to frame the whole abortion debate in terms of pro-lifers wanting to ban abortion of single cells, and that being what the conflict is about.

 

"Anyone with a reasonable mind" - can see you have no argument ..

Whats wrong mate .. Cat got tongue ? - Do you .. or do you not .. believe a Person exists at conception -- and should this person have rights - including the right to life ?

Thats two questions 1) 2) two answers por favor .. speak up now - come out from the corner .."hide and seek" time at the ranch is over now..

 

Normally I would ask you to please stop trying to derail the thread topic, but I won't be the one to stop you in this thread.
If you want to debate that, it might be better to start a new thread.

I don't see how that has much to do with actual criminalizing of abortion as it would be implemented in practice.

 

You don't see how Personhood has much to do with criminalization of abortion. I See .. OK .. Im fine with that .. let me know when you do see.. thus having attained some level of competency in the subject matter.

 

I suppose now would be a bad time to bring up implantation of biochips into women who have gotten abortions in the past, to monitor their current reproductive status?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
IF abortion is banned because it's opponents say it's MURRRRRDERRRR...then women getting abortions should be charged with MURDER and punished according to state guide lines,

,

WHY should it be?

And how TF would you know what it would be? YOU don't write the laws..

Which you always suggest when you're stumped ...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
IF abortion is banned because it's opponents say it's MURRRRRDERRRR...then women getting abortions should be charged with MURDER and punished according to state guide lines, execution or life in prison.


The Anti-Women's rights people canNOT have it both ways...

I agree, the misogynistic Anti-Choicers don't want to look like the complete monsters they are so they will accuse a woman of murder but say really stupid things like it's not really murder so "we will be kind to women."

They want people to overlook that they did the cruelst thing to women, took away their right to bodily autonomy...NOT a kind thing to do ..but something one does to people they hate.


YOU: """" They can target the abortion provider, and its economic support system, or the woman or her support system or all of the above.""

They have to go after ALL the criminals...the woman who had the abortion ( the person who hired the hitman) and the doctor (hitman) who did the hit..

Anything else is pure hypocrisy and sure opens the door to free mob hits if women aren't prosecuted for hiring people to murder for them ..WHICH ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE..



Here is their "kinder, gentler, Post 5 :
kazenatsu said: ↑
Maybe STING operations, where she thinks she's getting her "procedure" at an underground clinic, she hops up on the table and spreads her legs, but they insert a red hot spicy suppository."""

 

again, AN ANTI-cHOICER WHO WON'T BE HAPPY UNTIL WOMEN ARE TREATED LIKE ANIMALS, BROODSTOCK.....THEIR SOLE GOAL.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Please keep your vulgar misogynistic wet dreams out of this....if you can..

I know you can't give up your vulgar misogynistic wet dreams .....but thanks for giving me proof when some people say Anti-Choicers aren't misogynistic and are only thinking of that "precious life"......I can show them how wrong they are.

 

So she is on your abortion list and is determined to be pregnant on departure, but arrives no longer pregnant. Now what?

 

This may seem like a stretch, but their bind, reminds me of the 'repeal and replace' Obama-care fiasco, except this has been a minefield they were never expecting to have to walk through. In both cases, the rhetoric of the right comes face to face with a responsibility to govern from the right, and that is nearly impossible to do, and get re-elected. As you and I have always known, their demonizing rhetoric created a very unrealistic expectation from their more radicalized pro-life base who will insist that these 'killers' be punished like killers, and in very very few states is that a scenario that anyone else can stomach. How do you justify 'compromise' when you are negotiating about a total walk from legal culpability by a bunch of premeditated killers?