PROSECUTOR TO DROP CHARGES AGAINST TEXAS WOMAN OVER HER ABORTION

Are you being deliberately evasive here? You asked for chapter and verse on California's law criminalizing the use of pronouns that someone does not prefer. I provided it. What are your thoughts on that California law? Do you support it?

 

Quote where I asked for that...

 

actually they are.

 

never happen, we’re not going backwards. There is no real equality in men and women. Women have to carry it so they have the choice, if guys could get pregnant there’d be an app on the phone for that.
Since a zygote isn’t a child at the time there’s no conflating the two. Guys can have whatever opinion they want, it simply bears no value any more than a woman has a useful opinion on if a guy spills his load.
I have no problem supporting the criminalization of post 24 week abortion.

 

If I could toss in my 2¢ on the store- bought eggs question, without inadvertently wading into some deeper, symbolic issue, I've long believed, anyway, that generally- speaking, eggs are not fertilized (though you can buy them that way, specifically; and your chances of getting fertilized eggs might be much greater, if you buy right off some small farm). Even if some eggs, on big farms, got fertilized, I would expect that the egg operation would give them a quick burst of some kind of energy, would zap them, to shut down that process. But I wouldn't swear to the accuracy of my ideas.

 

I understand your reasoning, sorry. I was suggesting that I'll reserve judgement until we find out more. But, I'm very skeptical of what seems straight forward but are actually false accusation, like Jussie Smollett's hate crime, or the multitude of fake racist graffiti and lynching nooses on campuses.

 

Not this silly nonsense again. Are you trying to waste my time? Post #95.

 

Where are you getting weird-ass eggs or weird-ass ideas?

Are Store-bought Eggs Fertilized? - The Whole Portion

 

Whether you like it or not, we all get to have some influence on this decision, men and women. The Supreme Court is on the verge of (finally) throwing out Roe v. Wade, and then it'll be up to the voters in your state to see what they can convince your legislators to do, and most of them will count the vote of your male neighbor just as much as yours. So, you're free to say / think / believe "Guys can have whatever opinion they want, it simply bears no value..." but that doesn't make it true.

 

The entire conversation. I repeat:

Quote where I asked for that...

Still waiting. The one wasting time is YOU.

 

The 2nd part of your quote is irrelevant to the fact that people's sex life is none of your business along with what a Woman does with her own body.

Savvy?

 

Fertilization is that life begins when the eggs are fertilized with sperm, whether it's in a chicken, a cow, or a human. And since that

Roe v Wade is not going away. It may be reduced. It has already ruled, 5-4, that full term abortions do not apply to Roe v Wade. Furthermore, if Roe v Wade is somehow eliminated, it also won't get rid of aboritons and in some cases may put women who have miscarriages at risk for indictment as well, as was the case in Mississippi.

 

What the hell? I know where baby chicks come from, thanks. But chickens, instead is of menstruating, pass their eggs, whether or not they've been fertilized. I said that I didn't think most store- bought eggs had ever been fertilized (by a rooster). You had seemed sure that they had. And then you answer me with that incomplete, & non sequitur nonsense, above?

 

oh, so you think the doctors were trying to get rick off their patient, and that is why they reported her

the Texas law is a civil law, not criminal

 

Are you under the impression that if something is not common, then it does not happen at all?

 

This exactly. I think @Alwayssa may have never received one of the birds and the bees lessons. The eggs you go buy at the grocery store are not fertilized, and therefore it's a silly comparison to try to equate them with a human zygote / embryo.

 

I've already answered you: Post #95. Or are you trying to claim you meant something other than the obvious meaning by posting your silly jeopardy meme +"and the countdown begins"?

 

I think they were trying to avoid being sued under the new law.

Remember, the authors of this bill attempted to create a website to have people "voluntarily" report abortion practices at any and all health clinics, whether the aborion occurred there are not. Even though the website was shut down, the law still remains that said phyicians, hospitals, clinics, etc, can have anyone report the abortion and as such was trying to avoid the potential lawsuit, probably by one of their employees.

 

your right, that could be a valid defense, they put her health at risk to save their butts due to the new law

 

Are you under the impression that a tiny tiny tiny minority are more important than the vast majority?

 

No I’m not. How would saying that the needs of rape victims should be considered put them above the majority? I’m not sure what you mean.

 

To @DEFinning and @HurricaneDitka, it had nothing to do with the birds and the bees, it had to do with with life in general. HurricanesDitka argument is that if you snuff life out, even after conception, it is considered murder while making the argument universal to anything and everything. This would also include any meat you eat, any fish you eat no matter the process and thus' by HurricanesDitka's own argument, people would be committing murder no matter what they eat. Gross overgeneralization wouldn't you say?

Now, if we want to talk about when HUMAN life begins, it is more esoteric than a religious, which isn't always on the side of life at conception, or biology, which gets into that zygote issue. Remember, in our past, we have argued that blacks from Africa or Asians, or even polynesians were never considered human. We had Adolf Hitler basically said that Jews, Eastern Europeans, Homosexuals, Communits, were not considered human either, which is how they justified the concentration camps and deaths during that regime. And some people in society still use those arguments today, just the groups have changed. Now it is Muslims, undocumented aliens, aliens in general, etc. And you see primarily on Fox, Newsmaxx and other conservative outlets more than you do see it on liberal sites.

Or we could just step outside and settle this like real people?

 

I think you're trying to dodge again. Here's the part of the conversation I'd like to see you respond to:

WTF?!? Can you explain your thinking behind this "actually they are" post?

And BTW, the "life begins at conception" argument wasn't from me. You're mistaking me with another poster, but I think it's an unwarranted leap to claim he was "making the argument universal to anything and everything". A fair reading of his post would understand that his use of "murder" applies to human life, not "anything and everything".

 

Where was HIPPA?

 

What do you suggest? You realize that H. Ditka's and my views are very different, right? I'm Pro- Choice, which means accepting the Roe litmus of viability, though I would not see it as being an infringement on that right, if it were lowered to 20 weeks (the midway point of human gestation). I expect that most abortions are performed in the first trimester, or very early on the second (if Canada's stats are any guide). But I don't see that as an argument, then, for "why bother to set any limit at all?" While Texas's civil penalty bar is definitely too low (as would be Oklahoma's proposed, essential ban on abortion), Mississippi's 15 week standard-- while I am against it because there will no doubt be a fair number of exceptional cases, which will be left in the lurch, because of it (not to mention my suspicion that it is only intended as a stopover point, not a final destination)-- I can't say is utterly unreasonable, if the people of the state want that, since most of Europe, as I understand it, has only a 13 week limit, and yet, somehow, I take it that this works for them, largely without a problem. As I'd mentioned, in Canada, where there is technically no abortion limit (but, for practical purposes, they are very difficult to get, w/out meeting certain medical requirements, beyond 24 weeks), 90% of abortions still occur in the first trimester.

I am not saying, of course, that we can disregard that other 10%, which is why, IMO, 20 weeks would be the ideal point. This would not preclude abortions, beyond that point, when certain medical complications arose, later in the pregnancy. So I don't see the justification for the 7 U.S. states that have no limit on the time frame for an abortion (which include the Red States of Alaska, & New Mexico, and Purple Colorado, as well as Blue states).

That is, in a nutshell, my perspective (for anyone who is interested in it). So what do you see as the next "real people," step?