Woman gets more sucked out than she bargained for

No, you're not "teasing". You have shown that you show women NO respect for their "human dignity" , no respect for them as humans at all.

 

He shows FAAAAAAAAAR more respect to women than you show to the unborn.

 

No, he doesn't.....he shows typical Anti-Choice worship of the fetus but no respect for the born.

 

Why not complain about botched circumcisions that have cut off little boys penises?

 

That's what is wrong with the OP, why not complain about all botched medical procedures. This thread shouldn't even be in the abortion forum......

 

I suppose I am not. If you are born female, you may not have sexual relations with a male without accepting the risks of creating a new life because almost no birth control is 100% effective.

A male can have sexual relations with different females every day and be affected none at all. Males are free to treat sex relations no differently than masturbation.

This is generally a fact of life Roe v Wade never altered though Pro-Choice adherents believe this and hope to maintain this self-delusion.

Not possible. Watch and learn then accept or don't.

 

Women may have sexual relations with different males every day , they can accept the risks with no BC or use BC, they are not required to do either.

Females are free to treat sex relations no differently than masturbation.

Must really bite not to be able to control them

 

A

Nope. The fact that you believe the above is sad because it is NOT remotely true.
Pregnancy is a physical risk of having sex but only for females.
Abortion of gestation does nothing to remove this risk.

I will not reply to these type allegations anymore but will include this type delusion maybe in my brief.

 

Yup, pregnancy IS a physical risk only for females ...so why do you try to butt in??

Yup, abortion removes further risk...( and you don't always have to type "abortion of gestation", this IS the abortion forum, we know what abortion is aborting....

You will not reply because you have no reply.

 

I have never said it is "divine writing" however it's decision stands until such time that evidence exists that it is wrong, no such evidence exists.

You have posted this before and you could not show how any of it is relevant to Act 301.

No this is nothing more than an assuming the premise (begging the question) fallacy, you nor anyone else can gaze into a crystal ball and determine what the future holds ergo you are basing your assertion on "we don't know", you have no way of knowing whether a fetus will have the "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb after developing an audible heartbeat" or not.

Whether viability is relevant today is irrelevant to the abortion issue, what is more relevant is the status of the unborn and what they do to others without their consent .. the abortion debate is fast moving away from 'choice' towards consent.

no idea what you are babbling on about here.

 

Hmm so you are supporting gender discrimination then which as you well know is against the law, perhaps you should add that little piece of information to your brief as well, the information that you support gender discrimination as a means to achieve your goal.

The only self-delusion going on here is the one you are projecting.

 

There's an audible heartbeat long before then. And the proper medical term is UTERUS.

 

If that's where you learned about the inside of women I can see why you'd be confused......

 

Abortion (when not fatal) removes most physical risks caused by pregnancy and yet may create indescribable guilt. If you are born female, having casual sexual relations with males REQUIRES accepting the potential risk of pregnancy because almost no birth control is 100% effective. If you are born male, however, sex has few physical risks.

Females have vaginas and men have penises. Failing to discriminate between these two genders no longer prevents marriage in the United States but gender discrimination is usually required.

I actually had no idea about gender discrimination being against the law.

 

Artificial abortion of gestation will always be legal "for-a-time" but will soon be limited to the the first 12-weeks of gestation with exceptions for the dignity of the female.

I experience this century like a visiting alien. I have no consistent memory of my life during the last century.
http://curtisneeley.com/INFO.html

 

Maybe you should click your red glitter shoes together and you can go home....

...and even though I know you aren't serious about any of this , no matter where you came from we have an internet and history books...


...and if anyone has no memory of the last century it means they are awfully young and haven't had a chance to actually learn anything...but they could make up for it with education and experience....

 

so you have no knowledge of the equal protection clause then.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/gender-discrimination-applicable-laws.html

Rubbish, there is no relevant or reliable evidence that shows abortion creates any greater risk of mental issues (including guilt) than child-birth does.

Accepting the risk of something does not imply or mean accepting the actual injuries .. read a law book once in a while and you will find that consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite. The law recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 - What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy.

 

Yes'm, I was an incompetent from Sept 3, 2002 until June 2006. I have knowledge learned in the past but do not remember 10 years at Universities. I understand the basics of mathematics - Cal III and Top-Secret military microwave telecommunications. I was discharged as a non-religious conscientious objector to war and a decorated E-4 from the USMC. I was once a certified rescue SCUBA diver and was once a professional photographer. My brain has to find a new way to locate the information stored. I recognize the daughter I delivered on the couch at home with my first wife but she is now a proud mother of my first two granchildren.(SleepSpot.com)(CurtisRes.com) - - Sad Details

Thank you for the link. I will look. Yes, thanks. Law can't eliminate the difference between a male and female with respect to sexual relationships or make sexual intercourse no longer a reproductive act for females.

I am glad you have no regrets about artificial abortion of gestation! The regret potential is a plainly obvious fact needing no studies or proof.

Abortion of gestation will soon move not from (What A Fetus 'Is' To What It 'Does') but to regulation of gestation such that doctors aiding the abortion of gestation are limited to the first 12-weeks after conception and development of an audible human heartbeat. I suppose the change could be from what the "fetus" is to what the human heart does to announce life.

Females have the natural right to complete bodily autonomy.

Human sexuality is a conscious waiver of the right to vaginal autonomy. Continuing a pregnancy for 12-weeks is a voluntary extension of this waiver to include uterine autonomy.
Waiving your right to pursue circus owners of all risks for admission protects the circus owner from liability based on ANY ride and all actions done by any other circus guest while on the property.

Arkansas filed a Petition for Certiorari yesterday. I have read this and believe this one will will be granted. The petition covers about 85% of the issues decided incorrectly by judicial FIAT in the Eighth Circuit though judges there suggested now may be time for SCOTUS to re-examine gestation regulation.

 

Your "story" is off topic and has no relevance.....I certainly have no interest in your link, I can get fiction in books and movies...

..........it certainly doesn't explain your driving desperate need to make other people's lives harder.......there is no explanation for that....

 

sorry as you are well aware the requirement in a court of law is for facts that can be shown to be true, a regret potential is not a fact that can be shown to be true in a court of law .. especially not with the so called evidence already cited by you in this forum in support of Act 301, evidence that even a non-lawyer such as I can pull apart.

Simply will not happen and you are delusional to think it will, it will crash and burn due to its unconstitutionality.

Absolute rubbish .. continuing a pregnancy for 12 weeks is nothing more than implied consent by the female, implied consent is not legally binding and can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all, implied consent is only valid up to the point that the person by word or action explicitly says "no", from that moment on implied consent is moot.

A circus owner has a certain liability level for all people who frequent his/her property, the people on that property NEVER lose their right to body autonomy, nor do they lose the right to receive medical help should they be injured even if that injury was due to a risk they took and even if they knew there was a risk of injury. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113

It will fail, just as every other challenge to Roe has failed.

 

Regret can and was shown by witnesses. This witness testimony was far more impacting than any research could ever hope to be.

Just watch.

Continual consent to be pregnant for 12-weeks is as long as will be allowed in Arkansas. This does not challenge Roe's allowing the right to abort gestation but regulates the times chosen to abort. The Ninth Amendment human right to protect dignity of human beings will support Act 301. The "viability" demarcation point is unconstitutional today. The fundamental right to abort gestation at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all will still exist for 12-weeks but the State will regulate artificial abortion of gestation after a human heartbeat is detected and 12-weeks pass.

Many circuses post signs stating entrance to the grounds implies consent to being searched or tested for drugs.
Everything the fetus does is involuntary and a direct result of an action taken by the female. Yes, the female can elect to abort within the first 12-weeks for any reason or no reason. After this time has passed and a heartbeat develops, the human right to dignity for the unborn human within the female will be protected by Arkansas.

Just watch. "Viability" is unconstitutional, individually different, and out-of-date today. The right to artificially abort gestation for a time will remain from Roe. The time will be not still be "viability". Much of Roe will remain but the human dignity of the unborn will be recognized in Arkansas after 12-weeks gestation. Just watch.

 

They need to get a bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy emoticon on this site.

 

This is close: