Refuting Liberal Distortion/Propaganda About Florida's New Six-Week Abortion Law

[mikegriffith1]

View attachment 927495

This is what you want to give full human rights to, Mormon Mike.

Uh-huh. Humm, why didn't you use a picture of an unborn baby at six weeks, which is the point under discussion and the time limit set by the new Florida law under discussion? I think we both know why: because at six weeks the fetus begins to take on a human form.

Of course, being determined to deny the baby any humanity at all, you ignore the six-week point, the point under discussion, and use the five-week point, while also ignoring the scientific fact that some unborn babies begin to have a heartbeat at week five.

Anyway, so if the appearance and size of unborn babies at five weeks are your criteria for allowing them to be killed solely for the mother's convenience, what about unborn babies who are at the 12-week point?

At 12 weeks, the baby has an undeniable, obvious human form, with eyes, nose, ears, legs, hands, and feet, and has substantial brain activity and a beating four-chamber heart. Would you agree that given these facts, abortions should be banned after 12 weeks?

 

[JoeB131]

Uh-huh. Humm, why didn't you use a picture of an unborn baby at six weeks, which is the point under discussion and the time limit set by the new Florida law under discussion? I think we both know why: because at six weeks the fetus begins to take on a human form.

Of course, being determined to deny the baby any humanity at all, you ignore the six-week point, the point under discussion, and use the five-week point, while also ignoring the scientific fact that some unborn babies begin to have a heartbeat at week five.

You and the other fellow were the ones bandying about the five-week measure. If you want to see a pic of a six week fetus, it doesn't improve by much.

It looks like a cocktail shrimp and is the size of a lentil bean.

Anyway, so if the appearance and size of unborn babies at five weeks are your criteria for allowing them to be killed solely for the mother's convenience, what about unborn babies who are at the 12-week point?

Doesn't matter. The subject of this thread is a six-week ban, when most women wouldn't even know they were pregnant.

My position is the same for 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or 29 weeks. This decision is up to a woman and her doctor. Not the Government, not the church, not a bunch of busy-bodies who need to mind their own business.

At 12 weeks, the baby has an undeniable, obvious human form, with eyes, nose, ears, legs, hands, and feet, and has substantial brain activity and a beating four-chamber heart. Would you agree that given these facts, abortions should be banned after 12 weeks?

Nope.

Because, frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where fetuses are given more rights than the women they are inside. You would either have laws that are completely ignored (which was the case in 1973 when Roe Happened) or you'd have a system where there would be very little freedom.

And you religious fuckwads don't give a crap about poor babies AFTER they are born.

 

[Lesh]

Op trying to put lipstick on a pig

 

[mikegriffith1]

My position is the same for 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or 29 weeks. This decision is up to a woman and her doctor. Not the Government, not the church, not a bunch of busy-bodies who need to mind their own business.

Ahhhhh! Yeap!!! I figured as much.

"The decision whether or not to own a slave should be up to the individual. It's no one else's business, certainly not the federal government's."

"Whether I choose to own a slave or not is up to me. It's no one else's concern."

Like most abortion apologists, you would have made a great slavery apologist. Just as slavery apologists denied the humanity of the slave, abortion apologists ignore the humanity of the unborn child.

So even after 29 weeks, when the baby is indisputably human and medically "viable" (a chilling mindset), you still say that he or she should be killed if their mother does not want to have them.

Because, frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where fetuses are given more rights than the women they are inside.

Uh, no, the right to life is a sacred, basic human right. The mother who wants to have her child killed merely for her own convenience will lose no right if the state intervenes to protect her child after six weeks, or 15 weeks, or whenever. She has no moral or ethical right to kill her own baby simply for her own convenience.

With elective abortion, the woman freely chose to have sex and knew that pregnancy was a possibility if she had unprotected sex. She chose to have unprotected sex. She had every right and power to avoid getting pregnant. Once she's pregnant, then two lives are involved, and she has no moral or rational right to have her child killed just because she was careless or unlucky in her sex life.

You would either have laws that are completely ignored (which was the case in 1973 when Roe Happened) or you'd have a system where there would be very little freedom.

HUH??? Just HUH??? "Freedom" is not killing unborn children merely for the mother's convenience. You Communists have a very warped concept of "freedom."

And you religious *&$%)# don't give a crap about poor babies AFTER they are born.

Is this one of the lies you tell yourself to justify your inhumane, immoral disregard for the lives of unborn children?

And whence comes this lie? Churches spend large amounts of money to maintain orphanages (in foreign countries), food kitchens, shelters for the homeless, clothing handouts, etc., etc. Religious people and their churches also donate considerable money to pro-life clinics that provide new mothers with baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, and counseling.

Think about your warped logic: "Well, gee, since religious people don't care about babies after they're born, I think we should allow hundreds of thousands of unborn babies to be killed merely and only for their mother's convenience!"

 

[JoeB131]

Ahhhhh! Yeap!!! I figured as much.

"The decision whether or not to own a slave should be up to the individual. It's no one else's business, certainly not the federal government's."

"Whether I choose to own a slave or not is up to me. It's no one else's concern."

Like most abortion apologists, you would have made a great slavery apologist. Just as slavery apologists denied the humanity of the slave, abortion apologists ignore the humanity of the unborn child.

Again, this is an absurd claim, because fetuses aren't people. Even when slavery was a thing, there were laws against mistreating them.

Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?

Was there any punishment for killing slaves, and what punishment was given for it, and was it enforced?

history.stackexchange.com

In fact, in 1840, a man named John Hoover was executed for killing a slave named Mira. He argued that since she was his property, it wasn't murder. A jury of 12 other slaveholders disagreed and sentenced him to death.

CONVERSELY, even when abortion was illegal, no one was charged with murder for performing one. One Ruth Barnett, a notorious abortionist in Oregon, performed some 10,000 abortions over a 33 year period before retiring. While she was frequently arrested, she was never charged with murder,

Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?

Was there any punishment for killing slaves, and what punishment was given for it, and was it enforced?

history.stackexchange.com

So even after 29 weeks, when the baby is indisputably human and medically "viable" (a chilling mindset), you still say that he or she should be killed if their mother does not want to have them.

No woman is going to stay pregnant for 29 weeks if they don't want it. Usually if a woman is having an abortion that late in the game, it's because something has gone horribly wrong.

Uh, no, the right to life is a sacred, basic human right. The mother who wants to have her child killed merely for her own convenience will lose no right if the state intervenes to protect her child after six weeks, or 15 weeks, or whenever. She has no moral or ethical right to kill her own baby simply for her own convenience.

Interesting, Mormon Mike. And how would you enforce such laws? It seems to me that you would have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide, and pretty much throw medical confidentiality out the window. I give you the cases of Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai. Both women had miscarriages and were prosecuted under Fetal Homicide laws.

Purvi Patel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bei Bei Shuai - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

With elective abortion, the woman freely chose to have sex and knew that pregnancy was a possibility if she had unprotected sex. She chose to have unprotected sex. She had every right and power to avoid getting pregnant. Once she's pregnant, then two lives are involved, and she has no moral or rational right to have her child killed just because she was careless or unlucky in her sex life.

Ah, scratch a pro-lifer, find a misogynist. Then again, given the fact you belong to a misogynistic cult, that doesn't surprise me.

Is this one of the lies you tell yourself to justify your inhumane, immoral disregard for the lives of unborn children?

No, this is a simple truth that the same Republicans who vote to try to ban abortion, are the same ones who try to cut welfare, WIC, School Lunches and Head Start, every year.

Also, fetuses aren't children.

And whence comes this lie? Churches spend large amounts of money to maintain orphanages (in foreign countries), food kitchens, shelters for the homeless, clothing handouts, etc., etc. Religious people and their churches also donate considerable money to pro-life clinics that provide new mothers with baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, and counseling.

Not really impressed by that. Making poor people grovel in front of your imaginary sky friend to get help doesn't impress me.

Think about your warped logic: "Well, gee, since religious people don't care about babies after they're born, I think we should allow hundreds of thousands of unborn babies to be killed merely and only for their mother's convenience!"

Except Fetuses aren't babies.

You see, this is a baby.

this is a fetus

 

[rampart]

Wow, Mormon Mike letting us know his vast knowledge of female biology.

Many women won't know they are pregnant at 6 weeks.


Wow, that's crazy. Making a woman jump through additional hoops. The fact is half of rapes are never reported. The woman is usually too ashamed (especially in the case of acquaintance rape.)



There's probably no reason for that, other than the Dental industry insists on it. Still no reason why a woman can't get a telemedicine prescription for Plan B.


Because Fetuses aren't people.

We don't count fetuses in the Census
You can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes.
If you make a fetus a legal person, every miscarriage has to now be investigated as a potential homicide.
Pregnant women can be charged with assault for smoking, drinking, eating the wrong food, or doing any kind of exercise.
To compare fetuses to slaves or Holocaust victims is an insult to the REAL people who suffered those horrors.

hell, joe, i can get a telequack to write a scrip for viagra or ivermectin. all you need is a credit card.

more old men have died of viagra than women harmed by .... this other stuff.

and the flouride stuff? doesn't that turn you commie or something about "precious bodily fluids?"

 

[JoeB131]

hell, joe, i can get a telequack to write a scrip for viagra or ivermectin. all you need is a credit card.

more old men have died of viagra than women harmed by .... this other stuff.

and the flouride stuff? doesn't that turn you commie or something about "precious bodily fluids?"

I think Flouride made Mormon Mike gay!

 

[MarcATL]

PAPERS! PAPERS, PLEASE!

 

[BlindBoo]

This is based on the medical, scientific fact that unborn babies have a heartbeat by the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy

There is no heart to beat in a 6 week old fetus. The nerves of the developing heart begin to contract. Like other organs, the heart is just developing and doesn't really start beating until 12 week more. That is the scientific fact.

But according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate.

“While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist,” said Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.

Instead, at six weeks, the embryo will develop a tube that generates sporadic electrical impulses that eventually coordinate into rhythmic pulses, he said.

‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy?

The term "fetal heartbeat" is medically inaccurate and misleading, experts say.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[surada]

Naturally, liberals are up in arms over Florida's new abortion law, calling it "extreme" and even claiming that it "tramples on human rights." Let's take a look at this supposedly "extreme" law, based on the actual text of the law (LINK):

-- It allows abortions up to the sixth week of pregnancy. This is based on the medical, scientific fact that unborn babies have a heartbeat by the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy (LINK, LINK, LINK).

The argument that many women don't know they're pregnant by week six is dubious given the easy availability and low cost of DIY pregnancy tests. Furthermore, most women miss their upcoming period after they've gotten pregnant. Many women also begin to urinate much more frequently after they get pregnant and even before their upcoming period, and this is a well-known indication of pregnancy.

-- It includes exceptions for rape and incest. It allows abortions in cases of rape and incest up to week 15 of pregnancy.

Liberals are upset because the law requires that anyone claiming those exceptions must provide a copy of a police report, a medical record, or a court order. Well, yeah, because otherwise a woman could just falsely claim that she's been raped to get an abortion up to week 15. It takes about 15-20 minutes to file a police report, and you don't even have to go to a police station to do it--you can call and have the police come to your residence.

-- It includes an exception for the life of the mother. It even allows the expenditure of state funds to transport women to other states to receive an abortion for the reason of endangerment (life of the mother) if necessary.

-- Significantly, it changes the state's pregnancy support and wellness services network to expand eligibility for such services to women who are up to 12 months postpartum and to parents or guardians of children under the age of three for up to 12 months. The bill adds new services and assistance which the network is required to provide, including counseling, mentoring, educational materials, and classes, as well as material assistance including clothing, car seats, cribs, baby formula, and diapers.

-- It requires just two in-person doctor visits and only a 24-hour waiting period between the visits. People often have two doctor visits before getting any kind of surgery, even minor surgery. When I had minor shoulder surgery, I saw a doctor three times before the surgery was performed.

-- It bans abortion by telemedicine and requires any medication abortion to be dispensed in person. Liberals are howling about these provisions as well. Yet, I can't even give myself a dental fluoride treatment--my dentist or a dental tech has to do it, even though I could easily do it myself. So this is not an outrageous requirement.

One thing that stands out to me as I read liberal attacks on Florida's new abortion law is that they say nothing--absolutely nothing--about the rights and/or humanity of the unborn baby. Indeed, they talk about abortion the same way that slavery apologists in the 1800s talked about slavery, never mentioning the victims.

In fact, liberals are furious that abortions have declined in states that have placed time limits on when abortions can be performed. They aren't the least bit happy that thousands of babies who would have otherwise been killed have been spared death and allowed to live.

Who are you to decide a woman must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

 

[surada]

It's not at all surprising that you promote abortion and deny the humanity of the unborn child, given that you think mass murderer Mao Tse Tung is actually worthy of admiration and was less repressive than Chiang Kai-shek, and that Joseph Stalin did not really murder nearly as many people as 99% of historians say he did.

Regarding your earlier denial of my point that a mountain of research shows that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, below is some information for your education. I'll start with information from the American College of Pediatricians:

Many factors increase the risk of breast cancer, some of which are not modifiable (such as early menarche, late menopause, and unfavorable genes). Induced abortion is a modifiable event, and evidence suggests that IA prior to a full-term pregnancy contributes to the high rates of breast cancer seen around the world. Studies demonstrating a dose-related association between first or second trimester induced abortions and breast cancer, along with a plausible mechanism by which IA could cause breast cancer, strongly suggest a causal effect. (LINK)

Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York, and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China, was just published in November, 2013 in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, “Cancer Causes and Control”. It showed that the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had one or more induced abortions was significantly increased by 44%. In this meta-analysis (a study of studies in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. combined all 36 studies that have been published through 2012 on the ABC link in China.

Also in peer-reviewed journals in 2013, Dr. Ramchandra Kamath et al. reported an odds ratio (a measure of relative risk) of 6.38 and Dr. A.S. Bhadoria et al. reported a relative risk of 5.03, i.e., a 5-fold—or 403%--increased risk of getting breast cancer among Indian women who have had any abortions. Not only are these relative risks much stronger than had been reported anywhere before (e.g., the 1.44 reported by Huang et al. in China and the 1.3 reported by my colleagues and I in our worldwide meta-analysis of 1996), but also in 2013, Dr. S. Jabeen and colleagues reported a relative risk of 20.62 among women in Bangladesh! (LINK)

From a medical clinic website:

How could abortion cause breast cancer?

At the beginning of pregnancy there are great increases in certain hormone levels (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, and hCG) that support pregnancy. In response to these changes, breast cells divide and mature into cells able to produce milk. Abortion causes an abrupt fall in hormone levels, leaving the breast cells in an immature state. These immature cells can more easily become cancer cells.1

Has this been proven?

Yes. Of 73 studies worldwide since 1957, 53 showed that women who experienced an induced abortion had an increased risk of breast cancer.2 In 1996 Joel Brind, PhD3, assembled the results of all the studies up to that time. Brind concluded that women who have an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy have a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer while those who have an abortion after their first full-term pregnancy have a 30% increased risk.

What does it mean to have “a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer?”

A 50% increased risk means a 50% higher risk than someone would have otherwise. For example, if a person already had a 30% risk of developing breast cancer, then a 50% increase would bring the risk up to 45%.

What is the risk for young women?

Janet Daling noted in 19944 that women younger than 18 who had an abortion experienced a 150% increased risk of developing breast cancer. This became an 800% increased risk if they had their abortions between the 9th and 24th week of pregnancy. (LINK)

More sources:

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Women have a right to know the facts Donna Harrison examines the evidence for an abortion-breast cancer link. Studies examing the association between breast cancer and abortion often resort to errant methodology which obscures the scientific question they...

www.cmf.org.uk

Researchers Uncover Hidden Risk Factor For Breast Cancer

Research indicates that one action could increase the risk of breast cancer 30%-79%.

www.care-net.org

https://www.hushfilm.com/

FactSheets - Right to Life of Michigan

Read more ›

rtl.org

The Abortion–Breast Cancer Link | Michael J. New

Recent Trump appointee Charmaine Yoest has stated on previous occasions that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, a position supported by science and denied by the mainstream media.

www.firstthings.com

Pregnancy, Abortion and Breast Health | CompassCare

www.compasscare.info

Risk of Breast Cancer Associated with Induced Abortion

Certain events of reproductive life, especially completed pregnancies, have been found to influence a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Prior studies of breast cancer in relation to a history of incomplete pregnancies have not provided consistent results. Female...

link.springer.com

The Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

Your data is crap.

 

[surada]

Ahhhhh! Yeap!!! I figured as much.

"The decision whether or not to own a slave should be up to the individual. It's no one else's business, certainly not the federal government's."

"Whether I choose to own a slave or not is up to me. It's no one else's concern."

Like most abortion apologists, you would have made a great slavery apologist. Just as slavery apologists denied the humanity of the slave, abortion apologists ignore the humanity of the unborn child.

So even after 29 weeks, when the baby is indisputably human and medically "viable" (a chilling mindset), you still say that he or she should be killed if their mother does not want to have them.



Uh, no, the right to life is a sacred, basic human right. The mother who wants to have her child killed merely for her own convenience will lose no right if the state intervenes to protect her child after six weeks, or 15 weeks, or whenever. She has no moral or ethical right to kill her own baby simply for her own convenience.

With elective abortion, the woman freely chose to have sex and knew that pregnancy was a possibility if she had unprotected sex. She chose to have unprotected sex. She had every right and power to avoid getting pregnant. Once she's pregnant, then two lives are involved, and she has no moral or rational right to have her child killed just because she was careless or unlucky in her sex life.


HUH??? Just HUH??? "Freedom" is not killing unborn children merely for the mother's convenience. You Communists have a very warped concept of "freedom."


Is this one of the lies you tell yourself to justify your inhumane, immoral disregard for the lives of unborn children?

And whence comes this lie? Churches spend large amounts of money to maintain orphanages (in foreign countries), food kitchens, shelters for the homeless, clothing handouts, etc., etc. Religious people and their churches also donate considerable money to pro-life clinics that provide new mothers with baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, and counseling.

Think about your warped logic: "Well, gee, since religious people don't care about babies after they're born, I think we should allow hundreds of thousands of unborn babies to be killed merely and only for their mother's convenience!"

Slavery? Are you equating an unwanted pregnancy with slavery? So much for critical thinking. You are a self righteous idiot.