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!