Texas Republican Wants Women to Carry Deceased Fetuses to Full Term

[rdean]

Wow, that really makes a difference.

it does, considering a woman's body will automatically reject a dead fetus, i.e. miscarry.

and when it comes to people who just read the title of the article, it the title is a lie. If you are so confident about the rightness of your position, why lie? Tell the truth.

You said: it does, considering a woman's body will automatically reject a dead fetus, i.e. miscarry.

and when it comes to people who just read the title of the article, it the title is a lie. If you are so confident about the rightness of your position, why lie? Tell the truth.

-----------------------------

Were you lying or ignorant? Which one is it.

An 82-Year-Old Woman Is Carrying A 40-Year-Old Fetus Inside Her Abdomen - BuzzFeed News

36-year-old skeleton of dead baby found inside Indian woman - Health News - Health Families - The Independent

Oh, and that's the truth.

These slapdowns could be avoided if right wingers knew how to use Google.

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

 

[martybegan]

it does, considering a woman's body will automatically reject a dead fetus, i.e. miscarry.

and when it comes to people who just read the title of the article, it the title is a lie. If you are so confident about the rightness of your position, why lie? Tell the truth.

You said: it does, considering a woman's body will automatically reject a dead fetus, i.e. miscarry.

and when it comes to people who just read the title of the article, it the title is a lie. If you are so confident about the rightness of your position, why lie? Tell the truth.

-----------------------------

Were you lying or ignorant? Which one is it.

An 82-Year-Old Woman Is Carrying A 40-Year-Old Fetus Inside Her Abdomen - BuzzFeed News

36-year-old skeleton of dead baby found inside Indian woman - Health News - Health Families - The Independent

Oh, and that's the truth.

These slapdowns could be avoided if right wingers knew how to use Google.

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

 

[rdean]

You said: it does, considering a woman's body will automatically reject a dead fetus, i.e. miscarry.

and when it comes to people who just read the title of the article, it the title is a lie. If you are so confident about the rightness of your position, why lie? Tell the truth.

-----------------------------

Were you lying or ignorant? Which one is it.

An 82-Year-Old Woman Is Carrying A 40-Year-Old Fetus Inside Her Abdomen - BuzzFeed News

36-year-old skeleton of dead baby found inside Indian woman - Health News - Health Families - The Independent

Oh, and that's the truth.

These slapdowns could be avoided if right wingers knew how to use Google.

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

 

[chikenwing]

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

The tilie is an intentional misleading lie,you know the rational world knows it,but your just a hack and can't help yourself.

 

[rdean]

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

The tilie is an intentional misleading lie,you know the rational world knows it,but your just a hack and can't help yourself.

Silly. You can't just call stuff a lie if you can't explain what the lie is.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

So the bill would actually make women hold a dead fetus?

Yes, there are minor exceptions to the rule. But in 99.99% of the cases, the body spontaneously aborts the miscarrage, or if it doesn't the woman has a serious medical issue.

So if in 99.99% of the cases the woman's body handles it, or the woman could die, how can the law say the woman has to carry a dead fetus?

Why can't they just say the law would force the woman to carry a non-viable fetus? That would be the truth.

No slapdown here, you are just making yourself look like the partisan hack that you are. You can't even simply admit that the titles are wrong.

I gave you examples. You give imaginary statistics. You don't see the difference?

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

women would be forced to give birth to non-viable fetuses, who would likely die shortly after birth or even result in a stillbirth. It’s unclear at this time if the measure would have also applied to situations where the fetus has died in utero during the second or third trimesters.

I agree with the first part, however even the writer of the article only supposes it would require keeping a dead fetus. Again, the OP
s title is a lie.

 

[chikenwing]

You gave exceptions to the rule. A question, is the title accurate?

You're guessing. Not many news stories on women carrying a dead fetus doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Stop guessing. Show us your data. Uh, if you can.

Why would you need data for a common biological fact?

and you didn't answer my question, are the titles correct?

Why would you call something a common biological fact if you can't provide any data?

The title of my links are indeed correct. The title of the OP's is correct. The sponsor of that bill even said since sin entered the world that suffering is part of the human condition. Apparently, he highly approves. Not me.

The tilie is an intentional misleading lie,you know the rational world knows it,but your just a hack and can't help yourself.

Silly. You can't just call stuff a lie if you can't explain what the lie is.

Good grief,you really are a dumb shit.Its been explained several time,and any one that can read,and isn't a simpleton hack like yourself,understands why it is a lie.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why not? Obama carries a deceased brain inside his skull.

 

[hipeter924]

If I could wish for something, I would wish he could be a pregnant woman giving birth to a dead fetus for a few hours.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why not let individual States decide, just as they do with other related issues? For example, some States consider killing a pregnant woman to to be double homicide; others do not. Why does the federal government/SCOTUS have to decide EVERYTHING?

If you believe that a fetus is a human who is entitle to protection under our legal system - then piecemeal, state-by-state protection just won't cut it. There is the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

What the right believes is that the Constitution guarantees equal protection, EXCEPT for women, children, minorities, gays ...

Do people actually listen to you?

 

[AntiParty]

Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) put forward an amendment that would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, even if a fetus “has a severe and irreversible abnormality,” effectively forcing families with wanted, but unsustainable pregnancies to carry to term at the behest of the state and against the advice of their doctors or their own wishes.

Texas Republican Wants Women to Carry Deceased Fetuses to Full Term Alternet

I believe pro-life hysteria is going over the limit already. There is nothing good about terminating pregnancy when potential parents simply didn't care about contraception. When you want a healthy, capable of living by himself baby but get a fetus “with a severe and irreversible abnormality” you should have a choice. How can you force a woman to keep this baby? You are not going to share her headache, you are not going to support her. Keep your hands off women and their rights.

The topic goes from "we should not invest in science pills that will prevent preggo" to "Preists that think they can avoid science hormones and end up raping children". It's not a complex topic. Stop avoiding hormones, make a smart decision on slingshot hormone teens and what age they can get the pill.

Or just keep up the same debate. I can go forever without "release" vs. "I made a mistake and can't be seen as someone that made one"