The Politics of Pregnancy.

[Cecilie1200]

You don't get to define what I believe. You are a religious fanatic just like the mullahs in Iran. Except you want to use the bible instead of the koran for your theocracy. I agree with the majority of the voters.

Religion???

Everything I've posted and documented is based on science.

Do you know what 'science' is?

There is no scientific consensus on this. Even scientists have differing opinions on when a fetus is actually a life.

But you claimed you didn't need science.

Why bring it up now?


Feeling guilty?

Good

Hardly. I am firm in my beliefs that match the majority of people.

If you were 'firm in your beliefs,' you dunce.....why would you care what 'the majority' believe?

Amazing what cowards Liberals are, afraid to stand up on their own two hooves.....by themselves.



" The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
Coulter

She's firm in her belief that this will make her fit in, so people will stop laughing and throwing garbage at her everywhere she goes.

Yet another time she was wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We don't need science."


And here we have the mantra of the blood-thirsty Left abortionist.

No we have the words of a far right wing religious fanatic.

There is no 'Far Right' in this country.

Don't you know anything????


Government schooling, huh?

You need any kind of schooling.

Let me know when you'd like to compare educational resumes......my alma mater had the best fight song in the nation.

I'm sure hers had a very nice spot behind the gym where she could meet with her intellectual equals and get high.

The good news is that she's changing her avi to ' i kan spel qood'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

.....and the new human being is not her body.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion???

Everything I've posted and documented is based on science.

Do you know what 'science' is?

There is no scientific consensus on this. Even scientists have differing opinions on when a fetus is actually a life.

But you claimed you didn't need science.

Why bring it up now?


Feeling guilty?

Good

Hardly. I am firm in my beliefs that match the majority of people.

If you were 'firm in your beliefs,' you dunce.....why would you care what 'the majority' believe?

Amazing what cowards Liberals are, afraid to stand up on their own two hooves.....by themselves.



" The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob."
Coulter

She's firm in her belief that this will make her fit in, so people will stop laughing and throwing garbage at her everywhere she goes.

Yet another time she was wrong.

I found her vid.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

 

[dblack]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights. Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

 

[dblack]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

Like I said, you don't personally agree with them. The reality is that, while I agree with you that the ideal to strive for is always to interfere as little as possible in other people's lives, living in a society instead of isolated on a mountaintop somewhere is always going to require more interference than you, dblack, would like.

 

[dblack]

The pro-infanticide people rely on the old cliche about a "woman's body" but we don't allow a woman to kill herself and there are no suicide clinics (yet). We don't allow a woman to overdose on prescription or use illegal drugs or engage in unreasonable conduct that would put her life in danger. How in the world could a "woman's body" be an argument for killing the life inside her?

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

Like I said, you don't personally agree with them. The reality is that, while I agree with you that the ideal to strive for is always to interfere as little as possible in other people's lives, living in a society instead of isolated on a mountaintop somewhere is always going to require more interference than you, dblack, would like.

Well, it's entirely possible, in this case, to avoid the interference. In fact, indulging the desire to control things in another person's body sets a terrible precedent and I guarantee you that it will be used against your interests.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We also don't allow women to have sex for money using their own bodies. We don't allow women OR men to sell their organs. There are actually all sorts of things we don't allow people to do with their own bodies.

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

Like I said, you don't personally agree with them. The reality is that, while I agree with you that the ideal to strive for is always to interfere as little as possible in other people's lives, living in a society instead of isolated on a mountaintop somewhere is always going to require more interference than you, dblack, would like.

Well, it's entirely possible, in this case, to avoid the interference. In fact, indulging the desire to control things in another person's body sets a terrible precedent and I guarantee you that it will be used against your interests.

By all means, tell me how protecting the life of a defenseless child because scientific Neanderthals can't grasp that location is not a factor in being a living, separate organism can be "used against me". I am fascinated to hear about this shadowy threat you have identified lurking behind better biological education and legal recognition of those facts.

 

[dblack]

And those are, also, violations of individual rights.

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

Like I said, you don't personally agree with them. The reality is that, while I agree with you that the ideal to strive for is always to interfere as little as possible in other people's lives, living in a society instead of isolated on a mountaintop somewhere is always going to require more interference than you, dblack, would like.

Well, it's entirely possible, in this case, to avoid the interference. In fact, indulging the desire to control things in another person's body sets a terrible precedent and I guarantee you that it will be used against your interests.

By all means, tell me how protecting the life of a defenseless child because scientific Neanderthals can't grasp that location is not a factor in being a living, separate organism can be "used against me". I am fascinated to hear about this shadowy threat you have identified lurking behind better biological education and legal recognition of those facts.

Well, if we allow government to claim authority over reproduction, what happens when they decide that our biggest problem is over-population? Or maybe the next regime will be big eugenics fans and they'll want to make sure that genetic faults are removed from the gene pool. These aren't shadowy threats or paranoid delusions. They're historical realities. When we give government more power they use it. Usually, eventually, in ways we didn't intend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...Alabama passed the country’s most restrictive abortion law. It bans abortion in all cases, including incest and rape, except if the mother’s life is in danger. Although the woman would not be penalised, the doctor’s role becomes a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of 99 years in jail.


This is the latest in a wave of anti-abortion laws passed by state legislatures. Earlier this month Georgia passed a “heartbeat bill”, making abortion illegal once the foetal heartbeat is detected. This effectively pushes back the time limit for an abortion to six weeks – when many women are still unaware that they are pregnant. Ohio and Mississippi have passed similar laws.



The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person," says Alabama Representative Terri Collins, the sponsor of the bill. "This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is. I believe our people say it is. And I believe technology shows it is."
BioEdge: Alabama passes most restrictive abortion law in US

Another Fascist.....er, Obama-appointee, thwarts the will of the people.



"Judge Blocks Georgia Heartbeat Bill

A federal judge blocked Georgia's heartbeat bill from going into effect, striking a blow against the pro-life movement that has seen significant legislative achievements repeatedly blunted by the courts.

District judge Steve C. Jones granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from enforcing a new law limiting abortions after a baby's heartbeat is detected, ..."
Judge Blocks Georgia Heartbeat Bill

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most of living in a society with other people is a "violation" of individual rights.

I don't buy that. Rights should only be limited to the extent they violate the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Only difference here is that they're "violations" that you, personally, don't agree with.

No, the difference is that the activities in question are completely isolated from the rest of society - as in internal to a person's body. Whatever crimes are committed inside my body are my business and mine alone. I have sole jurisdiction there.

Like I said, you don't personally agree with them. The reality is that, while I agree with you that the ideal to strive for is always to interfere as little as possible in other people's lives, living in a society instead of isolated on a mountaintop somewhere is always going to require more interference than you, dblack, would like.

Well, it's entirely possible, in this case, to avoid the interference. In fact, indulging the desire to control things in another person's body sets a terrible precedent and I guarantee you that it will be used against your interests.

By all means, tell me how protecting the life of a defenseless child because scientific Neanderthals can't grasp that location is not a factor in being a living, separate organism can be "used against me". I am fascinated to hear about this shadowy threat you have identified lurking behind better biological education and legal recognition of those facts.

Well, if we allow government to claim authority over reproduction, what happens when they decide that our biggest problem is over-population? Or maybe the next regime will be big eugenics fans and they'll want to make sure that genetic faults are removed from the gene pool. These aren't shadowy threats or paranoid delusions. They're historical realities. When we give government more power they use it. Usually, eventually, in ways we didn't intend.

Not a damned thing happens, because your insanely inaccurate euphemism has no actual bearing on anything. "OMG, you won't let us kill inconvenient babies! That's JUST like sending people to gas chambers!" Hey, the government won't let me kill my husband for the insurance money. Does that mean they've "claimed authority over marriage" and can force couples together for eugenics breeding programs?

When you have a less-hysterical hypothetical which isn't based on accepting your ignorant worldview as something factual, do call me, won't you?

 

[dblack]

Well, if we allow government to claim authority over reproduction, what happens when they decide that our biggest problem is over-population? Or maybe the next regime will be big eugenics fans and they'll want to make sure that genetic faults are removed from the gene pool. These aren't shadowy threats or paranoid delusions. They're historical realities. When we give government more power they use it. Usually, eventually, in ways we didn't intend.

Not a damned thing happens, because your insanely inaccurate euphemism has no actual bearing on anything.

Really? You don't think a government with power over pregnancy would use it to control the population? There's direct, recent, historical evidence that you are dead wrong. (google China)

It seems no one willing to limit the power of government when they're running things. They want it all. They don't seem to recognize that, eventually, people they don't agree with will be running government and they'll get the other end of the stick. All they see is the "good" they can accomplish if they only have more power now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, if we allow government to claim authority over reproduction, what happens when they decide that our biggest problem is over-population? Or maybe the next regime will be big eugenics fans and they'll want to make sure that genetic faults are removed from the gene pool. These aren't shadowy threats or paranoid delusions. They're historical realities. When we give government more power they use it. Usually, eventually, in ways we didn't intend.

Not a damned thing happens, because your insanely inaccurate euphemism has no actual bearing on anything.

Really? You don't think a government with power over pregnancy would use it to control the population? There's direct, recent, historical evidence that you are dead wrong. (google China)

It seems no one willing to limit the power of government when they're running things. They want it all. They don't seem to recognize that, eventually, people they don't agree with will be running government and they'll get the other end of the stick. All they see is the "good" they can accomplish if they only have more power now.

Sooo.....you object to laws against murder???


Really?

 

[dblack]

Sooo.....you object to laws against murder???

I didn't say that. Quote it, or STFU.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sooo.....you object to laws against murder???

I didn't say that. Quote it, or STFU.

Why is it that only Fascists/Leftists demand the other side be silenced?

Is it your well-deserved lack of self esteem????

 

[dblack]

Sooo.....you object to laws against murder???

I didn't say that. Quote it, or STFU.

Why is it that only Fascists/Leftists demand the other side be silenced?

Is it your well-deserved lack of self esteem????

So, you want totalitarian government that rules every aspect of our lives?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sooo.....you object to laws against murder???

I didn't say that. Quote it, or STFU.

Why is it that only Fascists/Leftists demand the other side be silenced?

Is it your well-deserved lack of self esteem????

So, you want totalitarian government that rules every aspect of our lives?

So you don't want government to enforce laws against murder?


Seems to be the view of those who have given up the religion of the founding of this nation.