Trump signs bill allowing states to defund planned parenthood

[Aries]

Okay. A preemie can sustain life outside the womb when born a few weeks early. Are you thus willing to protect all the unborn within a few weeks of delivery?

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.

When talking about pregnancy- viability is defined by whether or not the fetus can sustain life outside the womb. Including persons or children who have already been born is irrelevant, circular, and misleading.

If viability conveys personhood, there are hospitals full of non-person humans, dependent on machines for their next breath. Yet, anyone who kills any of them faces a murder trial. Thus, viability does not really convey personhood. That fact complicates Roe, which used viability to draw the line at third trimester abortions.

jesus christ. I am going to go talk to a brick wall now.
WHEN TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- viability is defined on whether or not a fetus can live outside the womb.

 

[Mudda]

Now Planned Parenthood has a CHOICE to make. Stop performing abortions and receive government money again so they can continue to "help the poor." Or continue killing children and use their own blood soaked profits to do so.

Why should they stop a legal procedure? If you want to make that procedure illegal, go to the Supreme Court. Don't try to beat up poor women because they're an easier target, that's cowardly.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

That wasn't an opinion. They created law.

Unconstitutional, and illegal.

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. "

For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

That's how things go in the US. Suck it up, princess.

 

[koshergrl]

Now Planned Parenthood has a CHOICE to make. Stop performing abortions and receive government money again so they can continue to "help the poor." Or continue killing children and use their own blood soaked profits to do so.

Why should they stop a legal procedure? If you want to make that procedure illegal, go to the Supreme Court. Don't try to beat up poor women because they're an easier target, that's cowardly.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

That wasn't an opinion. They created law.

Unconstitutional, and illegal.

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. "

For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

That's how things go in the US. Suck it up, princess.

Er..no thank you. Unlike scum like you, I don't think that if a crime has committed, that makes it cool and establishes a NEW law.

 

[Mudda]

Why should they stop a legal procedure? If you want to make that procedure illegal, go to the Supreme Court. Don't try to beat up poor women because they're an easier target, that's cowardly.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

That wasn't an opinion. They created law.

Unconstitutional, and illegal.

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. "

For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

That's how things go in the US. Suck it up, princess.

Er..no thank you. Unlike scum like you, I don't think that if a crime has committed, that makes it cool and establishes a NEW law.

The Supremes said that there was no crime. Get a grip, goober.

 

[koshergrl]

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.

That's why RvW is not legal in the first place.

So does the Supreme Court's opinion not count always, or just in this particular case?

That wasn't an opinion. They created law.

Unconstitutional, and illegal.

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. "

For an Example of Lawlessness, See the Supreme Court, Not Kim Davis

That's how things go in the US. Suck it up, princess.

Er..no thank you. Unlike scum like you, I don't think that if a crime has committed, that makes it cool and establishes a NEW law.

The Supremes said that there was no crime. Get a grip, goober.

They were wrong, goober. Lawlessness.

But that will end now.

Gorsuch sworn in at Rose Garden ceremony
GOP triggers 'nuclear option,' gutting filibuster in Gorsuch fight

 

[RealDave]

So it's ok to send tax dollars to a private company like Boeing for fighter jets, but not to PP to help poor people. Sounds like a smokescreen for some other reason. C'mon, spit it out, you can do it.

Don't change the subject. I'm waiting.............

Let me guess, is there a part about commerce in the Constitution?

The Commerce Clause doesn't apply. Try again

So there needs to be something in the Constitution for the Feds to buy some pencils from a private company?

Where on earth did you get that idea from? How is that example even relevant to our discussion?

You're not very educated, are you.

Well, butthead, you had a fit & wondered why the government needed to send money to Planned Parenthood. I said they were paying for services rendered. Try yo keep up.

 

[RealDave]

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

Actually, Dumbasss, the USSC said it was.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe after viability(around 24 weeks) the child should be protected, except for at the expense of the pregnant woman.
For example, after 25 weeks woman decides to change her mind and wants an abortion.. No, you had months to decide.
After 25 weeks the doctors tell the woman carrying to full term could be severely detrimental to her health for some reason and she wants an abortion. Yes, women should not be forced to carry out a dangerous pregnancy.
So to answer your question, a baby who a few weeks premature is a baby not a fetus and should be protected.

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

That's a good point. Chris Reeves didn't lose his personhood when he hit his head on the rock, but he would have quickly died without artificial life support. He was, for all intents and purposes, unviable, yet anyone who cut his body apart with a saw or burned his skin off with chemicals would have been tried for murder.

When talking about pregnancy- viability is defined by whether or not the fetus can sustain life outside the womb. Including persons or children who have already been born is irrelevant, circular, and misleading.

If viability conveys personhood, there are hospitals full of non-person humans, dependent on machines for their next breath. Yet, anyone who kills any of them faces a murder trial. Thus, viability does not really convey personhood. That fact complicates Roe, which used viability to draw the line at third trimester abortions.

jesus christ. I am going to go talk to a brick wall now.
WHEN TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- viability is defined on whether or not a fetus can live outside the womb.

Even in pregnancy, viability is relative. A child in the zygote stage of their life has to be "viable" else it will never make it to the embryonic stages. A child in the embryonic stage has to be viable to ever make it to the fetal stage of his her development. Etc.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can you quote the language of the Constitution that says only "viable" persons have a right to the equal protections of our laws? I can only find the part where it says ALL persons have that right.

did you see the part where abortions are legal because undeveloped tissue doesn't constitute as a person?

QUOTE it.

Then, link to it.

roe v wade, women can have abortions up until viability. Do your own homework.

Roe v Wade is not in the Constitution, jackass.

Actually, Dumbasss, the USSC said it was.

QUOTE it.

They never said it. And, even if they did say it. . . The court has been wrong before. It is far from infallible. Listen closely to what the justices and the pro abort lawyer actually said.

 

[task0778]

From what I've read, viability is a debated issue but seems to fall mainly around the 24 week point. Some states define it earlier, at 22 weeks or even 20 weeks. No doubt viability changes from individual to individual, some viable sooner than others.

 

[Iceweasel]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

 

[RealDave]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

 

[Iceweasel]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

 

[RealDave]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

All you diupsticks do is bitch about food stamps, welfare, etc.

 

[Iceweasel]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

All you diupsticks do is bitch about food stamps, welfare, etc.

Yeah, we are all one person. You stupid little boy.

 

[Chuz Life]

As for the unborn, when does "life" begin? When it drawing the first breath, when it can survive outside the womb on its own? When the heart starts? At conception?

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

All you diupsticks do is bitch about food stamps, welfare, etc.

Yeah, we are all one person. You stupid little boy.

It's so obvious that they see and hear only what they want to hear and just enough to cherry pick what they need to justify abortions to themselves.

It's why I have no respect for any of the pro aborts at all.

 

[koshergrl]

we are all cell clusters. When that cell cluster is a human, at any stage of development, you don't get to torture and kill it.

but let's nit forget the mothers, who have the basic human right to give birth unmolested by pimps and butchers.

 

[RealDave]

Apparently liberals believe life begins when the baby leaves the hospital. Why is it legal to kill it in the womb if the mother doesn't want it but it's murder if she does?

That's the problem and the constitution should err on the side of life, not death.

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

All you diupsticks do is bitch about food stamps, welfare, etc.

Yeah, we are all one person. You stupid little boy.

It's so obvious that they see and hear only what they want to hear and just enough to cherry pick what they need to justify abortions to themselves.

It's why I have no respect for any of the pro aborts at all.

Who are the pro-aborts?

There are pro choice. Many pro choice people would not get an abortion themselves. But, they are smart enough to know many people do not believe the same as they do & don't demand every bend to their limited thinking ability.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

 

[koshergrl]

yeah pro aborts are well known for their beliefs that other ppl should abort, often.

 

[Chuz Life]

More bullshit. We all know Republicans only support the unborn when it is politically advantageous. Pregnant women who might need government help because they are poor are shunned by the right & called moocher scum. Once the kid os born, you right wingers would deny them food stamps and other programs.

You called it bullshit then just offered stupid hate filled bigotry. What a little boy.

All you diupsticks do is bitch about food stamps, welfare, etc.

Yeah, we are all one person. You stupid little boy.

It's so obvious that they see and hear only what they want to hear and just enough to cherry pick what they need to justify abortions to themselves.

It's why I have no respect for any of the pro aborts at all.

Who are the pro-aborts?

There are pro choice. Many pro choice people would not get an abortion themselves. But, they are smart enough to know many people do not believe the same as they do & don't demand every bend to their limited thinking ability.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Definition of PROABORTION