AOC's ‘forced pregnancy' nonsense

[Jets]

It seems the libertarian view on abortion is an anathema…

 

[Mac-7]

Real.

Liberal women are bordering on insane

 

[eagle1462010]

I dunno why you guys are giving TN such a hard time.

Everybody's not always going to agree on everything.

Ultimately, it comes down to the proper role of government.

That's where the discussion should premise.

Of course, then you have to consider the primary foundation for moral code with which man's relationship with government is premised. That's a much deeper discussion, though.

He was swinging for the fences so I threw a curve ball. Hes a big guy. He can take it. Its how our side rolls

 

[Natural Citizen]

He was swinging for the fences so I threw a curve ball. Hes a big guy. He can take it. Its how our side rolls

Well at least he's sincere in his view. I, for one, appreciate sincerity, irrelevant of whether I agree or disagree with someone.

Unlike the rabid Marxists around here who are only using the illusion of caring about anyone's so-called 'rights' for the sole purpose of promoting centralized federal government. Bunch of frauds, that bunch. All they really care about is destroying the framework of the Republic (of which they clearly know absolutely nothing about, and have no respect for whatsoever, if you read what they type.)

 

[eagle1462010]

Well at least he's sincere in his view. I, for one, appreciate sincerity, irrelevant of whether I agree or disagree with someone.

Unlike the rabid Marxists around here who are only using the illusion of caring about anyone's so-called 'rights' for the sole purpose of promoting centralized federal government. Bunch of frauds, that bunch.

I am too. Meant every word I said.

 

[Ringtone]

Well at least he's sincere in his view. I, for one, appreciate sincerity, irrelevant of whether I agree or disagree with someone.

Unlike the rabid Marxists around here who are only using the illusion of caring about anyone's so-called 'rights' for the sole purpose of promoting centralized federal government. Bunch of frauds, that bunch. All they really care about is destroying the framework of the Republic (of which they clearly know absolutely nothing about, and have no respect for whatsoever, if you read what they type.)

I didn't start giving him a hard time. I started out trying to understand his position. He immediately implied that I was a dummy, as if the expression of his position was consistently obvious and clearcut. No, it wasn't, and I'm not a mind reader.

I was just asking questions of clarification initially.

Look, if someone starts treating me like I'm some kind of an idiot for asking reasonable questions. I'm going to unload on him. If someone is going to say that my opinion is "fucking stupid" when he's babbling about "forced gestation" and disregarding the fact that the Court in Roe and Casey abrogated the constitutional purview of the people of the several states. . . .

Hello!

This is a discussion board. He's the one who came onto my thread with ad hominem and strawman arguments. If he can't take the criticism that deserves, then maybe he should stick to arguing politely and honestly.

 

[Ringtone]

What is your obsession with the letter "s"?

You don't like my alliteration?

 

[Ringtone]

Well at least he's sincere in his view. I, for one, appreciate sincerity, irrelevant of whether I agree or disagree with someone.

Unlike the rabid Marxists around here who are only using the illusion of caring about anyone's so-called 'rights' for the sole purpose of promoting centralized federal government. Bunch of frauds, that bunch. All they really care about is destroying the framework of the Republic (of which they clearly know absolutely nothing about, and have no respect for whatsoever, if you read what they type.)

I'm okay with that. All he had to do was respectfully answer my questions so that I could be sure I understood his position as we discussed his reasoning, such as it is. I don't have to resort to ad hominem and strawmen to defend my position.

 

[Ringtone]

Liberal women are bordering on insane

They crossed that border years ago:

 

[eagle1462010]

I'm okay with that. All he had to do was respectfully answer my questions so that I could be sure I understood his position as we discussed his reasoning, such as it is. I don't have to resort to ad hominem and strawmen to defend my position.

When posters flame they get the flame back. Its normal.

Abortion is an area where people strongly disagree.

The push back now is for far to long we have had the left rub our noses on the bs of right to abort whenever they please. Laws allowing disgusting late term abortion.

Anyone who would brag on late term abortion is mentally ill.

People are sick of that and pushing back.

 

[ArrojaLaBomba]

Conservatives listening to the Geneva convention, 1949: "How dare they consider harming civilians a war crime. That's unfair."

 

[ArrojaLaBomba]

They crossed that border years ago:

View attachment 663698

They crossed the border years ago by, get this, asking for consent to be respected. You're not making yourself look good here.

 

[hadit]

It isnt my fault you cant comprehend, bro.
Yes, rape is a crime. Thanks for that I know what you are trying to do, and its dumb. If a woman wants to end her gestation and the state forces her, it is FORCED GESTATION.

At what stage of development are you willing to protect the unborn? Most Americans agree that once there's a heartbeat and brain activity, we should leave it alone, but extremists on the left insist on all abortion at all times, even up to and after birth.

 

[TNHarley]

At what stage of development are you willing to protect the unborn? Most Americans agree that once there's a heartbeat and brain activity, we should leave it alone, but extremists on the left insist on all abortion at all times, even up to and after birth.

Birth

 

[marvin martian]

For reasons that will become obvious, I will intersperse my commentary on the author's article and related matters as I review the author's sometimes hilariously satirical observations in the order they're presented.

AOC's ‘forced pregnancy' nonsense​

Opinion by Katelynn Richardson​

​

“Forced pregnancy is a crime against humanity,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wrote on Twitter on Sunday.​

As many in the comments were quick to agree, yes, rape is a crime. Seeing through Ocasio-Cortez’s ridiculous statement, commenters noted that the killing of innocent unborn children is also a crime.​

Interjection: oh, well, Alexandria Ol' Crazy-Eyes-Cortez is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

“Forced pregnancy,” like the equally absurd phrase “pro-forced birth,” is another way to suggest those who desire to protect unborn life have malicious intent. Yet, in the majority of situations leading to abortion, there are ways to avoid pregnancy, as some abortion advocates apparently just discovered. Women who oppose the Dobbs decision have kindled a renewed passion for one time-tested method of preventing pregnancy: abstinence. The word was even trending on Twitter on Saturday.​

“Because SCOTUS overturned Roe V. Wade, we cannot take the risk of an unintended pregnancy, therefore, we will not have sex with any man–including our husbands–unless we are trying to become pregnant,” a #SexStrike pledge circulating on Twitter says:​

​

View attachment 663177​

Interjection: hence, the time-tested method that supposedly doesn't work. Zoom Right over their heads!

The hilarious attempt to outwit conservatives by adopting conservative ethics aside, other narratives that cast pregnancy in a negative light are far more disturbing. Media headlines grappling with the overturn of Roe v. Wade emphasize the health consequences of pregnancy, leaving many women sincerely frightened that their lives are in danger without abortion.​

​

Those deriding abortion bans falsely claim treatments necessary to save the mother, such as in cases of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, will be prohibited. In doing so, they ignore the definition of an abortion: the intentional killing of an innocent human life. Ectopic pregnancies, which occur when an embryo implants outside the uterus where it cannot survive, can truly be fatal to the mother. The goal in treating them is not taking a life. It is to save the life of the mother when there is no way to save the baby. It’s not an abortion, and it’s not prohibited.​

Interjection: here I must disagree with the author who is unwittingly conflating killing and murder. Actually, a very early chemical termination of a pregnancy, whether it be normal or ectopic, is an abortion entailing the killing of a developing human life in the zygotic stage of gestation. The developing life is being killed. It cannot come to term and would kill the mother if not terminated and dissolved. In this instance, abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Of course, the ultimate takeaway here is that such medical abortions would not be prohibited, but we should not use euphemistic terms to describe what they are as if what they are necessarily something nefarious. Intentionally killing a human life that cannot come to term in the first place is simply not the same thing as intentionally killing a human life that can for the sake of some expediency. The former is an ethical medical abortion; the latter is not.

Treatment for women who have experienced miscarriages is likewise not in jeopardy, even when treatments use similar techniques as abortions, like a dilation and suction procedure or medication. Treating a pregnancy loss is, again, far different from inducing an abortion. Even in cases in which the pregnancy poses a threat, it does not necessitate abortion. Leading OB/GYNs acknowledge that separating the mother and fetus can be done without intentionally seeking to kill the child.​

Interjection: Indeed! And this goes to the arguably biggest lie of the proabortion agenda, regarding the supposedly vaguely defined exceptions in abortion prohibitions relative to the life of the mother and the supposed confusion over proper medical care. See my refutation here:

Coming to a Red State near you....

People who oppose banning AR 15s need to be consistent in their advocacy of “states’ rights” and likewise oppose ‘banning’ abortion. Another Moonbat misrepresenting the Constitution again

www.usmessageboard.com

To be fair to Coyote, yes, there are immediately and hopelessly fatal and crippling congenital diseases that unborn babies can have, but these too are very rare. Moreover, they are known, and there's absolutely no reason prohibitions cannot make definitive exceptions accordingly.

“Certainly we're not about forcing women to be pregnant,” Dr. Christina Francis, board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an NPR interview. “But, you know, once they are pregnant and there's another human life at stake there, then our job as physicians is to provide excellent care to both of those patients.”​

​

Supposed health threats extend beyond these difficult scenarios to include inconveniences to the mother. Horrifyingly, some categorize “fetal anomalies” — the risk of a baby having a genetic condition — as an emotional health risk to the mother. CNN commentator Ana Navarro-Cardenas cited this reason on-air Friday, using her own brother with special needs as an example.​

​

Another article in Scientific American lists changes to the woman’s body as a potential risk to continuing pregnancy.​

​

“All of an expecting mother’s organs and bodily systems are put to a nine-month endurance test. The work of the heart and lungs increases by 30 to 50 percent (or even more in a twin pregnancy!), the kidneys filter more blood, the immune system adjusts, metabolic demands increase substantially, and there are myriad other changes,” the article says.​

​

Yes, changes occur to the body during pregnancy. That’s part of the deal. But it’s not a justification for taking the life of the child.​

​

Not only are these arguments tragic, they’re flat-out wrong. A review of 11 studies showed higher risks of death among women who received abortions. In the relentless pursuit of abortion, activists are painting pregnancy as a burden, rather than a gift that brings life. It’s wrong, and particularly harmful to women who have endured the pain of losing a pregnancy through no fault of their own.​

​

​

Also see: Justice Sotomayor is Wrong: Women Are Not Fourteen Times More Likely to Die from Pregnancy

Stupid people are her audience. She's playing to them.

 

[hadit]

Birth

That puts you in the minority. To me, there's a problem if one of a set of developing twins can be delivered and receive full protection while his/her twin at the same stage of development is subject to legal shredding/dismemberment, simply because of geography. I don't believe in the lawyer fairy who sprinkles newborns with magic dust that transforms into humans.

 

[TNHarley]

That puts you in the minority.

Thats ok. I usually am in the minority. Because i always choose liberty.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thats ok. I usually am in the minority. Because i always choose liberty.

Liberty to snuff out the life up to birth .

I call that Barbaric.................

 

[TNHarley]

Liberty to snuff out the life up to birth .

I call that Barbaric.................

Lol ok
I dont consider an unborn fetus "life" It isnt by the very definition.
Life = the existence of an individual human being or animal
This is where your emotion kicks in. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand go

 

[hadit]

Lol ok
I dont consider an unborn fetus "life" It isnt by the very definition.
Life = the existence of an individual human being or animal
This is where your emotion kicks in. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand go

Biologically, a late-term developing baby fits that definition perfectly. Thus, science opposes you. What you essentially argue for is the lawyer fairy sprinkling his magic dust after getting the go-ahead from the mother holding the newly born baby.