Judge strikes down North Carolina ultrasound abortion law

[manifold]

I'm sorry, I fail...

yes, yes you do.

 

[manifold]

Sure, why not? If she insists on killing her baby, and there's no medical reason for it.

Which there hardly ever is.

But you know what..you make it illegal for abortions to take place, and most women aren't going to seek them, anyway. Legal abortions are primarily exploited by men who abuse women, and by women who are coerced into killing their children.

Throw the abortioninsts in jail, and hold the abusers accountable. Abortion doesn't fix anything...murder and abuse never does.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try to tell me out the other side of your mouth that you don't support big government when the cause is (in your opinion) just.

Hey dummy since when is a state keeping children from being slaughtered big government? What murder isn't a crime In small governments?

tapatalk post

You still haven't proposed a solution.

Until you do, your ineffectual ranting will continue to be ridiculed.

No go fuck a lightsocket you stupid twat.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry, I fail...

yes, yes you do.

You should stick to humorous trolling, mani. You aren't cut out for this. Your intellect doesn't support it and you get all befuddled and cross.

 

[manifold]

I'm sorry, I fail...

yes, yes you do.

You should stick to humorous trolling, mani. You aren't cut out for this. Your intellect doesn't support it and you get all befuddled and cross.

Coming from you that means absolutely nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm sorry, I fail to see how refusing to kill infants is an endorsement of big government.

Probably because it isn't.

It is, and, yes, you don't understand it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kg's love of big government to enforce her social and religious values are out in the open.

Her pisogyny is out in the open.

Her hypocritical form of Christianity is out in the open.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm sorry, I fail to see how refusing to kill infants is an endorsement of big government.

Probably because it isn't.

It is, and, yes, you don't understand it.

Enforcement. She doesn't understand that big government will have to ride herd on women of childbearing age from the onset of puberty on through to make sure they don't try to get rid of any mistakes.

Talk about intrusive big government.

Thankfully, the SCotUS recognizes that women have reproductive rights, and it is nobody's business if they are or are not pregnant, or how they became that way (or didn't).

Nosy old hags.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sure, why not? If she insists on killing her baby, and there's no medical reason for it.

Which there hardly ever is.

Go ahead and run on that platform in the next election and when your candidate loses 48 states let us know how that works out for you.

 

[koshergrl]

The platform is that abortion is murder, and women are being abused and killed by the industry for the express purpose of reducing the numbers of poor minorities...and to support the sex trade.

 

[koshergrl]

And it's a pretty effective and widely supported platform, too.

The screaming baby killers are a tiny portion of the population. Thank goodness.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And it's a pretty effective and widely supported platform, too.

Hey, like I said, go ahead and run on it. What are you afraid of. Nominate a Republican candidate in 2016 who will campaign on an anti-abortion platform of throwing women in jail who try to get in abortion and force them to carry out the term.

You might win Utah and maybe Wyoming.

 

[thanatos144]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try to tell me out the other side of your mouth that you don't support big government when the cause is (in your opinion) just.

Hey dummy since when is a state keeping children from being slaughtered big government? What murder isn't a crime In small governments?

tapatalk post

You still haven't proposed a solution.

Until you do, your ineffectual ranting will continue to be ridiculed.

No go fuck a lightsocket you stupid twat.

We arrest killers

tapatalk post

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sure, why not? If she insists on killing her baby, and there's no medical reason for it.

Which there hardly ever is.

But you know what..you make it illegal for abortions to take place, and most women aren't going to seek them, anyway. Legal abortions are primarily exploited by men who abuse women, and by women who are coerced into killing their children.

Throw the abortioninsts in jail, and hold the abusers accountable. Abortion doesn't fix anything...murder and abuse never does.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try to tell me out the other side of your mouth that you don't support big government when the cause is (in your opinion) just.

Hey dummy since when is a state keeping children from being slaughtered big government? What murder isn't a crime In small governments?

You know "thanatos" means "death" in English, right?

 

[koshergrl]

Sometimes killers are authorized by bad law.

That's what happened in Germany...and in a few other places.

But eventually, the rest of the world catches up...

And people who claimed to be operating within the law were hanged.

 

[Darkwind]

Sure, why not? If she insists on killing her baby, and there's no medical reason for it.

Which there hardly ever is.

But you know what..you make it illegal for abortions to take place, and most women aren't going to seek them, anyway. Legal abortions are primarily exploited by men who abuse women, and by women who are coerced into killing their children.

Throw the abortioninsts in jail, and hold the abusers accountable. Abortion doesn't fix anything...murder and abuse never does.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try to tell me out the other side of your mouth that you don't support big government when the cause is (in your opinion) just.

So, you're trying to tell people that keeping people from killing each other is NOT a legitimate function of government?

It has nothing to do with big vs small government. Unless you want to say that government preventing anyone from killing someone is big government, in which case that just makes you an anarchist.

The judge got the ruling correct, but not because he supports abortion.

When we allow the government to tell people they have to speak on specific subjects, regardless of their own personal beliefs, we do nothing more than become progressives with a Politically Correct agenda and a law to force that agenda on people.

Lets all remember what the Judge ruled. That the doctor could not be forced to speak. It did not rule that he could not speak if that was his belief.

It also did not rule that the images of the ultra sound could not be shown.

 

[koshergrl]

Except in this case, it isn't about "speaking". It's about providing adequate care to women who are undergoing a dangerous, invasive and voluntary procedure...before a woman gets a c-section, ultrasounds are required. Because if you don't take an ultrasound, you can't pinpoint the age and size of the fetus, and if you can't do that, you put the mother and the child at risk.

I worked for an office that won a million dollar malpractice suit against a doctor because he performed a c-section without looking at the ultrasounds first. The baby was premature and suffered cerebal palsy and brain damage because of it.

Likewise, to safely provide a LEGAL abortion one must be able to pinpoint the age of the fetus. For that, you need an ultrasound.

But lefties are so gung ho to kill babies, they forget about the mother...and safe medical practices.

They've legalized back alley abortion, and they think it's a good thing.

 

[Darkwind]

Except in this case, it isn't about "speaking". It's about providing adequate care to women who are undergoing a dangerous, invasive and voluntary procedure...before a woman gets a c-section, ultrasounds are required. Because if you don't take an ultrasound, you can't pinpoint the age and size of the fetus, and if you can't do that, you put the mother and the child at risk.

I worked for an office that won a million dollar malpractice suit against a doctor because he performed a c-section without looking at the ultrasounds first. The baby was premature and suffered cerebal palsy and brain damage because of it.

Likewise, to safely provide a LEGAL abortion one must be able to pinpoint the age of the fetus. For that, you need an ultrasound.

But lefties are so gung ho to kill babies, they forget about the mother...and safe medical practices.

They've legalized back alley abortion, and they think it's a good thing.

I don't follow you argument. This ruling said nothing about not performing an ultra sound. It said that the doctor cannot be forced to speak to the pregnant woman in an attempt to talk her into something. Be that against abortion or for it.

You cannot compel a person to speak on any subject, particularly if that person has a moral code they live by.

This is no different than forcing a pharmacist to provide abortion drugs against his moral beliefs.

The state has no right to force people to speech. They simply cannot interfere with it.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the law requires an ultrasound to be performed, and the results presented to the woman.

Nice try, though.

 

[Plasmaball]

The child's right to life

tapatalk post

Its not a child.

LOL so what is it then,and don't forget while your were growing,you where just what you deny

fetus, parasite, etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The platform is that abortion is murder, and women are being abused and killed by the industry for the express purpose of reducing the numbers of poor minorities...and to support the sex trade.

(1) It is not murder.

(2) It is not genocide.

(3) It is not an integral part of the sex trade.

That you have personal issues with all of this is your problem, not one else's.