Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice

[Calypso Jones]

Liberal Men getting vasectomies to protest Roe V Wade being sent back to states where it should have been IN THE FIRST PLACE. Well...i think this is freakin' awesome!!!

Liberal Men Brag About Getting Vasectomies to Protest Overturning Roe v. Wade - LifeNews.com

The Tuesday tragicomic edition of CBS Mornings profiled a couple of men who had a suggestion on how men can do their part in the after of the Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down Roe v. Wade: get a vasectomy. Host Tony Dokopoul got things started by reporting, “more men are taking action...

www.lifenews.com

They're bragging. Please...none of you tell them they're complete idiots. People this stupid should not be able to produce.

 

[JoeB131]

No. We actually don’t have any “right to privacy” set forth in the Constitution, to be perfectly precise about it. You have been misled. If we did, you could cite the article and quote te section.

I recognize that there is an arguable implicit right to some privacy. Thus, we have protections enumerated in the Constitution like the 4th Amendment which suggest a right to privacy. But that right certainly yields (which explains how it can be overcome by a warrant) — and there’s zero implication in the Constitution that any implicit right we have to privacy (such as in our own homes) would give us the right to commit a homicide in the privacy of our houses.

So it is quite stupid, illogical and baseless to claim, as Roe tried to, that the “right to privacy” somehow could conceivably imply a “right to commit abortions.”

Short answer to your stupid question: no. I didn’t “forget” anything. You are merely hyperventilating about some bullshit you heard and believed but haven’t grasped and which you cannot comprehend.

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered.

Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued.

We don't count fetuses in the Census
We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.

Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.

Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues. We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.

Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy? Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine?

Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide? This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!

What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them? Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith? Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!

 

[BackAgain]

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered.

Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued.

We don't count fetuses in the Census
We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.

Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.

Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues. We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.

Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy? Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine?

Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide? This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!

What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them? Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith? Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!

Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be.

The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.

 

[hadit]

Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be.

The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.

Exactly. The first step is to agree on what exactly is growing inside the mother. Clearly, biology states it is a very early stage human. The only question then becomes, are we morally and ethically allowed to kill such a human? We place values on human life all the time and accept their loss with never a thought.

1. Those who commit heinous crimes are executed. Death is judgement, and we're okay with that.
2. We want to drive fast, even though it means 10's of thousands are killed every year in car crashes, and we're okay with that.
3. Abortion victims die silently and out of sight. Notice that no one, and I mean not even the hardest hard-core Sanger advocate, is televising late-term abortions as seen in ultra-sound. If there's no human life being killed in there, what's the problem?

Of course, they fight tooth and nail to avoid calling a developing baby a human.

 

[hadit]

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that a fetus is a person, and can be murdered.

Except our law doesn't recognize people as being people until a certificate of birth is issued.

We don't count fetuses in the Census
We don't let people claim their fetuses as tax deductions.

Even when abortions were illegal, no one was charged with "homicide" for performing one.

Counting fetuses/embryoes/zygotes as people would create all sorts of issues. We'd have problems if we did that go beyond abortion laws people will ignore with impunity.

Could we charge women with assault for smoking or drinking during pregnancy? Even she smoked just one cigarette or had one sip of wine?

Would we then have to investigate EVERY miscarriage as a homicide? This means we'd go from 20,000 homicide investigations to 200,000!

What about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics, about 400,000 of them? Would we have to insist that they all need to be implanted in women forthwith? Seems keeping them frozen, if they have potential souls, would be unethical!

Yeah, yeah, we've all been told about the Lawyer Fairy, who shows up when a baby is born, and after getting the go-ahead from the mother, sprinkles his magic dust on the child, transforming it instantly from a zebra into a human. Those of us who grew up stopped believing in him a long time ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. My argument says that the “personhood” issue is entirely beside the point. The fertilized little creature is a life. Genetically, although in an early stage of development, it is a human life. The right to life is guaranteed, as it ought to be.

The balance of my argument has already been stated from those premises.

Well, it's a retarded fairy dust premise that would require you to take away rights from ACTUAL women.

Yeah, yeah, we've all been told about the Lawyer Fairy, who shows up when a baby is born, and after getting the go-ahead from the mother, sprinkles his magic dust on the child, transforming it instantly from a zebra into a human. Those of us who grew up stopped believing in him a long time ago.

Yet, that's how the law HAS to work. Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Those who commit heinous crimes are executed. Death is judgement, and we're okay with that.
2. We want to drive fast, even though it means 10's of thousands are killed every year in car crashes, and we're okay with that.
3. Abortion victims die silently and out of sight. Notice that no one, and I mean not even the hardest hard-core Sanger advocate, is televising late-term abortions as seen in ultra-sound. If there's no human life being killed in there, what's the problem?

Of course, they fight tooth and nail to avoid calling a developing baby a human.

1. Completely irrelevent.
2. Not really related. We'd have just as many car crashes if people all drove the speed limit.
3. Abortion doesn't have victims, it has medical waste. Nobody televises abortions for the same reason they don't televise colonosopies.... because they're gross.

 

[BackAgain]

Well, it's a retarded fairy dust premise that would require you to take away rights from ACTUAL women.

No. It’s a matter of logic, so you’d have no hope of comprehending it.

Yet, that's how the law HAS to work. Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.

Another ^example of how retarded your attempt at argument is.

 

[hadit]

1. Completely irrelevent.
2. Not really related. We'd have just as many car crashes if people all drove the speed limit.
3. Abortion doesn't have victims, it has medical waste. Nobody televises abortions for the same reason they don't televise colonosopies.... because they're gross.

1. False. We execute criminals and are okay with it. That means that not all human life matters, some matter more than others.
2. Absolutely related. We would have very few traffic fatalities if everyone was limited to 35 mph or less. Do try to keep up when I'm talking about deaths and not crashes.
3. Oh, that's right, the old, "It's a zebra" defense. Why, pray tell, would it be gross to see a late-term baby on ultrasound, contentedly sucking his thumb, then watch as he gets ripped apart? No grossness, no ickyness, just watch him try to evade the pain. That wouldn't be gross, would it? Face it, you'd be crucified in the media for exposing terrifying things like that, and probably end up costing the industry several thousand abortions.

 

[hadit]

Yet, that's how the law HAS to work. Otherwise the police have to treat every tampon as a potential crime scene.

Did you miss that week in school? The need for tampons goes away when there's a baby onboard.

 

[JoeB131]

No. It’s a matter of logic, so you’d have no hope of comprehending it.

You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.

Another ^example of how retarded your attempt at argument is.

Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.

3. Oh, that's right, the old, "It's a zebra" defense. Why, pray tell, would it be gross to see a late-term baby on ultrasound, contentedly sucking his thumb, then watch as he gets ripped apart? No grossness, no ickyness, just watch him try to evade the pain. That wouldn't be gross, would it? Face it, you'd be crucified in the media for exposing terrifying things like that, and probably end up costing the industry several thousand abortions.

Actually, late trimester abortions are for deformed fetuses... what would be more gross is letting them be born...

Did you miss that week in school? The need for tampons goes away when there's a baby onboard.

Except 2/3rd of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. So we need to treat that tampon as a crime scene and chemically analyze it to make sure she didn't take any RU-486 to keep that zygote who now has human rights from attaching... otherwise it's MURDER!!!!!

 

[hadit]

You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.



Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.



Actually, late trimester abortions are for deformed fetuses... what would be more gross is letting them be born...

Except, since you like to play the extremes as if they're the majority, obviously you want a woman to be able to decide on a whim to kill her perfectly healthy 7-month-old unborn child, so we're going with that one. Why is it again that you don't want such an abortion to be shown on TV as seen in ultra-sound? You know, since there's no life or anything in there, there should be no objection to watching a zebra be cut apart by a saw, right?

View attachment 669978
View attachment 669979




Except 2/3rd of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. So we need to treat that tampon as a crime scene and chemically analyze it to make sure she didn't take any RU-486 to keep that zygote who now has human rights from attaching... otherwise it's MURDER!!!!!

Well, if that's how you want to play it, go ahead.

 

[BackAgain]

You guys think your fairy stories are logic... too funny.

No stupid. We think your claims are retarded and dishonest. Not funny. More just pathetic.

Not at all.. if Zygotes are people, we need to collect those bloody tampons as evidence.

Again, an argument only a retard would make.

 

[JoeB131]

Except, since you like to play the extremes as if they're the majority, obviously you want a woman to be able to decide on a whim to kill her perfectly healthy 7-month-old unborn child, so we're going with that one. Why is it again that you don't want such an abortion to be shown on TV as seen in ultra-sound? You know, since there's no life or anything in there, there should be no objection to watching a zebra be cut apart by a saw, right?

No woman is having an abortion at 7 months on a whim. If they are having an abortion at seven months, it's because something has gone wrong with a pregnancy where they already picked out baby names and decorated a nursery. People like you need to mind your own business.

 

[hadit]

No woman is having an abortion at 7 months on a whim. If they are having an abortion at seven months, it's because something has gone wrong with a pregnancy where they already picked out baby names and decorated a nursery. People like you need to mind your own business.

So there should be no problem codifying that into law then, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. And you're still not acknowledging the true reason why you never see even a mid-term abortion shown on ultra-sound. You can see full-blown surgeries done, you can see guts and gore, you just never see a baby being dismembered on ultrasound with no blood, no gore, no screams. You know why, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[JoeB131]

So there should be no problem codifying that into law then, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. And you're still not acknowledging the true reason why you never see even a mid-term abortion shown on ultra-sound. You can see full-blown surgeries done, you can see guts and gore, you just never see a baby being dismembered on ultrasound with no blood, no gore, no screams. You know why, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

No, I'd have a HUGE problem codifying that into law. Because no matter how fucked up little Cletus the Fetus is, there'll be some religious nut saying, BUT GOD WANTS HIM TO LIVE OUT HIS LIFE IN PAIN FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS!!!

The only people who should make that decision are the woman and her doctor... Full. Fucking. Stop.

As far as televising abortions, no problem, as long as we can make all your medical records public and judge you on those...

 

[hadit]

No, I'd have a HUGE problem codifying that into law. Because no matter how fucked up little Cletus the Fetus is, there'll be some religious nut saying, BUT GOD WANTS HIM TO LIVE OUT HIS LIFE IN PAIN FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS!!!

The only people who should make that decision are the woman and her doctor... Full. Fucking. Stop.

And again, you're being disingenuous, because I was talking about making it illegal for a woman to abort a healthy late-term baby. You say it doesn't happen, then why would you object to it being codified into law? Because you don't want to give an inch is why.

As far as televising abortions, no problem, as long as we can make all your medical records public and judge you on those...

You're ducking again. That's not why you never see a late-term abortion as seen in ultrasound televised, and you know it.

 

[JoeB131]

And again, you're being disingenuous, because I was talking about making it illegal for a woman to abort a healthy late-term baby. You say it doesn't happen, then why would you object to it being codified into law? Because you don't want to give an inch is why.

You are right... because "healthy" is a subjective term. You might think Corky the Downs retard is "Healthy", but you aren't the person who is going to have to live with his myriad of health problems before fobbing him off on the State at 18. Any such "Codification" is politicians substituting THEIR judgement for those of patients and doctors... the only people qualified to make such a decision.

You're ducking again. That's not why you never see a late-term abortion as seen in ultrasound televised, and you know it.

There's a whole lot of things we don't see on television. Frankly, I'd like to see autopsy and crime scene photos from a Sandy Hook or Uvalde on the split screen every time Wayne Lapierre opens his fucking trap about the Founding Fathers wanting us to have guns.

 

[hadit]

You are right... because "healthy" is a subjective term. You might think Corky the Downs retard is "Healthy", but you aren't the person who is going to have to live with his myriad of health problems before fobbing him off on the State at 18. Any such "Codification" is politicians substituting THEIR judgement for those of patients and doctors... the only people qualified to make such a decision.

And now you're ducking again. I simply stated "healthy", and you tried to shuffle that off on my definition. Let's use YOUR definition of healthy. That means no congenital birth defects, no Down's, no nothing. Yet you will still fight to prevent making it illegal to abort a perfectly healthy late-term baby. You will try to dodge and weave around, offering up any number of distractions, personal attacks, side issues, etc. but the bottom line remains, you will oppose any effort to protect healthy late-term babies.

There's a whole lot of things we don't see on television. Frankly, I'd like to see autopsy and crime scene photos from a Sandy Hook or Uvalde on the split screen every time Wayne Lapierre opens his fucking trap about the Founding Fathers wanting us to have guns.

And there you go again, dodging the issue. You KNOW why you will never see an abortion performed in ultrasound, and it has nothing to do with blood, gore or gross. You can bring in all your side issues and distractions, but they don't change the central reality at all.

 

[JoeB131]

And now you're ducking again. I simply stated "healthy", and you tried to shuffle that off on my definition. Let's use YOUR definition of healthy. That means no congenital birth defects, no Down's, no nothing. Yet you will still fight to prevent making it illegal to abort a perfectly healthy late-term baby. You will try to dodge and weave around, offering up any number of distractions, personal attacks, side issues, etc. but the bottom line remains, you will oppose any effort to protect healthy late-term babies.

Fetuses aren't babies, and it's the woman's choice.

The problem here is that "healthy" is subjective.

And there you go again, dodging the issue. You KNOW why you will never see an abortion performed in ultrasound, and it has nothing to do with blood, gore or gross. You can bring in all your side issues and distractions, but they don't change the central reality at all.

Again, same reason we won't see crime scene photographs of Uvalde.

Shock value is exactly what it is... when you can't discuss the issue rationally.