SCOTUS Declines To Hear Case Granting Fetal Personhood Rights

[beautress]

Telling the truth, which would not know if slapped you on your ass.

"Right To Life", means nothing if you support a dictator killing unborn in Ukraine.

You just earned yourself ill-mannered oaf status on my ignore list. Bye, abuser.

 

[MagicMike]

So, would you support removing the general 2 week bereavement period from work when a woman has a miscarriage? After all, since it's just a lump of cells, there's no reason to get upset over losing that, right?

You have just transitioned from ridiculous to bat-shit CRAZY!

 

[Delldude]

What are you talking about?
A cancer cell is a person who has already been born?
Wtf????

Can't find any info on fetal cancer treatments.......

 

[Delldude]

"Right To Life", means nothing if you support a dictator killing unborn in Ukraine.

Your tax dollars are killing the unborn in Ukraine.
Looks like you support it by proxy.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You have just transitioned from ridiculous to bat-shit CRAZY!

It's a legitimate question. You all claim that it's not a baby, it's just a lump of cells and removing it would be no different than removing a tumor..that is until someone has a miscarriage, or gets into an accident and the woman loses the pregnancy...THEN it becomes a baby.

So, I'm just curious what you think? Is it a baby...or isn't it? If not, does a woman deserve grieving period after a miscarriage or not? Does a woman get to sue if someone causes a collision and she loses the pregnancy? You can't have it both ways.

 

[MagicMike]

It's a legitimate question. You all claim that it's not a baby, it's just a lump of cells and removing it would be no different than removing a tumor..that is until someone has a miscarriage, or gets into an accident and the woman loses the pregnancy...THEN it becomes a baby.

So, I'm just curious what you think? Is it a baby...or isn't it? If not, does a woman deserve grieving period after a miscarriage or not? Does a woman get to sue if someone causes a collision and she loses the pregnancy? You can't have it both ways.

If the woman doesn't want it and she looses it then not even an issue right?

A woman (or anybody else for that matter) can sue if someone else causes a traffic accident.
Certainly.
Time off after an abortion?
Sure.
Just like with any other surgery.

Your questions are ridiculous.
Obviously trying to "prove" some double standard.

Why?
Is that the only anti women's autonomy argument you have?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Stop projecting, you are a horrible person to attack other people like this but you can change there is still hope for you.

Shut up, eugenicist filth.

You two are inhuman hatemongering peas in a pod.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You can't kill something that never had a life to begin with.

Holy shit. You’re actually fucking retarded.

Hot take for a eugenicist… imagine wanting to cull the disabled while being this mentally deficient.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If the woman doesn't want it and she looses it then not even an issue right?

A woman (or anybody else for that matter) can sue if someone else causes a traffic accident.
Certainly.
Time off after an abortion?
Sure.
Just like with any other surgery.

Your questions are ridiculous.
Obviously trying to "prove" some double standard.

Why?
Is that the only anti women's autonomy argument you have?

If the woman doesn't want it and she looses it then not even an issue right?

That wasn't the question I asked, but are you saying if she wants it, it's a baby, if she doesn't, then it's not? How does that work?

woman (or anybody else for that matter) can sue if someone else causes a traffic accident.
Certainly.

Again, not the question I asked. If someone causes a collision that terminates her pregnancy, can she sue for the loss of the baby?

Time off after an abortion?
Sure.
Just like with any other surgery.

Again, not the question I asked. I was asking about the grieving period that company's give to women after a miscarriage. Since it's not a baby, and just a lump of cells, do you support revoking the grieving period for her body ejecting a lump of cells?

Obviously trying to "prove" some double standard.

Because it is a double standard. Its only a baby when it's wanted and convenient, but it's a lump of cells when it's not.

Is that the only anti women's autonomy argument you have?

It's not an anti autonomy argument, I'm just trying to figure out if you really believe it's just a lump of cells, if you do, then you must surely support treating the woman carrying that lump of cells as if it's just a normal mundane tissue mass that has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[MagicMike]

Shut up, eugenicist filth.

You two are inhuman hatemongering peas in a pod.

That wasn't the question I asked, but are you saying if she wants it, it's a baby, if she doesn't, then it's not? How does that work?




Again, not the question I asked. If someone causes a collision that terminates her pregnancy, can she sue for the loss of the baby?



Again, not the question I asked. I was asking about the grieving period that company's give to women after a miscarriage. Since it's not a baby, and just a lump of cells, do you support revoking the grieving period for her body ejecting a lump of cells?




Because it is a double standard. Its only a baby when it's wanted and convenient, but it's a lump of cells when it's not.




It's not an anti autonomy argument, I'm just trying to figure out if you really believe it's just a lump of cells, if you do, then you must surely support treating the woman carrying that lump of cells as if it's just a normal mundane tissue mass that has no meaning whatsoever.

For women who do not want the pregnancy it is just an unwanted cell mass.
And yes, they should be free to do with it what they choose.

That's the autonomy part.
Control over their own bodies.

Women that want the pregnancy should also feel free to handle it how they choose.
Even up to and including calling the little parasitic organism a "baby" as early on in the pregnancy as she wants.

Nobody should have the right to make these choices for others though.

 

[Delldude]

For women who do not want the pregnancy it is just an unwanted cell mass.

Lucky someone didn't regret a roll in the hay in your past.

 

[ThisIsMe]

For women who do not want the pregnancy it is just an unwanted cell mass.
And yes, they should be free to do with it what they choose.

That's the autonomy part.
Control over their own bodies.

Women that want the pregnancy should also feel free to handle it how they choose.
Even up to and including calling the little parasitic organism a "baby" as early on in the pregnancy as she wants.

Nobody should have the right to make these choices for others though.

That's not even remotely scientific. It's a baby...or it's not. It doesn't change depending on the whims of the mother. And you still haven't answered my questions.

So, you're saying that if a woman gets pregnant, she can say "it's not a baby", and make plans to get an abortion, but then wake up the next day and say "actually I think I'll keep it" and then suddenly it becomes a baby?

 

[MagicMike]

That's not even remotely scientific. It's a baby...or it's not. It doesn't change depending on the whims of the mother. And you still haven't answered my questions.

So, you're saying that if a woman gets pregnant, she can say "it's not a baby", and make plans to get an abortion, but then wake up the next day and say "actually I think I'll keep it" and then suddenly it becomes a baby?

I am saying you should not be meddling with your opinions in what other women want to do with their own bodies.

Period.

Your only concern is your own body.
Ditto for everyone else.

 

[Delldude]

I am saying you should not be meddling with your opinions in what other women want to do with their own bodies.

Period.

Your only concern is your own body.
Ditto for everyone else.

Legally speaking, you're full of BS.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

For women who do not want the pregnancy it is just an unwanted cell mass.

Bullshit.

This isn't subjective. You not wanting someone else around doesn't make them not a human being or diminish their life or their rights.

And yes, they should be free to do with it what they choose.

We took care of this in the 1860s, but apparently you didn't get the memo.

No, filth.

That's the autonomy part.
Control over their own bodies.

Your kid is not your body.

Even up to and including calling the little parasitic organism

Go fuck yourself.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am saying you should not be meddling with your opinions in what other women want to do with their own bodies.

Period.

Your only concern is your own body.
Ditto for everyone else.

I don't want to mess with a woman's body, she can do what she wants, but we need to make a determination. Is it a baby or isn't it? This wishy washy back and forth, it's a baby is the mother says it is doesn't work.

You seem to be faltering on this issue, and I know why. You want to say it's not a baby, it's just a lump of cells, but you don't want to take responsibility for what that actually means. You want it both way. If it's just a lump of cells, then the woman gets no special treatment during her pregnancy, and in the event she loses the....lump of cells..

 

[Stann]

ThisIsMe

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. When I say I don't think the gov should make laws on abortion, I mean for or against. It's a privacy thing first, but for sure a states rights rather than a federal decision.

I don't see the states as being responsible. the whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being is because the states were passing such egregious abortion laws they were killing women. they lost that right years ago, a right that isn't theirs in the first place.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I don't see the states as being responsible. the whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being is because the states were passing such egregious abortion laws they were killing women. they lost that right years ago, a right that isn't theirs in the first place.

“Killing women.”

What a preposterous load of codswallop.

 

[beagle9]

There is only one side. The pregnant womans.

Nobody else has a say in the matter.

And as with anything given in allowance to all human beings, it is given them with warnings and stipulations. Break the rules, ignore the warnings, and pay the consequences. Just because a woman is the vehicle that carries a child to birth, doesn't give her the right to violate the unchallenged rules on ethic's, moral's (thou shalt not kill), and especially she doesn't have the right to violate law's that are put into place pertaining to the murder of another human being.

Rape or incest can be handled quickly by the doctor in charge of the patient when brought to the hospital in regards to such a thing, but of course it needs to be done prior to a pregnancy developing from such situations. So reading materials, instructional pamphlets, teaching's etc, should be instrumental in training up the new generations upon how to address such situations in the Future.

The morning after pill should be readily available, and taught in learning enviroment's upon how to use such a thing if something bad were to happen in the forms of non-consenting acts taking place between two individual's male and female that could cause a possible pregnancy to occur.

 

[Stann]

“Killing women.”

What a preposterous load of codswallop.

How old are you ? Obviously not old enough to remember how horrible things were. We are just starting to see the atrocities that are occurring to women in Texas and Oklahoma. It's only going to get worse.