LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Governor was clearly racist in 1984. What does it say that when caught now, he refuses to be accountable?

Pick a standard. It either applies both ways, or it does not apply at all.

---

The Virginia Democratic Party wants him to resign. What more do people like you want? Your standard is "he's your governor. Deal with it."

---

So you approve of the Governor's double standards. He ran on an image now shown to be false.

But that's OK, because he's a Democrat?

---

Please tell me where I supported him.

I'll wait.

---

I hope you don't have to wait as long for your evidence of support as I have to wait on you to show the evidence I said HRC was racist. And, that's just 1 of 3.

---

Oh get over yourself. There was 9 people commenting backwards and forwards. Don't weigh into the discussion if you can't handle being associated with those you're defending.

Jesus. Your constant appeals to victimization are annoying.

Did I hurt your feelings?

---

You T9 is showing

---

What is that's supposed to mean?

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

No I am clear in favor of a woman's right to her own medical decisions.
It is none of your business. Why is it any of your business?

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

No I am clear in favor of a woman's right to her own medical decisions.
It is none of your business. Why is it any of your business?

---

Crude barbarism

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

Are you also suggesting that people should not endure consequences for decisions, no matter how long or difficult?

I've got a lot of examples of all of this when you get ready.

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

The T9 office rep says it is settled law. That's rich. I always thought "innocent till proven guilty " was settled law.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The T9 office rep says it is settled law. That's rich. I always thought "innocent till proven guilty " was settled law.

---

I just wish our resident Title 9 employee, BBL, would disappear, sooner the better

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

smh. The difference in our arguments is well summed up by the difference in euphemisms each side choices to employ. Pro Choice versus Pro Life. Because you are "pro choice", your argument stems from the idea that conservatives are in favor of the government interfering in a woman's choice. Trust me. No conservatives are in favor of government interference in just about anything. Conservatives are against the government sanctioned murder of babies. Do you see the difference? By looking at it from your choice perspective, it's allowing you to make false correlations between conservative positions on unrelated topics like abortion and gun control. It's intellectually dishonest and you know that. You seem like a smart enough guy to get the difference.

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

No I am clear in favor of a woman's right to her own medical decisions.
It is none of your business. Why is it any of your business?

---

Because it's killing babies. Duh.

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

smh. The difference in our arguments is well summed up by the difference in euphemisms each side choices to employ. Pro Choice versus Pro Life. Because you are "pro choice", your argument stems from the idea that conservatives are in favor of the government interfering in a woman's choice. Trust me. No conservatives are in favor of government interference in just about anything. Conservatives are against the government sanctioned murder of babies. Do you see the difference? By looking at it from your choice perspective, it's allowing you to make false correlations between conservative positions on unrelated topics like abortion and gun control. It's intellectually dishonest and you know that. You seem like a smart enough guy to get the difference.

---

It's not false correlation because we've agreed (most of us, anyway) that there SHOULD be exceptions for the life of the mother or rape/incest.

So it's not absolute and the line is already kind of arbitrary.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

Florda_mike said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The T9 office rep says it is settled law. That's rich. I always thought "innocent till proven guilty " was settled law.

---

I just wish our resident Title 9 employee, BBL, would disappear, sooner the better

---

Naw, he has a wild eyed hair on fire delivery on his opinions that make him very interesting. I understand his point and simply disagree with it, at least the part where he says nobody can tell you what to do with your body.

The body in question though is not the woman's body, it is an entirely unique human being. Yes, a woman can do anything she wants with her body, the line of demarcation though, the baby inside of her, is not her body.

She isn't wanting to tear her own guts out, thus killing herself, though that too should be illegal. She for some reason, known only fully to her, wants to terminate someone else, the little one living inside of her.

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

---

Finally?

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

---

Finally?

---

Yeah. I was pretty ****ing stupid to think you would be above sharing/misrepresenting messages sent privately complimenting you.

What a ****ing ******* i turned out to be. *****

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

---

Finally?

---

He left off the sarcasm flag

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

---

Finally?

---

Yeah. I was pretty ****ing stupid to think you would be above sharing/misrepresenting messages sent privately complimenting you.

What a ****ing ******* i turned out to be. *****

---

Ok, that last one was that was just to be funny.

So, let's follow the trail:

1) You compliment me for being reasonable.
2) You throw a hissy fit at me and tell me to suck it up.
3) You get upset that I showed your contradiction
4) You throw a hissy fit

Maybe it's time to take a break.

Since people know who you are. Is your professional reputation really worth this?

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

What are you not getting about their point? They are against abortion personally, but has trouble with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body. Carrying a baby to term is ****ing hard. It's damned near impossible for someone.

Follow this though to its logical conclusion: what if abortion is illegal and a mother really doesn't want the baby. She doesn't abort it, but doesn't stop using drugs. Or caffeine. Or eats cold-cuts. Or playing roller derby?

Are you going to start putting them on trial for murder?

How is it that the same people who say the government can't take ANY of your guns away for ANY reason (from my cold dead haaaannnnnnnnndddsss) but when it comes to what a woman could do with her body, you're all "government knows best!"??

These aren't two ridiculous ideas that are separate.

You can be against abortion in nearly every case and also think the government should stay the eff out of it.

---

BBL, are you suggesting that there are no cases where the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body? And, that there is not an already established precedent for this?

Maybe, you can do it without cursing at me?

And, maybe you can do it without secondary issues. I don't own a gun. Not, sure how the guns n' babies logic showed up.

---

Don't be pedantic. I'm not cursing at you. You can get past it. You're a big kid. Suck it up. Just pretend the government told you that you had to.

There needs to meet a pretty high threshold for state action to be able to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. And abortion doesn't meet it, constitutionally.

You know how we know that? Because the Supreme Court has ruled on it and every justice on the bench has said it was "settled law." Even Gorsuch. Even Kavanaugh.

And you don't have to agree with it. I certainly see your point. But surely you could see someone else's point (even if you didn't agree), right?

---

Big boy pants, hunh? .

I'm struggling to reconcile the BBL that PM'd me to thank me for bringing civility to the board because he felt like he was being picked on and the BBL acting like a child trying out curse words. Big boys don't think cursing makes them tough. A 5 year old can curse. You apparently to need it as a crutch for whatever reason


Here's the thing. Big boys are able to manage their emotions and are consistent which seems like a struggle for you in your response.

In my mind (and I would hope everyone's) murder seems like a high enough threshold for state action.

Where people disagree is the value of a life. Some people feel like a woman having to endure the trial of childbirth (even if it is outcome of a free will choice) and economic hardship is more valuable than the life of a baby. I think that is wildly and incomprehensibly selfish when compared to a life. And no, no one has painted a justification (except for rape, incest, or life of the mother) where I see their viewpoint. I cannot imagine trying to justify that level of selfishness.

Let me ask you this. Would you consider ending all abortions where a mother has already had 2 or more abortions? Is there a line anywhere (beyond rape, incest, and life of mother) where abortion should not be legal?

---

Wow. You're a piece of work. I complimented you for trying to be reasonable and actually engaging in the debate.

You're turning a compliment into an insult towards me?

Jesus Christ. What an *******.

You finally managed to make me look incredibly stupid. Thanks.

---

Finally?

---

Yeah. I was pretty ****ing stupid to think you would be above sharing/misrepresenting messages sent privately complimenting you.

What a ****ing ******* i turned out to be. *****

---

Ok, that last one was that was just to be funny.

So, let's follow the trail:

1) You compliment me for being reasonable.
2) You throw a hissy fit at me and tell me to suck it up.
3) You get upset that I showed your contradiction
4) You throw a hissy fit

Maybe it's time to take a break.

Since people know who you are. Is your professional reputation really worth this?

---

I complimented you via a private message as it was nice to see someone be reasonable and engage in honest debate.

I dared to curse and you clutched your pearls.

I told you to suck it up.

You got offended and then misrepresented what I said in a PM. -which is a dick move- which I sarcastically stated made me look dumb for complimenting you as you just proved your character to be lacking.

Y'all can't even have an honest conversation. Anyone who dares to try and show an opposing point of view is automatically stupid. The world isn't this Baylor echo-chamber.

Oldbear83 said:

---

First, thanks for your answers, BBL.

Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.


Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.


Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.


Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.


BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

---

BBL, I guess you missed my post from earlier this week?

Why make fun of a compliment?

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

47, just answered Yes in the post above yours.

So, 47, is clearly okay with the state of New York determining that it is okay to kill him if they like.

---

Distortion! The baby has rights. I am against abortion except rape, incest, and life of the mother.
But I also believe in the right of a woman to make her own health decisions. It's none of my business and it's none of your business. Why would it be? You d don't want "government control of your health." Then insist women submit to government control. It Does not seem fair to me.

---

This has already been answered. The government already makes decisions about what you can and cannot do with your body. Saying it's not for the government to choose is illogical.

When a mom's desire (not right) supersedes a baby's life, the baby should be able to live. Anything less than that is murder.

Why would you support murder?

---

True the govt determined a lot of what we do - stop lights, speed limits, but one's health is of a different order. One's is one's own business and none of yours.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

First, thanks for your answers, BBL.

Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.

Once again, no one is arguing with you. I believe every fetus is a life -or at least a life for all intents and purposes (I don't know where life begins exactly, is it a beating heart? Or sperm and egg? If that's the case, then would ectopic pregnancies count?... You get my point. Are they really the potential for life if they aren't viable? I sincerely don't know.


Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.

That's fine that you can talk about that. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is making on here, and you're doing it with bad information. Only very late term abortions use any sort of anesthesia of the sort you're describing, and those are relatively rare. Here's a great twitter thread by an OB who has a lot of first-hand knowledge on the subject.

Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. I really don't. I think both sides make good points and I don't really feel compelled to stake a claim. I think there are ways to limit indemnity for clinics while making sure only people in a position to give consent are allowed to. (A 12 year-old is not the same as an 18 year-old).

But once again, you're arguing a point no one is trying to make. I'm not sure how we got to here. Everyone believes the patient should be given all the information they need to make an informed decision.


Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.

Yeah, once again, I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think a father's stake in the matter is absolute. Would a rapist get say in whether or not his victim has to carry his child? Should a "father" who has no intention of supporting the child get a say in forcing a woman to carry his child for 9 months? What if he stealthed her? One could argue that's rape -or a form of it.

I get your principle and it isn't without merit. In most cases, I think this is something the father should at least have some say in. But I certainly don't think it's absolute. And I don't know how you square that up for the cases that could be just soooooo bad (a rapist getting to force his victim to carry his child).

BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

I guess this gets back to "yeah well whose life is more important?" We know that child-bearing takes a toll on women. And this whole discussion is predicated on late term abortions specifically in cases where the mother's life is at risk. So how do we square that? How do we say one life more important than the other? Using definitions from above, I guess you could make the argument that the unborn child is a potential child while the mother is a being with rights as well? I don't know where you draw that line. I sincerely don't.

But there are people who honestly think every fertilized egg is a child with a soul and should be kept alive at all costs. And I don't think that's how everyone feels.

---

BBL, I guess you missed my post from earlier this week?

---

Do I owe every single person a response to every post? Honestly? I'll try and keep up, but I can't do this forever. Some people on here are so desperate to shut me up, they've taken to making fun of me for giving them a compliment and sharing PM's.

This is all getting a little sad. I really appreciate those who've been trying to discuss this like adults and without calling me a baby-killer. Cheers to y'all.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

First, thanks for your answers, BBL.

Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.

Once again, no one is arguing with you. I believe every fetus is a life -or at least a life for all intents and purposes (I don't know where life begins exactly, is it a beating heart? Or sperm and egg? If that's the case, then would ectopic pregnancies count?... You get my point. Are they really the potential for life if they aren't viable? I sincerely don't know.


Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.

That's fine that you can talk about that. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is making on here, and you're doing it with bad information. Only very late term abortions use any sort of anesthesia of the sort you're describing, and those are relatively rare. Here's a great twitter thread by an OB who has a lot of first-hand knowledge on the subject.

Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. I really don't. I think both sides make good points and I don't really feel compelled to stake a claim. I think there are ways to limit indemnity for clinics while making sure only people in a position to give consent are allowed to. (A 12 year-old is not the same as an 18 year-old).

But once again, you're arguing a point no one is trying to make. I'm not sure how we got to here. Everyone believes the patient should be given all the information they need to make an informed decision.


Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.

Yeah, once again, I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think a father's stake in the matter is absolute. Would a rapist get say in whether or not his victim has to carry his child? Should a "father" who has no intention of supporting the child get a say in forcing a woman to carry his child for 9 months? What if he stealthed her? One could argue that's rape -or a form of it.

I get your principle and it isn't without merit. In most cases, I think this is something the father should at least have some say in. But I certainly don't think it's absolute. And I don't know how you square that up for the cases that could be just soooooo bad (a rapist getting to force his victim to carry his child).

BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

I guess this gets back to "yeah well whose life is more important?" We know that child-bearing takes a toll on women. And this whole discussion is predicated on late term abortions specifically in cases where the mother's life is at risk. So how do we square that? How do we say one life more important than the other? Using definitions from above, I guess you could make the argument that the unborn child is a potential child while the mother is a being with rights as well? I don't know where you draw that line. I sincerely don't.

But there are people who honestly think every fertilized egg is a child with a soul and should be kept alive at all costs. And I don't think that's how everyone feels.

---

BBL, I guess you missed my post from earlier this week?

---

Do I owe every single person a response to every post? Honestly? I'll try and keep up, but I can't do this forever. Some people on here are so desperate to shut me up, they've taken to making fun of me for giving them a compliment and sharing PM's.

This is all getting a little sad. I really appreciate those who've been trying to discuss this like adults and without calling me a baby-killer. Cheers to y'all.

---

For someone who regularly dishes it out, you sure do whine a lot when it comes to taking it.

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

First, thanks for your answers, BBL.

Me: First, let's understand that abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: The reason I brought that up, is because this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision. We can discuss a topic here without bearing much cost, but people whose lives are changed by such a decision, on both sides, deserve respect as people.

Once again, no one is arguing with you. I believe every fetus is a life -or at least a life for all intents and purposes (I don't know where life begins exactly, is it a beating heart? Or sperm and egg? If that's the case, then would ectopic pregnancies count?... You get my point. Are they really the potential for life if they aren't viable? I sincerely don't know.


Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion. So let's appreciate the nuance there. I'll defer to experts on the matter who state a surgeon is not required in 99% of all abortions. A scalpel is almost never used and anesthesia is almost never used. It's local anesthetic only.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. One thing which never gets discussed in the media is the relatively high rate of medical mistakes in such clinics, specifically because abortion clinics do not require actual doctors on site. Blood loss, seizures, and other traumas DO occur but patients are forced to sign away rights when they agree to the procedure at the clinic. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.

That's fine that you can talk about that. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is making on here, and you're doing it with bad information. Only very late term abortions use any sort of anesthesia of the sort you're describing, and those are relatively rare. Here's a great twitter thread by an OB who has a lot of first-hand knowledge on the subject.

Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion. But if we're thinking critically, I think we can come up with a few examples of where it would be a very bad idea to require a parent to be in place (especially if there is misconduct involved).

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. While some people may consider contraception unethical, I do not, and in any case contraception is a very different matter in terms of enforcement and social conscience than abortion. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion. In my last two cancer surgeries, my oncologist was candid about the risks, even when remote, and I appreciated the discussions because I knew I was getting full disclosure and treated with respect for an important decision. A decision to have an abortion deserves the same candor and disclosure, even when difficult.

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. I really don't. I think both sides make good points and I don't really feel compelled to stake a claim. I think there are ways to limit indemnity for clinics while making sure only people in a position to give consent are allowed to. (A 12 year-old is not the same as an 18 year-old).

But once again, you're arguing a point no one is trying to make. I'm not sure how we got to here. Everyone believes the patient should be given all the information they need to make an informed decision.


Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust. I'm not smart enough to say what the solution there is, but to demand that men simply have no say is way out of line.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy. I have a pretty big issue with trusting a government to say what a woman can or can't do with her body. I have even MORE of an issue with allowing a 3rd party private citizen -who will not be expected to carry the child to term- to have a say over what a woman can or can't do with her body. Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. Also, when you say you have trouble "trusting a government" on this issue, keep in mind that we are discussing government laws which deny the fathers any rights in relation to their potential children. Simply saying 'it's her body' ignores that the fetus is a potential human being in his/her own right, and denying the father any legal rights amounts to the old robber-baron rule of 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.

Yeah, once again, I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think a father's stake in the matter is absolute. Would a rapist get say in whether or not his victim has to carry his child? Should a "father" who has no intention of supporting the child get a say in forcing a woman to carry his child for 9 months? What if he stealthed her? One could argue that's rape -or a form of it.

I get your principle and it isn't without merit. In most cases, I think this is something the father should at least have some say in. But I certainly don't think it's absolute. And I don't know how you square that up for the cases that could be just soooooo bad (a rapist getting to force his victim to carry his child).

BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

I guess this gets back to "yeah well whose life is more important?" We know that child-bearing takes a toll on women. And this whole discussion is predicated on late term abortions specifically in cases where the mother's life is at risk. So how do we square that? How do we say one life more important than the other? Using definitions from above, I guess you could make the argument that the unborn child is a potential child while the mother is a being with rights as well? I don't know where you draw that line. I sincerely don't.

But there are people who honestly think every fertilized egg is a child with a soul and should be kept alive at all costs. And I don't think that's how everyone feels.

---

BBL, I guess you missed my post from earlier this week?

---

Do I owe every single person a response to every post? Honestly? I'll try and keep up, but I can't do this forever. Some people on here are so desperate to shut me up, they've taken to making fun of me for giving them a compliment and sharing PM's.

This is all getting a little sad. I really appreciate those who've been trying to discuss this like adults and without calling me a baby-killer. Cheers to y'all.

---

For someone who regularly dishes it out, you sure do whine a lot when it comes to taking it.

---

Thanks for the critique.

You wanted a serious conversation. I offered one. Your response was .. unfortunate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You wanted a serious conversation. I offered one. Your response was .. unfortunate.

---

I responded in the body.

I saw that. I also saw the subsequent pot shots.

I'm trying to discuss the issue, and don't appreciate being fired on for trying to advance the topic beyond petty sniping.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I saw that. I also saw the subsequent pot shots.

I'm trying to discuss the issue, and don't appreciate being fired on for trying to advance the topic beyond petty sniping.

---

what pot-shots?

Take a look at your last paragraph again, please.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Take a look at your last paragraph again, please.

---

The one about baby-killing? Because I've been called a baby-killer by people on this board.