BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yogi said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I Samuel 15: Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."
Did God form these Amalekite' babies in the womb?

---

Are you saying that a woman's choice to murder her unborn child is an act of God?

It would seem intellectually simple to be able to discern the difference between the will of God and the will of Humankind.

And maybe that's why your theology ultimately fails: because it confuses one for the other.

---

What are you saying? It's ok for the government to tell a woman to carry a fetus to term? You're a lawyer. What say you?

---

Yes. And if you don't want the baby, put it up for adoption.

Do you think adoption is a better option than abortion?

---

Yes(?) the government has a right to force a woman to term? Really? The government has that right because adoption may be an option? It's an option not a certainty. Get back to when adoption is a certainty

---

The government forces people to not kill others on a regular basis. The government has the right to protect the unborn human offspring before his or her birth in the same way that the government has the right to protect him or her after her or she is born.

---

Like it does for Lethal Injection?

---

Would you like to start a thread on capital punishment so I can argue against it?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

---

Please name a specific incident. I would like to hear it. I'm tired to death of people casting aspersions as truth.

---

You have got to be kidding me.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

---

You have a ridiculous definition of misogynistic. It is not misogynistic to expect a person, male or female, to refrain from killing another person. I would guess that you would probably force a man or woman to not kill his or her child one minute after birth, (although it may well be that you support post-birth "abortion" as some do). That is just as "misogynistic" as expecting a woman not to kill her unborn child.

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

---

1) Where is my definition? Quote that post.

2) Where is my demand? Quote that post.

You still have not pointed out my misogynistic post. Quote that post.

If the only qualification to be considered "misogynistic" is that someone is opposed to abortion, then by definition you consider millions of women to be misogynistic.

Why are those women "naive"? What gives you so much more wisdom about abortion than those women have?

I don't think you realize how judgmental and condescending you are to define all men (and women, although you refuse to acknowledge it) opposed to abortion as "misogynistic" and women opposed to it as "naive".

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

OK, so when a woman is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, that's "misogynistic" in your mind because they can't do whatever they want.

That's not even close to a morally cogent position, Waco.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

---

This is a red herring.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

---

It is not her body that abortion kills. It is someone else's body. If the government has a right to protect human life at any point, it also has a right to protect human life before birth.

Also, you don't seem to know what a red herring is.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Technically it would be restricting women from doing something to a body within their body.

The government places restrictions on what people can do to their bodies all the time.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

---

Please name a specific incident. I would like to hear it. I'm tired to death of people casting aspersions as truth.

---

You have got to be kidding me.

---

You're casting aspersions as fact.

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Technically it would be restricting women from doing something to a body within their body.

The government places restrictions on what people can do to their bodies all the time.

---

No technicality about it. Caring to term is telling the woman what to do with her body. It is akin to rape.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

---

It is not her body that abortion kills. It is someone else's body. If the government has a right to protect human life at any point, it also has a right to protect human life before birth.

Also, you don't seem to know what a red herring is.

---

Maybe do so but it's her body not yours or the governments. Neither had a right to for e a personal decision on her.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

OK, so when a woman is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, that's "misogynistic" in your mind because they can't do whatever they want.

That's not even close to a morally cogent position, Waco.

---

No that's not misogynistic but but an idiot argument. She committed a crime. She got pregnant and that's not a crime is it?

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Technically it would be restricting women from doing something to a body within their body.

The government places restrictions on what people can do to their bodies all the time.

---

No technicality about it. Caring to term is telling the woman what to do with her body. It is akin to rape.

---

"No, you cannot get an abortion." That is a restriction. Sorry vocabulary isn't your thing.

1) Where is my definition? Quote that post.

2) Where is my demand? Quote that post.

You still have not pointed out my misogynistic post. Quote that post.

If the only qualification to be considered "misogynistic" is that someone is opposed to abortion, then by definition you consider millions of women to be misogynistic.

Why are those women "naive"? What gives you so much more wisdom about abortion than those women have?

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

---

1) Where is my definition? Quote that post.

2) Where is my demand? Quote that post.

You still have not pointed out my misogynistic post. Quote that post.

If the only qualification to be considered "misogynistic" is that someone is opposed to abortion, then by definition you consider millions of women to be misogynistic.

Why are those women "naive"? What gives you so much more wisdom about abortion than those women have?

I don't think you realize how judgmental and condescending you are to define all men (and women, although you refuse to acknowledge it) opposed to abortion as "misogynistic" and women opposed to it as "naive".

---

what post? If the government says a woman cannot abort (you support this policy right?) then logically it means that she must carry to term. Passing anti abortion law by implication means "You must carry to term because we said so. We control your body." That is rape - forcibly, power control over a woman's body. Rape is by definition misogynistic. So yes if one supports anti abortion legislation then one support control over a woman's body and that violates the constitution.

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Anything fact oriented - including Snopes is apparently wrong. In binary world things are either all right or all wrong . It matters not the individual case. Snopes is right 99% of the time and will indicate its lack of total veracity but Oldbear simply denies any truth from snopes. It makes discussion impossible. There is an unmeetable standard that is beyond any perfection. There is perfection and then there is "Oldbear" perfection. Even Jesus is doubtful in oldbear's book. Jesus talks of our need to care for the poor and he will dispute it.

---

Maybe you will answer the third time I ask you:

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

---

my apologies. No these women are not. They are naive. You are the misogynist. I am sorry to be unclear. Demanding women do what you or the government tells them on this issue makes you a misogynist.

---

Why are they naive? That sounds rather condescending to say that you have more wisdom or better judgment than they do regarding the subject of abortion. That sounds sexist to me.

Why am I misogynist? Point to my misogynistic post.

If in your opinion someone is misogynistic merely for being opposed to abortion (a position I have not stated), then it would stand to reason that women who are opposed to abortion are also misogynistic in your view.

---

Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

---

1) Where is my definition? Quote that post.

2) Where is my demand? Quote that post.

You still have not pointed out my misogynistic post. Quote that post.

If the only qualification to be considered "misogynistic" is that someone is opposed to abortion, then by definition you consider millions of women to be misogynistic.

Why are those women "naive"? What gives you so much more wisdom about abortion than those women have?

I don't think you realize how judgmental and condescending you are to define all men (and women, although you refuse to acknowledge it) opposed to abortion as "misogynistic" and women opposed to it as "naive".

---

what post? If the government says a woman cannot abort (you support this policy right?) then logically it means that she must carry to term. Passing anti abortion law by implication means "You must carry to term because we said so. We control your body." That is rape - forcibly, power control over a woman's body. Rape is by definition misogynistic. So yes if one supports anti abortion legislation then one support control over a woman's body and that violates the constitution.

---

This was your post:
Being pro life by your definition means women must carry to term by your demand enacted into law. It's misogynistic to think you can demand a woman's comply with your moral standard. , especially when it's her body at stake. Your demand (through the law) is a kind of rape, forcing a woman against her will.

Show me my definition. Show me my demand. Quote the posts.

You previously stated that I am misogynistic. You still have not pointed out my misogynistic post. Quote that post.

If the government says a person cannot have a kidney removed on demand, use cocaine, cannot have prescription medicines without a doctor's order, etc. then logically it means the government restricts what people do with their bodies all the time. They control your body. Are those examples also rape? Your comparison to rape is a horrible one and insults people who have actually been victims of rape.

Rape is not by definition misogynistic as men can also be raped. Again, you are horrible at vocabulary.

Do you admit your horrible argument means millions of women who are opposed to abortion meet your definition of misogynistic?

Why are women who disagree with you regarding abortion "naive"? Do you know how sexist that sounds?

I don't have to show you a damn thing. Or you pro life or anti abortion. If yes then all that I said follows whether you aware or not.
Are you pro life or anti abortion? Time to put yourself on the line. I do. I am pro choice My position respects the rights of women. What's your position?

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Technically it would be restricting women from doing something to a body within their body.

The government places restrictions on what people can do to their bodies all the time.

---

No technicality about it. Caring to term is telling the woman what to do with her body. It is akin to rape.

---

Lie.

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't have to show you a damn thing. Or you pro life or anti abortion. If yes then all that I said follows whether you aware or not.
Are you pro life or anti abortion? Time to put yourself on the line. I do. I am pro choice My position respects the rights of women. What's your position?

---

Typical Waco1947. Demands people answer his questions, refuses to answer those asked him.

You have accused me of being misogynistic yet won't back it up and have the audacity to demand that I respond to your post?

You label millions of women as being "naive".

You state that anyone who is opposed to abortion is misogynistic. Well, anyone who has a *****, you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that your argument includes women.

Try not being so judgmental and learn the meanings of all the big words you try to use.

My position is you are judgmental, sexist yet don't know it, and use horrible logic.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"operationally" sounds like the way the law will typically be applied. It also sounds like it leaves out "potentially". Tell me where/if I'm wrong please.

---

No. "Operationally" refers to how things operate. Meaning, things will operate the same. They don't expect more abortions from this.

---

Things will operate the same because, and only because, the old law wasn't being enforced. The operational standard was already the more lenient health of the mother standard.

---

You're getting close.

The new law isn't any different, really. It just took abortion out of the criminal code and tweaked some legal standards.

"Wasn't being enforced" get out of here. Nothing changed. What wasn't being enforced?

Please show your notes, too.

---

Federal law already required an exception for health of the mother. The old New York law, which predated Roe v. Wade, allowed an exception only for life of the mother. In practice, the federal standard was followed. The most recent changes updated New York law in order to track existing federal requirements and to codify abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

---

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that there were abortions performed under one standard vs the other?

I feel like you're making my case for me.

There isn't an operational difference.

---

If New York had operated under the life of the mother standard, they would have prosecuted abortions done to preserve the health of the mother. Then they would have been challenged in the courts, and the old law would have been overturned. Supreme Court precedent is clear that health of the mother -- which is more lenient -- is the standard.

---

You're saying there were cases that should have been prosecuted, but werent?

---

Not necessarily should. They technically could have been prosecuted, but there would have been no point.

---

I know you wouldn't make such a statement without knowing specific examples.

Please share a few.

---

Any abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted to include economic and psychological factors, etc.

---

Please name a specific incident. I would like to hear it. I'm tired to death of people casting aspersions as truth.

---

You have got to be kidding me.

---

You're casting aspersions as fact.

---

I don't see how I'm casting aspersions. The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law. You yourself have argued that this will not result in more abortions, which implies that New York was already complying with federal law -- i.e. not prosecuting late term abortions to preserve the health of the mother.

To my knowledge there have been two successful prosecutions of late-term abortions since Roe v. Wade, both of which involved additional offenses. If the state of New York has been regularly prosecuting them without challenge in the courts, that would be an extraordinary piece of news. So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. Are you actually saying that doctors in New York haven't been doing abortions to preserve the mother's health? Because that too would be extraordinary. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't really get your angle on this.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Hey dummie

Read your above statement again

What that women you describe above is doing, she's NOT doing to her own body!!! She's doing it to ANOTHER SEPARATE BODY, NOT HER OWN! SHES KILLING ANOTHER BODY! THATS MURDER!!!

By your own definition of "misogynistic"(big word for YOU!) you're completely missing your aim on calling "us" misogynistic!

However, YOU ARE FORCING MURDER ON A BABY? Isn't that, by your definition, misogynistic?

I say you're doing what democrats always do. You're calling us what YOU ARE, ARENT YOU? Yes you certainly are!

Did I just bust you? Yes

Will you ever admit it? No

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

---

Waco you neglected to respond here

He mentioned how the baby is NOT her body. You glossed right over that without responding to it!?

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Hey dummie

Read your above statement again

What that women you describe above is doing, she's NOT doing to her own body!!! She's doing it to ANOTHER SEPARATE BODY, NOT HER OWN! SHES KILLING ANOTHER BODY! THATS MURDER!!!

By your own definition of "misogynistic"(big word for YOU!) you're completely missing your aim on calling "us" misogynistic!

However, YOU ARE FORCING MURDER ON A BABY? Isn't that, by your definition, misogynistic?

I say you're doing what democrats always do. You're calling us what YOU ARE, ARENT YOU? Yes you certainly are!

Did I just bust you? Yes

Will you ever admit it? No

---

47 is being consistent to a fault. He is saying the baby's life is not equal to the mother's life. Think of the baby as 3/5 of a life just like a slave was.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Hey dummie

Read your above statement again

What that women you describe above is doing, she's NOT doing to her own body!!! She's doing it to ANOTHER SEPARATE BODY, NOT HER OWN! SHES KILLING ANOTHER BODY! THATS MURDER!!!

By your own definition of "misogynistic"(big word for YOU!) you're completely missing your aim on calling "us" misogynistic!

However, YOU ARE FORCING MURDER ON A BABY? Isn't that, by your definition, misogynistic?

I say you're doing what democrats always do. You're calling us what YOU ARE, ARENT YOU? Yes you certainly are!

Did I just bust you? Yes

Will you ever admit it? No

---

47 is being consistent to a fault. He is saying the baby's life is not equal to the mother's life. Think of the baby as 3/5 of a life just like a slave was.

---

Well, it was democrats that viewed slaves as 3/5 of a person and not republicans back then too

I guess some things never change

150 years later, we're right back where we started with republicans believing 3/5 = 1 and democrats believing
3/5 = 0, again!

Aren't we?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

In the vast majority of cases, no one forced them to get pregnant in the first place. That is where I am pro choice. Choose whether you become pregnant. Once you have chosen to become pregnant, the requirements are about someone else's body, and someone else's life trumps your convenience.

---

Thats a red herring. You have zero control over a woman's body. If you think you do then you are a rapist of her soul.

---

It is not her body that abortion kills. It is someone else's body. If the government has a right to protect human life at any point, it also has a right to protect human life before birth.

Also, you don't seem to know what a red herring is.

---

Maybe do so but it's her body not yours or the governments. Neither had a right to for e a personal decision on her.

---

It's not her body being killed. Killing is not a "personal decision" where no one but the person doing the killing has an interest.

Florda_mike said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will misogynistic

---

Hey dummie

Read your above statement again

What that women you describe above is doing, she's NOT doing to her own body!!! She's doing it to ANOTHER SEPARATE BODY, NOT HER OWN! SHES KILLING ANOTHER BODY! THATS MURDER!!!

By your own definition of "misogynistic"(big word for YOU!) you're completely missing your aim on calling "us" misogynistic!

However, YOU ARE FORCING MURDER ON A BABY? Isn't that, by your definition, misogynistic?

I say you're doing what democrats always do. You're calling us what YOU ARE, ARENT YOU? Yes you certainly are!

Did I just bust you? Yes

Will you ever admit it? No

---

47 is being consistent to a fault. He is saying the baby's life is not equal to the mother's life. Think of the baby as 3/5 of a life just like a slave was.

---

Well, it was democrats that viewed slaves as 3/5 of a person and not republicans back then too

I guess some things never change

150 years later, we're right back where we started with republicans believing 3/5 = 1 and democrats believing
3/5 = 0, again!

Aren't we?

---

The parties never changed.

Democrats are still the party of death, taxes and insanity.

Republicans are the party of naivety and weak governing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.

---

I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.

---

I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?

---

Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.

---

I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?

---

Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."

---

Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

A libertarian being against the government "forcing" certain types of human behavior - I can buy to a certain extent.

From a Democrat, whose party wants nothing more than to control the behavior and lifestyles of the masses... Not at all.

That's such a disingenuous argument coming from those whose "cure" for the Earth's warming climate is significant government/ political class control over individual behavior.

For what it's worth, a man is already "forced" to accept the birth of his child whether he wants the child or not.

Under current law, the male cannot abort his responsibilities to the child. Only the female can.

So, if we were really into "equal" rights, then men would have equal opportunity to abort their parentage/ obligations to the child/ unborn child.

22 pages of posts and one thing is consistent, people who defend abortion just gloss over the baby....as if a human life is not even part of the discussion...or if it is, it is just a trifling thing.