Larry

Members
  • Content Count

    12,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

About Larry

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Where the Constitution grants rights to pregnant pigs, and denies them to homosexual humans

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like Trump cares whether his people get confirmed. He probably doesn't even remember who he promised which job to. Or what the job does. Little slow, are you?
  2. The lower courts really have to block it. At least, if they actually give a **** about the rue of law. Until the newly-appointed activist judges on the USSC get their change to legislate, the lower courts are legally required to follow Roe.
  3. Roommate was watching some commedian the other night. Used the line: "We couldn't have a vagina in the White House, so we went with the other end of the taint."
  4. Well, in his defense, he only did it because Fox & Friends told him to.
  5. Yes, bunches of fertilized eggs do not become babies. (Or even fetuses). (The number I heard was 1/3.) My point was was that I don't think you could call those "abortions". Your point (as I remember) was "Most abortions ...."
  6. I ...... don't think I'd agree with saying that. Yes, he absolutely is obstructing justice. On a daily basis. But I would argue that this particular thing of his is more a case of constitutionally protected political negotiating.
  7. I seem to remember we had a disagreement, some time ago, about states invoking war powers. Don't remember how it came out.
  8. Oh No word for sensitive ears.
  9. The plan is to send all information to Barr, who will then comb through it for things that can be cherry picked to build the narrative that the US should have never investigated a US Presidential campaign which is actually boasting that they're receiving aid from the Russian military intelligence. And will then declassify the cherry picked things that they think can be spun into that.
  10. Admiring the irony of this poster making this statement.
  11. One of the things I hate about this debate is that it's possible to play with some statistics, and use some flexible definitions, to "support" a lot of extreme positions. And lots of people are perfectly willing to do so. Because they think their cause gives them license to lie as much as they want. Means there's lots of "statistics" out there that you really can't trust. I've read, for example, that around 1/3 of the time when the egg is fertilized, it fails to implant in the womb, and simply passes from the mother. Me, I don't think that counts as "abortion", because no deliberate human action was involved. However, I will note that there are a whole lot of people who are willing to cling, with fervor, to the notion that when a sperm and an egg meet, two dead things combine and instantly create, not only life, but a fully formed person. (And at least some of the people in this group regularly attempt to ban, or at least restrict, the 'morning after pill', which actually works by giving hormones to the mother which prevent her ova from releasing an egg, by reciting the claim that 'well, it's never been proven that it's impossible for the pill to revent implantation. Which they insist is an abortion.) So I suppose your question might be true if you count such failure to implant events as "abortion". But I don't. And I doubt any reasonable person would, either. However, if we restrict the word "abortion" to "human imitated events taken for the purpose of ending a pregnancy which has occurred", then I don't think your statement holds. To start with, technically (until one group or another decides to change the definition), it's not technically a pregnancy. Fertilization occurs a few days before implantation, and pregnancy begins with implantation. So it is possible to have "life begins" (to some), without ever having "pregnancy". And pretty much as soon as implantation occurs, the cells start specializing. For example, one of the first things that happens is that some cells begin creating the placenta, and some begin forming the fetus. One of the things that happens at this point is that the placenta begins secreting hormones into the mother. It's these hormones, for example, that will prevent Mommy from producing another egg. And prevent her from having a period. And it's these hormones which the pregnancy tests detect. By the time a home pregnancy test will say you're pregnant, it's been implanted for a month or so. By then, there's a lot of specialization that's happened. For example, the fetus has a regularly-pumping muscle that is circulating it's blood. Whether it's correct to call it a "heart" (I understand it only has one chamber at that time), it certainly is pumping blood. I'm pretty sure that it has some bones. (Although I think they're made of cartilage, rather than calcium, at that stage.) So, while it's not accurate to call it a "baby", and I'm not sure it's accurate to call it a "person" (At one stage of it's development, for example, it has a tail. And 'person' is really more of a philosophical label than a physical one, anyway.), but I think that calling it "a clump of cells" is too extreme, IMO.
  12. Lead paragraph from your article that "Debunk(s) Common Pro-Choice Argument". "Data from Florida reveal that, in 2018, an overwhelming majority of women reported obtaining an abortion for reasons other than to preserve their own life or health, or due to fetal-health complications." Wow, that really debunked the "common" argument that most abortions are to save the mother's life or health. Wonder how many times that "common argument" has been used, in this years-long thread. (I'm also admiring that the 2-3 paragraphs of that thing that I read, mentioned that any time the mother chose not to list a reason, they assumed it was elective. Not that they were trying to force a conclusion or anything.)
  13. Although I have been known to do so in the past, (in fact, it would apply to this very post of yours), I am not doing so right now. But one of those rights is not to demand that someone else let you use their body.
  14. I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that attempting to argue that "human" can mean "person", or it can mean "anything related to a person". But then, you're well aware of that, which is why you keep trying to use the word. It is when the argument is "I have a body, therefore I'm entitled to demand the use of yours".
  15. 1). Irrelevant. 2). Is my finger a a human finger or no? You're all up in the FETUS' bodily autonomy. The mother's? Time for deflection.