Berggy9598 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, Larry said: You think people shouldn't insert themselves into something which you think should be between a woman and her doctor. (FWIW, I agree with you. Just not because I think there's some rule of nature that nobody's opinions count unless I approve of them.) But society inserts itself into lots of decisions. Society thinks they can tell my doctor that he can't help me commit suicide. They can tell my doctor that he can't give me marijuana. They think that my gambling isn't just between me and my bookie and that prostitution isn't just between a john and a hooker. Every single law restricts people's choices. That's what they do. And all of them are written by society as a whole. Is anyone trying to pass a law that could force you into a medical procedure that could possibly kill you for the sake of a clump of cells surviving 4 more weeks? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 @Larry the problem with society as a whole making the rules is that society as a whole doesnt always agree on everything. At some point you have to make a rule and tell the other side to deal with it, this is in best interests for everyone in the long run whether they like it like or not. That's how Civil Rights Act was passed and signed, the country as a whole wasnt in agreement on that, but if we waited for that it never would've happened. This is important because its 2019 and I promise you the entire country still isnt on the same page with the matters addressed in that law. Our government is designed to force balance between majority opinions and minority opinions. This is to account for there will always be majority or minority opinions no matter which one is best for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berggy9598 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Someday (if I’m lucky) I hope to find myself a lady that looks at me like some of the mens look at their opinion. Sheesh. Social media is partially to blame though. Nobody having a face to face conversation with a woman would turn forced ectopic pregnancy (WTF did I just say?!) into a social psychology debate. Edited December 1, 2019 by Berggy9598 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 the only one forcing a ectopic pregnancy is some of ya'lls imaginations 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 1, 2019 Author Share Posted December 1, 2019 34 minutes ago, twa said: the only one forcing a ectopic pregnancy is some of ya'lls imaginations True, the GOP bill isn't forcing ectopic pregnancy. They're just turning it into a life-threatening condition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Larry said: True, the GOP bill isn't forcing ectopic pregnancy. They're just turning it into a life-threatening condition. If you close one eye and stand on your head long enough maybe. 🤓 if transplanting the fetus into the uterus ever becomes a safe medically approved procedure ya might even have a point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 1, 2019 Author Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, twa said: If you close one eye and stand on your head long enough maybe. 🤓 Or if you read the law. You know, the part that's been posted in this thread. 2 minutes ago, twa said: if transplanting the fetus into the uterus ever becomes a safe medically approved procedure ya might even have a point.... Got a point now. Made it. Clearly. If it ever becomes non-fictional, then maybe at least one of the points you've tried to make won't be dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Larry said: Or if you read the law. You know, the part that's been posted in this thread. I both read it and understood it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 1, 2019 Author Share Posted December 1, 2019 23 minutes ago, twa said: I both read it and understood it. Excellent. So you're aware that the portion quoted above, Quote Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is not subject to criminal prosecution, damages in any civil action, or professional disciplinary action, for a violation of this chapter: (A) Using reasonable medical judgment, believes it is highly probable that the pregnant woman will die from a certain fatal condition before her unborn child is viable; (B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable, for the sole purpose of treating the pregnant woman's fatal condition; (C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman's uterus states that a physician, treating a patient with an ectopic pregnancy, is not permitted to end such pregnancy until it becomes "highly probable that the pregnant woman will die". (And that's only one of the conditions he has to meet, to avoid being prosecuted for murder.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 once the diagnosis is confirmed it is highly probable the patient will die unless nature, meds or surgery terminate the pregnancy. are you simply arguing timeline is impacted by the bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 It's more that they're trying to include a medically necessary D&C in a bill that bans "all things a woman may elect to do with her female parts". It's just plain stupid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said: It's more that they're trying to include a medically necessary D&C in a bill that bans "all things a woman may elect to do with her female parts". It's just plain stupid. the bill doesn't ban any medical procedure necessary to save a life, it certainly bans ending human life w/o cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 These people are disgusting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 for many years i have realized that anyone who actually uses the term "pro-life" in the advocacy form is of fundamentally corrupt cognition, full of magical/nonsensical/arbitrary/hyper-hypocritical thinking, and it will show up in any number of matters...fuzzy brain stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 The same for pro-choice , the labels are stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, twa said: The same for pro-choice , the labels are stupid no it's not the same at all, either in the main point i was making, or just per use of the term...but i don't think pro-choice is all that much a winner, either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 1 hour ago, twa said: The same for pro-choice , the labels are stupid 1 hour ago, Jumbo said: but i don't think pro-choice is all that much a winner, either "Small government" fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 2 hours ago, twa said: labels are stupid "Conservative" and "liberal"... "capitalist" and "socialist"... None of it means what it's supposed to mean anymore. Those terms get thrown around now like "bloods" and "crips". It's just the group that people associate themselves with and are loyal to because of course, once you attach a label to yourself it becomes part of your identity and makes you easier to manipulate. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Larry said: "Small government" fits. well, to twa's comment (which isn't absent of all merit) , a number of users of "pro-life" will slam the pro-choice label in retaliation when they're criticized for the "pro-life" term by going with something akin to "but what choice are you giving the baby?" followed by how libs are "all about freedom of choice except for the most vital choice concerning the most innocent and helpless among us" (that's me simulating) i do also think pro-choice is a poor choice, though not "the same", as i indicated, and it doesn't reflect the common problematic cognitive patterning i referenced, but i lack the interest to get into a really big exposition on the matter, for which i'm sure at least a few folk are more than grateful 7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: "Conservative" and "liberal"... "capitalist" and "socialist"... None of it means what it's supposed to mean anymore. Those terms get thrown around now like "bloods" and "crips". It's just the group that people associate themselves with and are loyal to because of course, once you attach a label to yourself it becomes part of your identity and makes you easier to manipulate. that's why i generally try to stick with "dumbass" here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 Prepare yourselves for chaos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 2, 2020 Author Share Posted January 2, 2020 Dunno why they want to revisit those. (Other than to score points with their base. Which I suppose is a possible motive.) They've effectively gutted it already. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 i wish all the magical-thinking pro lifers just weren't especially the ones with dicks if you personally can't get pregnant when you screw then sit down and keep your mouth shut, dumbass (i dun ben radicalized) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 Hawley is going to run for President and doesn't want this on his record in a general election. Yet the GOP isn't going to nominate someone who doesn't want to end Roe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now