Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,611 comments
  • 138,163 views
  • Contraceptives don't always work
  • Condoms fail
  • Alcohol impairs your judgement
  • Teenagers are stupid and horny
  • Mr. Wonderful turned out to be not so wonderful when the period was late
  • "He said he would pull out"
  • Things progressed so quickly it just didn't enter either participants mind to put a condom on
  • Turns out she was wrong about where she was in her cycle

I'm sure there's plenty of other examples as to how an accidental pregnancy occurs, but I think you get the idea.
 
I'm not a pro-lifer btw.
Neither are the anti-choicers. It's just branding.
But that doesn't mean I want more abortions; maybe you do.
...

Unless one is being disingenuous, why would anyone who purports to not want to argue about abortion proceed to allege that another wants there to be more abortions?

  • Contraceptives don't always work
  • Condoms fail
  • Alcohol impairs your judgement
  • Teenagers are stupid and horny
  • Mr. Wonderful turned out to be not so wonderful when the period was late
  • "He said he would pull out"
  • Things progressed so quickly it just didn't enter either participants mind to put a condom on
  • Turns out she was wrong about where she was in her cycle

I'm sure there's plenty of other examples as to how an accidental pregnancy occurs, but I think you get the idea.
And that's just the accidental pregnancies.

An individual whose pregnancy wasn't accidental or whose pregnancy may have been unintentional but who has made the decision to carry it may then choose to terminate for a variety of reasons including but not limited to their own physical and/or mental health, their economic circumstances and their social circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Loved this.


Right-wingers: "We passed a law banning abortion regardless of age unless there's an immediate risk of death or a diagnosed medical condition causing a complication"

Lawyers: "That means a 10-year-old would have to stay pregnant until she's about to die"

Right-wingers: "Nuh-uh, because being pregnant at 10 is risky"

Lawyers: "Statistically, very, but the law says you can't do anything until the abortion is immediately necessary to prevent death, not to prevent an unrealized future risk"

Right-wingers: "No, that'd be bad"

Lawyers: "We agree, that's why the law itself is bad"

Right-wingers: "No, the law doesn't do that, it would allow this."

Lawyers: "Where does it do that?"

Right-wingers: "IT SAYS IF THERE'S A RISK WHY ARE YOU BEING SO NITPICKY ABOUT THE WORD IMMINENT?"

Lawyers: "I mean... Because that's what the law says and a doctor isn't going to risk committing a felony"

Right-wingers: "If it's an imminent risk next week it's an imminent risk now"

Lawyers: "That's... No, that's not how imminence works."

Right-wingers: "You're saying you want this rape victim to remain pregnant, that's why you're saying the law requires it because you want the law to require it."

Lawyers: "We're telling you what the law says, we don't want this law to exist"

Right-wingers: "Your accurate legal analysis is why the law leads to outcomes I don't like. If you told me the law works the way I want it to, it would work that way."

Lawyers:

nathan-fillion-no-words.gif
 
I recommend not reading the description before watching the clip.

There's nothing wrong with the description as it provides an accurate account of a portion of the exchange, but it really doesn't describe the entire portion of the exchange that the video presents.

 
I recommend not reading the description before watching the clip.

There's nothing wrong with the description as it provides an accurate account of a portion of the exchange, but it really doesn't describe the entire portion of the exchange that the video presents.


So the word abortion seems to be the sticking point! Huh! This would have been so much easier if we just picked a new word. Maybe "discontinue" - yeah, that sounds less aggressive. Or perhaps have a "fizzle out"

fizzle.JPG


Also Fox News is determined to make this story, somehow, not about the girl being forced to cross state lines for an abortion but about her attackers immigration status and a deep drive into police report minutia. I'm not even going to post the link...

Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:
So the word abortion seems to be the sticking point! Huh! This would have been so much easier if we just picked a new word. Maybe "discontinue" - yeah, that sounds less aggressive. Or perhaps have a "fizzle out"

View attachment 1172757

Also Fox News is determined to make this story, somehow, not about the girl being forced to cross state lines for an abortion but about her attackers immigration status and a deep drive into police report minutia. I'm not even going to post the link...

View attachment 1172758
They are trying to make it about both. To mangle the former President, "there are bad people on both sides."
 
NYT is reporting that Biden will not be nominating Chad Meredith, an anti-choice zealot, to a federal judgeship in Kentucky. If true, this defies an apparent agreement between Biden and McConnell in which the latter wouldstop blocking nomination of two US Attorneys in the state.

I hope this is the case. It's a bad deal anyway because the federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment while the US Attorneys could easily be canned in a little over two years, but it's also a bad deal because McConnell is a rat ****er that can't be trusted to not simply hold something else hostage to get the next thing.
 

NYT is reporting that Biden will not be nominating Chad Meredith, an anti-choice zealot, to a federal judgeship in Kentucky. If true, this defies an apparent agreement between Biden and McConnell in which the latter wouldstop blocking nomination of two US Attorneys in the state.

I hope this is the case. It's a bad deal anyway because the federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment while the US Attorneys could easily be canned in a little over two years, but it's also a bad deal because McConnell is a rat ****er that can't be trusted to not simply hold something else hostage to get the next thing.
So McConnell says there was never a deal (that sounds about right on McConnell's end) and that Biden's nomination of Meredith would have been a "personal friendship gesture." Pity the junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, was a no on the nomination and that's what killed it. McConnell is mystified by Paul's opposition.

A bit more about the wretched cur Meredith. In 2017, in his capacity as an attorney, he defended, in court, Kentucky abortion law that requires providers to perform an ultrasound and describe the image to patients before the abortion procedure. That law is presently in effect in the state while abortions are still legal; the ban that was triggered by the overturning of Roe has been temporarily blocked by state court order.
 
They’ll say they have a right to extend past their borders bc the mother is “killing” their “citizen”.

But, and I’m probably wrong, if a Texas person was killed by another Texan in California, they wouldn’t try to have the case settled in Texas bc involved Texas citizens? It would be handled where the murder took place, no?


Actually, not that any of this matters bc it was never about states’ rights.
 
Last edited:
They’ll say they have a right to extend past their borders bc the mother is “killing” their “citizen”.

But, and I’m probably wrong, if a Texas person was killed by another Texan in California, they wouldn’t try to have the case settled in Texas bc involved Texas citizens? It would be handled where the murder took place, no?


Actually, not that any of this matters bc it was never about states’ rights.
Based on a quick reading (ie: I could be wrong), states would need to claim that at least part of the crime occurred within their borders to have any jurisdiction over the crime.
 
Based on a quick reading (ie: I could be wrong), states would need to claim that at least part of the crime occurred within their borders to have any jurisdiction over the crime.
Exactly. That's why I said it's no different really than someone here in Alabama going to a state like Nevada to casino gamble or partake in legalized prostitution or to a state to buy legal marijuana. All of those things are illegal here in this state IF YOU DO THEM IN THIS STATE. But they can't do anything about it if it doesn't occur in this state.
 
Exactly. That's why I said it's no different really than someone here in Alabama going to a state like Nevada to casino gamble or partake in legalized prostitution or to a state to buy legal marijuana. All of those things are illegal here in this state IF YOU DO THEM IN THIS STATE. But they can't do anything about it if it doesn't occur in this state.
 
What are Vopos? Are they like Nazi feds?
Given Nichols' specialty, I suspect they're a Russian Soviet police force. That's probably a slang term.

It's also the title of a groovy Camel track.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, so now we go to the Pyrrhic victory attempt with this N.C. proposed bill.



"it is a matter of indisputable scientific fact that a distinct and separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization"

No it's ****ing not, it's very, very disputable, and NC I'm going to want a citation on this from you, as right now you're getting a failing grade in Biology 101.

"Pro-Life"
Got to love the "is not convicted of a capital offence" caveat.

No-one kill this precious human life, apart from us, we can totally do it!
 
Back