Alabama vasectomy bill - OUCH!

[Utilit99 4,099]

16 hours ago, NorthernVike said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-takes-aim-at-alabama-vasectomy-bill-yikes/ar-BB103XCN?ocid=spartandhp

 

 

The looney left is making Ted Cruz look like the voice of reason.  

 

The bill would require men over 50 and those who have at least three biological children to get vasectomies.  

 

And instead of trashing the dumb biatch that propose the bill, libs are mocking Cruz by saying it's about time he comes around on choice.

 

 

 

Focking idiots.  

 

 

How about we castrate whores on welfare that have more than one child.  

How about we castrate any person who has a kid and can't afford it? "That was your one shot lady." People shouldn't just fvck around (No pun intended.) with flirting with having babies.

[MDC 7,250]

Ohio bill defines “aggravates abortion murder” as  “purposely perform an abortion while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, terrorism or escape.”

https://rewire.news/ablc/2019/11/20/ohio-bill-creates-new-felonies-for-abortion-murder/

 

[MDC 7,250]

Repubtard moonbats in South Carolina remove exceptions for rape and incest from a bill that bans abortions 6 weeks after conception:

https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/sc-senators-advance-bill-banning-most-abortions-after-striking-rape/article_70f5754a-f4e5-11e9-8ccb-c37452517854.html

 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, MDC said:

Repubtard moonbats in South Carolina remove exceptions for rape and incest from a bill that bans abortions 6 weeks after conception:

https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/sc-senators-advance-bill-banning-most-abortions-after-striking-rape/article_70f5754a-f4e5-11e9-8ccb-c37452517854.html

 

At this point, it's like some of the southern states are purposely trying to be caricatures of what civilized people think of Dukes of Hazzard trailer park trash.  It's like the portion of the US that time forgot.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Repubtard moonbats in South Carolina remove exceptions for rape and incest from a bill that bans abortions 6 weeks after conception:

https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/sc-senators-advance-bill-banning-most-abortions-after-striking-rape/article_70f5754a-f4e5-11e9-8ccb-c37452517854.html

 

No, no, no.  Don't you get it.  It is the liberals that are putting in all of these crazy laws.  The fundies have been doing this all along, so it is okay.  You just don't get it.  At 6 weeks, it is still a baby murder.  

BTW - this is sarcastic for those who just don't get it.

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sure. As long as you disregard what the governor of Virginia has said. Let’s hear it, and please, tell me it’s illegal everywhere. That would be great. 

 

11 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Unlike you, I can understand context and actually look up the law referenced in an extemporaneous Q&A and figure out what someone was attempting to say without twisting it into something completely different.   

Also post-birth abortion is illegal I believe everywhere on earth, it's called murder...weren't you a cop, thought you would have known that.

 

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You got nothin chump. Blah blah. Lose. 

Yeah, you won big time...like Apollo Creed vs Drago.   

[MDC 7,250]

30 minutes ago, The Observer said:

At this point, it's like some of the southern states are purposely trying to be caricatures of what civilized people think of Dukes of Hazzard trailer park trash.  It's like the portion of the US that time forgot.

It’s not just the South. You’ve got states like Ohio trying to pass “heartbeat bills.” The fundie weirdos know they have a friend in the WH.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

The abortion issue is easily fixable, the problem is that both sides MUST win, and the other side won't let that happen.  I'll pose this question again though, for the people who are adamantly for abortion.  If everyone agrees to the vasectomy bill, will you then be ok with abortions being illegal?  If not, then any comparison between the two are ridiculous.

Now, on to the easy fix.  Abortions are legal at any point, at the 100% cost being on the patient.  The cost increases as the term goes on.  Why is this the easy fix?  Because everyone has rights, I'm ok with an abortion being one... the thing is, no right is given to you and then paid for by the government at your choosing.  An analogy... I have the right to live, but the government isn't responsible to give me money to ensure that I live.

Exceptions on funding:

1. Rape/Incest
   1. In the case of Incest, it's not wise to allow a child to be born with a high chance of birth defects, birth defects that will likely cause extensive cost to not just the parents but everyone one else.
   2. With rape (which could also be incest) - Any woman who was raped should bare no financial responsibility for the abortion as the pregnancy was forced on to her.  Caveats... a rape complaint MUST be filed and every immediate male family member must submit a DNA test as well as every close male friend of the woman.  Why?  We don't need rape claims to increase by 1000% just so women can get free post pregnancy birth control.
      1. If a police report is filed and the government pays for the abortion and at a later date, the woman willingly gets impregnated by the same person who "raped" her, she has two options... 1) press charges and he goes to jail  2) drops the charges and pays double for the abortion, false police reports, medical costs, and any other expenses that were incurred by the previous abortion... at the current rate, not at the rate to which it happened.  Meaning, if she gets an abortion today and the costs is $1000 (just example), and 7 years later gets willingly impregnated by the person who "raped" her and she drops the charges, she must repay the current day costs $1200 (again - example), doubled... so she must pay $2400. This information MUST be provided at the time before the initial abortion.
2. Health risk to the mother/child
   1. If there are any risks to the life of the mother or child if pregnancy is brought to term, then a government funded abortion can be provided under the condition that 2 doctor's, by the mother's choosing and 1 doctor of the governments choosing all agree.  Again, we don't need liberal doctors falsely claiming health risks for post pregnancy birth control.

I'm not opposed to other exceptions, but each exception must be assured that there are checks and balances and not just ways to create a loophole.

Like anything else, if you want government funding... such as welfare, medicaid, medicare, and any other social programs, then you need to prove why you need it.  Abortions should be no different.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

58 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The abortion issue is easily fixable, the problem is that both sides MUST win, and the other side won't let that happen.  I'll pose this question again though, for the people who are adamantly for abortion.  If everyone agrees to the vasectomy bill, will you then be ok with abortions being illegal?  If not, then any comparison between the two are ridiculous.

I have yet to see anyone who believes the vasectomy bill is anything but a joke and is not meant to be taken seriously.  I can't understand why people don't get that.  

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I have yet to see anyone who believes the vasectomy bill is anything but a joke and is not meant to be taken seriously.  I can't understand why people don't get that.  

Ted Cruz bought it. Hook line & sinker.  Awesome job of trolling by the Alabama Democrat.  She proved the very point she set out to prove. When it became the man's body, it was outrageous!  lol

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

3 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I have yet to see anyone who believes the vasectomy bill is anything but a joke and is not meant to be taken seriously.  I can't understand why people don't get that.  

My point was to call the bluff.  They want to make a joke about it, fine, but hey, let's do it.  Abortions illegal now?  That was my point.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

3 hours ago, The Observer said:

Ted Cruz bought it. Hook line & sinker.  Awesome job of trolling by the Alabama Democrat.  She proved the very point she set out to prove. When it became the man's body, it was outrageous!  lol

The point being that she's incompetent?  You are correct, she did prove that point.  Pretty sure everyone commenting on it said that the issue isn't the same... not that they were against it because it was about men.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The point being that she's incompetent?  You are correct, she did prove that point.  Pretty sure everyone commenting on it said that the issue isn't the same... not that they were against it because it was about men.

I guess you missed the part where another of her colleagues also tried to make a vasectomy a felony.  This is more than one lawmaker in Alabama who is grandstanding against a pretty stupid abortion bill that actually passed.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

If a baby survives an abortion, you can still terminate it in 7 states. Got it. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

17 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I guess you missed the part where another of her colleagues also tried to make a vasectomy a felony.  This is more than one lawmaker in Alabama who is grandstanding against a pretty stupid abortion bill that actually passed.  

There are a lot of stupid bill across all lines, not just about abortions or any other issue.  The main issue on abortion to a significant part of the population is... where is the line and who's paying for it?  To me (and I'm right on this), is that there should be a line set by the federal government (see my above post for rules and what not), and that line should stay there and be locked in forever and to never change.  It should never change because we know for a fact what the timeline is of birth.  It's then on to the state's rights portion as to where the state can make their own line.  If the line that the state sets is beyond the federal line, then the state absorbs the entire cost.  If that states' tax payers want abortions, fine, then you pay for it within your own state.

The problem, as I stated above is that both sides won't quit until they win.  Anything other than a win, is loss and win for the other side.  Meaning, neither side will compromise.  We're now at a point on this topic where there's no point in arguing it any further as nothing will get done.  Well, until I become President.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

This seems like an excellent way to convince the public the democrats are nuts.  Or rather, have no nuts.

[jerryskids 6,694]

Since libs think that Europe is what we should aspire to, perhaps we should look to them for abortion laws?

England:

Quote

In Great Britain under the Abortion Act 1967, it is permitted if there is:

• risk to the life of the pregnant woman;
• a necessity for abortion to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
• risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family (up to a term limit of 24 weeks of gestation); or
• substantial risk that if the child were born, it would "suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".^[1][2]

Or France, a little more lax:

Quote

France legalized abortion in Law 75-17 of 18 January 1975, which permitted a woman to receive an abortion on request until the tenth week of pregnancy. After a trial period, Law 75-17 was adopted permanently in December 1979.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Since libs think that Europe is what we should aspire to, perhaps we should look to them for abortion laws?

England:

Or France, a little more lax:

No, they only look to Europe when it suits them.  They ignore them when it doesn't.  That's when they bring up "nuance" and "progressive".

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

Pretty obvious that PFB and Newbie don’t have all the information on the subject.  

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Pretty obvious that PFB and Newbie don’t have all the information on the subject.  

And you do?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

Just now, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

And you do?

I know it’s legal in seven states (for now) to terminate a child after it has been born. Did you know that? Thoughts? 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I know it’s legal in seven states (for now) to terminate a child after it has been born. Did you know that? Thoughts? 

Go read those laws and show me where that just happens for convenience. 

[The Observer 641]

Here are my thoughts on abortion. I believe a woman should have her choice.  I am personally against abortions, but don't think they should be illegal. I would like to see third trimester abortions be illegal unless signed for as a medical emergency by multiple doctors.

I really hope Hardcore allows me to have those beliefs and doesn't make me adjust them  Since he thinks he's the one who tells everyone what they're allowed to believe in and what they're not. LOL

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

7 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Here are my thoughts on abortion. I believe a woman should have her choice.  I am personally against abortions, but don't think they should be illegal. I would like to see third trimester abortions be illegal unless signed for as a medical emergency by multiple doctors.

I really hope Hardcore allows me to have those beliefs and doesn't make me adjust them  Since he thinks he's the one who tells everyone what they're allowed to believe in and what they're not. LOL

I respect that.  But that’s not what’s being offered. It’s all or nothing. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

15 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Go read those laws and show me where that just happens for convenience. 

What does that have to do with it? The child has already been born. Is there a law that says the mother has to now keep the baby? 

[KayJay1971 239]

17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What does that have to do with it? The child has already been born. Is there a law that says the mother has to now keep the baby? 

I know mothers can surrender their babies after giving birth to hospitals, fire departments, etc. Are you saying they can go back to their doctor and say "Hey doc this baby just isn't working out for me. Can you know, terminate it for me?"

[Hardcore troubadour 15,196]

8 minutes ago, KayJay1971 said:

I know mothers can surrender their babies after giving birth to hospitals, fire departments, etc. Are you saying they can go back to their doctor and say "Hey doc this baby just isn't working out for me. Can you know, terminate it for me?"

Sometimes children are born alive during an abortion. Rare? Yes.  But it does happen. The governer or Virginia , a former MD, explained how exactly they would go about ending the child’s life, after the mother had given birth. But the pro-choice movement, and every democratic candidate as far as i know, have stated that women should be alllowed to have an abortion up to birth, with no qualifiers. 9 months is fine with them, which is just as bad as after birth. 

[KayJay1971 239]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sometimes children are born alive during an abortion. Rare? Yes.  But it does happen. The governer or Virginia , a former MD, explained how exactly they would go about ending the child’s life, after the mother had given birth. But the pro-choice movement, and every democratic candidate as far as i know, have stated that women should be alllowed to have an abortion up to birth, with no qualifiers. 9 months is fine with them, which is just as bad as after birth. 

Was not aware of that. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sometimes children are born alive during an abortion. Rare? Yes.  But it does happen. The governer or Virginia , a former MD, explained how exactly they would go about ending the child’s life, after the mother had given birth. But the pro-choice movement, and every democratic candidate as far as i know, have stated that women should be alllowed to have an abortion up to birth, with no qualifiers. 9 months is fine with them, which is just as bad as after birth. 

“As far as you know”? How about a link showing how every candidate believes in abortion at 9 months with no qualifiers. I will wait.

[Cloaca du jour 2,148]

No Fetus Can Beat Us....

Ill start making buttons and hats

[Utilit99 4,099]

54 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

No Fetus Can Beat Us....

Ill start making buttons and hats

The left might have a chance if they take on a slogan like

When in doubt, suck it out.

That should cover all the 'LGB tranny community' and the 'pro kill a baby because the mother was irresponsible community', as well as the 'socialist wanting to allow the government to suck up peoples wages community'.

It's interesting how the left fights so hard for increasing minimum wage but wants taxes to skyrocket.

 

[MDC 7,250]

Utilit99 = the abortion that lived.  

[The Observer 641]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Utilit99 = the abortion that lived.  

I've stopped making fun of him. I started feeling bad. He's obviously 'special'

[jerryskids 6,694]

15 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sometimes children are born alive during an abortion. Rare? Yes.  But it does happen. The governer or Virginia , a former MD, explained how exactly they would go about ending the child’s life, after the mother had given birth. But the pro-choice movement, and every democratic candidate as far as i know, have stated that women should be alllowed to have an abortion up to birth, with no qualifiers. 9 months is fine with them, which is just as bad as after birth. 

TorridJoe believed that it was a woman's choice up until birth.  I actually respected the consistency of that argument.  If it is a choice it is a choice; to put a gestation period on it is arbitrary.  For those who find comfort in the "when it is viable" position -- in the not-too-distant future I expect that fetuses will be viable from the point of conception.  Then what? 

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

TorridJoe believed that it was a woman's choice up until birth.  I actually respected the consistency of that argument.  If it is a choice it is a choice; to put a gestation period on it is arbitrary.  For those who find comfort in the "when it is viable" position -- in the not-too-distant future I expect that fetuses will be viable from the point of conception.  Then what? 

I've always used the arbitrary period of when a fetus could survive outside the body.  That's when I'd say it's too late for an abortion.  Ideally, there'd be zero abortions. I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. But in the event a decision is made to abort, I would hope that could be made in the first trimester.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

14 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

“As far as you know”? How about a link showing how every candidate believes in abortion at 9 months with no qualifiers. I will wait.

If you ask that question publicly, I think you'll get a different answer than if you ask it privately.... but to only 1 party.  I think every Republican candidate will tell you both privately and publicly that there should be no abortion at all after a certain time - now, that time frame may vary between 0 and 4 months, but that's much sooner than 9 months.  I'm pretty confident that the Dems would be all over the spectrum.  I have no doubt what-so-ever that there would be candidates who would say that they believe in abortion up to the very end (in public - to give the "moral high ground"/"pro-woman" stance), but privately, they'd say something like 4-months.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

10 minutes ago, The Observer said:

I've always used the arbitrary period of when a fetus could survive outside the body.  That's when I'd say it's too late for an abortion.  Ideally, there'd be zero abortions. I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. But in the event a decision is made to abort, I would hope that could be made in the first trimester.

My only goal on abortion is for it not to be government funded birth control.

[The Observer 641]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

My only goal on abortion is for it not to be government funded birth control.

That's fine, but then keep your mouth shut when unwanted babies become food stamp and welfare recipients.  You're paying either way.

[MDC 7,250]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If you ask that question publicly, I think you'll get a different answer than if you ask it privately.... but to only 1 party.  I think every Republican candidate will tell you both privately and publicly that there should be no abortion at all after a certain time - now, that time frame may vary between 0 and 4 months, but that's much sooner than 9 months.  I'm pretty confident that the Dems would be all over the spectrum.  I have no doubt what-so-ever that there would be candidates who would say that they believe in abortion up to the very end (in public - to give the "moral high ground"/"pro-woman" stance), but privately, they'd say something like 4-months.

I’m equally sure Trump would say one thing in public but act differently if one of his side wh0res got knocked up. 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

5 minutes ago, The Observer said:

That's fine, but then keep your mouth shut when unwanted babies become food stamp and welfare recipients.  You're paying either way.

Not true.  If they want the abortion, they can pay for it themselves.  I'm willing to bet that they can afford it.

Also, that's a very weak argument.  It's weak because I can use that on any topic.  For example, the government should give me a house.  Why?  Because if I can't afford one, I'll just be on welfare living in government subsidized housing, so you're paying for it any way.

Why should I get a job?  The government should just give me money.  Why?  Because if I don't have money, I'll be on welfare and the government will be paying for it any way.

Want more examples?