Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[dogcows 1,029]

45 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't know how you can read that link and see it as anything other than "how to justify abortions."  Here, I'll help you:

Don't use "womb," because it "can be used to apply emotional value to a human organ."  Use "uterus" instead.

Don't use "partial-birth abortion," it is "graphic, inflammatory language."  Use "intact dilation and evacuation."

Don't use "elective abortion," the "unnecessary descriptor of “elective” can be used to differentiate between reasons for abortion care and diminish the value of the abortion care that many patients need."

Abortion definition:  "Abortion is a medical intervention provided to individuals who need to end the medical condition of pregnancy.

 

Since we are being nitpicky with words, they clearly are being inaccurate or at minimum incomplete with their use of "need."  They should use or include "want," should they not?

 

In the end this all serves to allow the doctors to go home and feel good about themselves.

"Hey honey, how was your day?"

"Pretty good.  I induced the end of a few embryonic cardiac activities and performed one intact dilation and evacuation."   

You want the doctor to use the term “womb” when dealing with a patient?

So if somebody comes in with appendicitis, should the doctor tell them it’s a “‘tummy ache”?

God forbid a doctor use accurate terminology when dealing with patients. They should clearly use political buzzwords instead.

[TimHauck 1,795]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 

Edit: Sorry misread

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is 6 weeks late term now?

 No. What’s your point, moron? 

[TimHauck 1,795]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

 No. What’s your point, moron? 

Edited before you posted 

[TimHauck 1,795]

57 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't know how you can read that link and see it as anything other than "how to justify abortions."  Here, I'll help you:

Don't use "womb," because it "can be used to apply emotional value to a human organ."  Use "uterus" instead.

Don't use "partial-birth abortion," it is "graphic, inflammatory language."  Use "intact dilation and evacuation."

Don't use "elective abortion," the "unnecessary descriptor of “elective” can be used to differentiate between reasons for abortion care and diminish the value of the abortion care that many patients need."

Abortion definition:  "Abortion is a medical intervention provided to individuals who need to end the medical condition of pregnancy.

 

Since we are being nitpicky with words, they clearly are being inaccurate or at minimum incomplete with their use of "need."  They should use or include "want," should they not?

 

In the end this all serves to allow the doctors to go home and feel good about themselves.

"Hey honey, how was your day?"

"Pretty good.  I induced the end of a few embryonic cardiac activities and performed one intact dilation and evacuation."   

I doubt most doctors “feel good” about performing abortions, outside of simply “feeling good” about being able to follow the wishes of their patients.

[Reality 2,710]

Sycophants, just like our local idiots on the left.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

40 minutes ago, Reality said:

Sycophants, just like our local idiots on the left.

 

They still believe. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

55 minutes ago, Reality said:

Sycophants, just like our local idiots on the left.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They still believe. 

So you guys think abortion shouldn’t be legal at 6 weeks?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

So you guys think abortion shouldn’t be legal at 6 weeks?

Why do you ask?

[Reality 2,710]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why do you ask?

Pretty sure that account is a bot that just spits out random questions. It's beyond odd.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

5 minutes ago, Reality said:

Pretty sure that account is a bot that just spits out random questions. It's beyond odd.

He thinks he lays some kind of trap. It’s comical.  

[TimHauck 1,795]

50 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why do you ask?

Why else would you be talking about heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade?

[craftsman 1,045]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Why else would you be talking about heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade?

Why don't you answer the question with a statement? Instead of another question?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

By botcucks belief system there is a second, an instant, when we make the transition to human. And we all agree that this is basically true. Only difference is we can define it. He can't. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

17 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Why else would you be talking about heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade?

Because it became about heartbeats. You have to fall back on thread integrity now? In this place? Somehow you have decided you’re some sort of great inquisitor. You’re not. Your continued ploys are simple and obvious. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

8 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Why don't you answer the question with a statement? Instead of another question?

I asked the question because my assumption would be if someone is arguing about whether or not 6 week old fetuses have heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade, they probably think abortion should be illegal at that point.  I don’t like making assumptions though, hence the question.  I thought it was a simple yes or no question, weird that everyone has avoided it thus far.

[craftsman 1,045]

14 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I asked the question because my assumption would be if someone is arguing about whether or not 6 week old fetuses have heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade, they probably think abortion should be illegal at that point.  I don’t like making assumptions though, hence the question.  I thought it was a simple yes or no question, weird that everyone has avoided it thus far.

At what age do you think it's great to kill a child? 

[TimHauck 1,795]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

At what stage do you think it's great to kill a child? 

Never said it was great.  But I’ve consistently stated that it should be legal until it can survive outside of the womb, which the consensus is is between 20-24 weeks.

Your turn.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I asked the question because my assumption would be if someone is arguing about whether or not 6 week old fetuses have heartbeats in a thread about Roe v Wade, they probably think abortion should be illegal at that point.  I don’t like making assumptions though, hence the question.  I thought it was a simple yes or no question, weird that everyone has avoided it thus far.

There is 59 pages of people answering it. Everyone isn’t avoiding it, drone. You just keep asking it. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There is 59 pages of people answering it. 

Did you?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Did you?

We’re on to heartbeats now. Keep up. 

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Never said it was great.  But I’ve consistently stated that it should be legal until it can survive outside of the womb, which the consensus is is between 20-24 weeks.

Your turn.

Good for you. Glad you enjoy killing kids over making Americans responsible for their actions. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

Just now, craftsman said:

Good for you. Glad you enjoy killing kids over making Americans responsible for their actions. 

When do you think abortion should be illegal?

[TimHauck 1,795]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

We’re on to heartbeats now. Keep up. 

Well I’m changing it to when it should be illegal.  When do you think?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,591]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Well I’m changing it to when it should be illegal.  When do you think?

12 months. 

[jerryskids 5,172]

23 hours ago, dogcows said:

You want the doctor to use the term “womb” when dealing with a patient?

So if somebody comes in with appendicitis, should the doctor tell them it’s a “‘tummy ache”?

God forbid a doctor use accurate terminology when dealing with patients. They should clearly use political buzzwords instead.

That's what you got from my post?  

But I'll play a little, here you go:

 

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

womb

/wo͞om/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. the organ in the lower body of a woman or female mammal where offspring are conceived and in which they gestate before birth; the uterus.

23 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I doubt most doctors “feel good” about performing abortions, outside of simply “feeling good” about being able to follow the wishes of their patients.

It's not wishes Tim, it's needs.  NEEDS!!!!!!!

[TimHauck 1,795]

51 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

12 months. 

Clown.  I searched “Abortion” and “illegal” and all that came up was this wishy washy  post from 2018.

On 5/11/2018 at 10:12 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

On 5/11/2018 at 10:07 PM, IGotWorms said:

Oh yeah, 8 months definitely.

 

And where do you draw the line from there??

 

I get it. Ive always gotten it. I am damn near pro-life.

 

But the republicans dont give a sh1t. Never have. Its a wedge issue to get the mouf-breathers riled up. Hell look at these court appointments under Trump. He can shape the whole judiciary and yet I havent heard sh1t about overturning Roe v Wade. They dont WANT to overturn that. Because the minute they do, a good chunk of their base no longer has any good reason to vote for them.

I agree with everything you say. But it's so dishonest how the pro-abortion camp actually try and frame it as if they are the virtuous ones. There is no moral argument about abortion, only a legal one. It's immoral, and the further along the fetus is, the more immoral it ibecomes. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but a little truth telling about it would be nice.

I see craftsman’s opinion is “state’s rights,” yet I don’t recall him having much issue with Graham’s national ban proposal.

No results for @Reality but not a surprise as he’s just a troll

[craftsman 1,045]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Clown.  I searched “Abortion” and “illegal” and all that came up was this wishy washy  post from 2018.

I see craftsman’s opinion is “state’s rights,” yet I don’t recall him having much issue with Graham’s national ban proposal.

No results for @Reality but not a surprise as he’s just a troll

Where did I comment on Graham's proposal? 

[TimHauck 1,795]

4 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Where did I comment on Graham's proposal? 

You thought that still counted as state’s rights.

On 9/14/2022 at 12:41 PM, craftsman said:

It's going to vary per state. What's so hard about that?

Fraud

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

You thought that still counted as state’s rights.

Fraud

It will vary per state. 

And where is my comment on Graham's proposal? 

[TimHauck 1,795]

16 minutes ago, craftsman said:

It will vary per state. 

And where is my comment on Graham's proposal? 

That WAS your comment on Graham’s proposal, dumbass.  

[craftsman 1,045]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That WAS your comment on Graham’s proposal, dumbass.  

Yeah. It will vary per state dumbass. You just picked two comments and associate them into what I think of a random proposal.

I didn't comment on anyone's proposal and what I thought of it. 

Is it not in the state's hands looking forward? Or is there some new law enacted on a national scale that I'm not aware of?

[TimHauck 1,795]

2 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Is it not in the state's hands looking forward?

If Graham’s proposal came to fruition, no.  Based on your prior stated opinion on Roe v Wade, I will assume you strongly oppose Graham’s proposal unless you state otherwise

[craftsman 1,045]

12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

If Graham’s proposal came to fruition, no.  Based on your prior stated opinion on Roe v Wade, I will assume you strongly oppose Graham’s proposal unless you state otherwise

But you implied I had a take on the proposal. 

Quote

I see craftsman’s opinion is “state’s rights,” yet I don’t recall him having much issue with Graham’s national ban proposal.

 

[TimHauck 1,795]

13 minutes ago, craftsman said:

But you said I had a take on the proposal. Did I say I agree or disagree with it? 

No, originally I said “I don’t recall you having much issue with it,” which was just off the top of my head.

When you asked what you commented on it, I went and checked, and saw you said “it’s going to vary by state.” 

So I was correct as usual as that statement is basically the definition of “not having much issue with it.”   However, based on your prior comments you should have had a major issue with it.

You’re a fraud.

[craftsman 1,045]

36 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

No, originally I said “I don’t recall you having much issue with it,” which was just off the top of my head.

When you asked what you commented on it, I went and checked, and saw you said “it’s going to vary by state.” 

So I was correct as usual as that statement is basically the definition of “not having much issue with it.”   However, based on your prior comments you should have had a major issue with it.

You’re a fraud.

Why would you say you don't recall me have a problem with it, instead of saying you don't know what I think of it. You are projecting garbage I never said. 

I was correct. It will vary by state laws. I didn't even know anything about the proposal. Still don't.

You're a fraud. And a liar. And a very unlikeable person. Which most liberals are. 

 

[TimHauck 1,795]

56 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Why would you say you don't recall me have a problem with it, instead of saying you don't know what I think of it. You are projecting garbage I never said. 

I was correct. It will vary by state laws. I didn't even know anything about the proposal. Still don't.

You're a fraud. And a liar. And a very unlikeable person. Which most liberals are. 

 

I said I didn’t recall you having a problem with it, because pretty much no one did (except @Thornton Melon, and maybe can add Horsecrap who at least said “it wouldn’t go anywhere”).

Your statement actually took it one step further and basically approved of the proposal, saying it was still in line with state’s rights. So it’s weird that you’d say that (and do it again just now) despite also claiming to know nothing about it…

So, the “state’s rights” line was a lie, at least for the GC.  To their credit, some Republicans have publicly opposed it:

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senators-opposing-lindsey-graham-15-week-abortion-ban-1744177

[craftsman 1,045]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I said I didn’t recall you having a problem with it, because pretty much no one did (except @Thornton Melon, and maybe can add Horsecrap who at least said “it wouldn’t go anywhere”).

Your statement actually took it one step further and basically approved of the proposal, saying it was still in line with state’s rights. So it’s weird that you’d say that (and do it again just now) despite also claiming to know nothing about it…

So, the “state’s rights” line was a lie, at least for the GC.  To their credit, some Republicans have publicly opposed it:

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senators-opposing-lindsey-graham-15-week-abortion-ban-1744177

Why didn't you say you can't recall me ever endorsing it?

 

 

[TimHauck 1,795]

2 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Why didn't you say you can't recall me ever endorsing it?

 

 

Well you did endorse it, so…

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Well you did endorse it, so…

Where did I endorse banning abortion on a federal level. Quote me the post where I said that  I only said that it's at the state level now like it should be.