At what point do you think abortion should be illegal?

[GobbleDog 822]

The people having abortions are not society's best and brightest. They're mostly scum of the Earth who leach off society and overwhelmingly commit crime. Then they exponentially multiply creating more leaches and scum, who also exponentially multiply.

I'm not "pro-choice", I'm pro-abortion. It should be encouraged, subsidized, and perfectly legal up until the day the leach is born.  Spend a little now, or a whole lot more later.

[jerryskids 5,216]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You never did point out what Stacey said that was inaccurate. Instead you got more and more tangential until you found some technicality on which you could say “I win.” Congrats. 

I don't want to hijack Tim's thread... but I will a little:

Quote

Abrams said Thursday that "there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks," adding, "It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body."

We already discussed the wordspeak from ACOG's media center, I won't rehash here.

We haven't discussed the second, which is patently false on its surface without specific evidence supporting it.

HTH

[dogcows 1,029]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't want to hijack Tim's thread... but I will a little:

We already discussed the wordspeak from ACOG's media center, I won't rehash here.

We haven't discussed the second, which is patently false on its surface without specific evidence supporting it.

HTH

From Dr. Nisha Verma, an ob/gyn doctor:

Quote

In fact, the sound pregnant people hear during ultrasounds at six weeks is entirely manufactured by the ultrasound machine, Verma said. “It’s an electrical pulse that’s translated into the sound we’re hearing from the ultrasound machine.” 

When Abrams goes into the idea that the purpose is to allow men to control women’s bodies? I think that’s too far on her part. 

Look, I can see the benefit of a doctor using the ultrasound to show a parent that the pregnancy is progressing normally, and even referring to the early stage cardiac activity as a heartbeat in order to avoid being overly technical in their language.

The problem is when legislators attempt to use that language in a law, or when politicians use it as a way to shame people for having abortions. That’s when the fact that no heart exists, and therefore can’t beat, and there’s no sound even happening… matters.

To relate this to Tim’s topic: 6 weeks is way too early for an abortion ban.

[jerryskids 5,216]

11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

From Dr. Nisha Verma, an ob/gyn doctor:

When Abrams goes into the idea that the purpose is to allow men to control women’s bodies? I think that’s too far on her part. 

Look, I can see the benefit of a doctor using the ultrasound to show a parent that the pregnancy is progressing normally, and even referring to the early stage cardiac activity as a heartbeat in order to avoid being overly technical in their language.

The problem is when legislators attempt to use that language in a law, or when politicians use it as a way to shame people for having abortions. That’s when the fact that no heart exists, and therefore can’t beat, and there’s no sound even happening… matters.

To relate this to Tim’s topic: 6 weeks is way too early for an abortion ban.

I'm well aware that an ultrasound "manufactures" sound; that's how it works, be it an unborn child or a 25 yr 9 mo old viable human.  

Quote

In the probe, there are one or more quartz crystals called piezoelectric crystals. When an electric current is applied to these crystals, they change shape rapidly. The rapid shape changes, or vibrations, of the crystals produce sound waves that travel outward.

FWIW I did my thesis on a use of piezoelectrics.  Anyway, the patently false part is, as you alluded, the crux of her argument.  If somebody says "X is false because of Y designed to Z", and Z is patently false on the surface, it negates the entire statement because of that context.  If she had instead said "there is no such thing as a heartbeat because the ACOG's media center defines it as 'embryonic cardiac activity'," then her statement would be technically accurate in it's context.

[craftsman 1,045]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Before ~20 weeks, no

So it's approximately (~) not a baby? 

[TimHauck 1,814]

11 minutes ago, craftsman said:

So it's approximately (~) not a baby? 

Answer the poll and I’ll answer

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Answer the poll and I’ll answer

It was a rhetorical question. 

[TimHauck 1,814]

Just now, craftsman said:

It was a rhetorical question. 

So just to be clear on your position:

You think abortion is “killing a child” (I presume at fertilization, but at minimum by 20 weeks), but you don’t have an opinion on what the law should be?

[Gepetto 989]

39 minutes ago, dogcows said:

From Dr. Nisha Verma, an ob/gyn doctor:

When Abrams goes into the idea that the purpose is to allow men to control women’s bodies? I think that’s too far on her part. 

Look, I can see the benefit of a doctor using the ultrasound to show a parent that the pregnancy is progressing normally, and even referring to the early stage cardiac activity as a heartbeat in order to avoid being overly technical in their language.

The problem is when legislators attempt to use that language in a law, or when politicians use it as a way to shame people for having abortions. That’s when the fact that no heart exists, and therefore can’t beat, and there’s no sound even happening… matters.

To relate this to Tim’s topic: 6 weeks is way too early for an abortion ban.

What is this nonsense.

 

Fact: Doctors listen to the fetus' heartbeat during ultrasound.

[craftsman 1,045]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So just to be clear on your position:

You think abortion is “killing a child” (I presume at fertilization, but at minimum by 20 weeks), but you don’t have an opinion on what the law should be?

My position is, I would never abort a kid. You can go kill all the kids that you want. Go ahead, kill a pregnant woman and see if they charge you with a double murder. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,277]

3 minutes ago, craftsman said:

My position is, I would never abort a kid. You can go kill all the kids that you want. Go ahead, kill a pregnant woman and see if they charge you with a double murder. 

Hyperbole much? 

[dogcows 1,029]

4 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Hyperbole much? 

Right-wing politicians prefer to force births, then let the kids starve to death by giving all their lunch money to Brett Favre.

[TimHauck 1,814]

4 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Craftsman can't read as evidenced by his response to my post. Perhaps he doesn't know the question you are asking. Maybe this forum needs audio posting so he can at least listen.

Lol did he delete his reply to you?

[TimHauck 1,814]

21 minutes ago, craftsman said:

My position is, I would never abort a kid. You can go kill all the kids that you want. Go ahead, kill a pregnant woman and see if they charge you with a double murder. 

So you think murder should be legal?

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol did he delete his reply to you?

He must have

[craftsman 1,045]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So you think murder should be legal?

You said it's not murder if a mother kills a baby. But if someone else kills the baby it is murder. Get your shlt straight peanut. 

[iam90sbaby 2,131]

I'm cool with minorities getting an abortion  anytime, with tax dollars 

[TimHauck 1,814]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

You said it's not murder if a mother kills a baby. But if someone else kills the baby it is murder. Get your shlt straight peanut. 

Supreme Court has ruled that murder charges for someone else killing a fetus do not contradict abortion rights laws.

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Supreme Court has ruled that murder charges for someone else killing a fetus do not contradict abortion rights laws.

I thought you were stressing what you as an individual think about it. Not the actual laws. Plus only allowing a mother to kill the baby is hypocritical. "I can kill it and it's fine, but if you kill it it's murder". 

Stupid.  

[TimHauck 1,814]

Just now, craftsman said:

I thought you were stressing what you as an individual think about it. Not the actual laws. Plus only allowing a mother to kill the baby is hypocritical. "I can kill it and it's fine, but if you kill it it's murder". 

Stupid.  

I don’t think it contradicts it either.  Like I said, while it is alive, it is not a child and is still part of the mother’s body.  So it is different for the mother to do something to her own body as opposed to someone else doing something to her body.

So you think abortion is murder, correct?  At what stage of the pregnancy does it become murder? 

[Cdub100 3,394]

1 hour ago, GobbleDog said:

The people having abortions are not society's best and brightest. They're mostly scum of the Earth who leach off society and overwhelmingly commit crime. Then they exponentially multiply creating more leaches and scum, who also exponentially multiply.

I'm not "pro-choice", I'm pro-abortion. It should be encouraged, subsidized, and perfectly legal up until the day the leach is born.  Spend a little now, or a whole lot more later.

I agree all these places should be in major cities so the most vulnerable can access them. If you don't live in that city you're not illegible. 

[Gepetto 989]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t think it contradicts it either.  Like I said, while it is alive, it is not a child and is still part of the mother’s body.  So it is different for the mother to do something to her own body as opposed to someone else doing something to her body.

So you think abortion is murder, correct?  At what stage of the pregnancy does it become murder? 

Abortion is killing human life as chosen by the mother and that human life removed by a physician.  It's not part of the mother during the abortion.  The unborn is specifically separated from the mother to kill he or she.

[TimHauck 1,814]

5 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

The unborn is specifically separated from the mother to kill he or she.

Thanks for proving my point!

I noticed you didn’t answer the poll, @Gepetto

[TimHauck 1,814]

21 hours ago, TimHauck said:

@craftsman

@Hardcore troubadour

@Reality

@TimmySmith

@Cdub100

4 of these 5 have replied in this thread, yet only 1 actually answered the poll.

Thank you cdub.  HT gave a half answer so I’m marking him down as no restrictions.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,738]

6 hours ago, TimHauck said:

4 of these 5 have replied in this thread, yet only 1 actually answered the poll.

Thank you cdub.  HT gave a half answer so I’m marking him down as no restrictions.

Huh? I said no restrictions , but with conditions.  That’s no restrictions after conditions are met. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,738]

So we can all ascertain that TIm Hack is good with ending life as long as it is within 20 weeks and inconvenient for the parents. After that they gotta suck it up. 

[craftsman 1,045]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So we can all ascertain that TIm Hack is good with ending life as long as it is within 20 weeks and inconvenient for the parents. After that they gotta suck it up. 

Yep. And are 70% of abortions done by black women? 

Interesting. 

[TimHauck 1,814]

2 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Yep. And are 70% of abortions done by black women? 

Interesting. 

So are you gonna answer the poll or what?

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

So are you gonna answer the poll or what?

Why would I? You are the one who determined the only answers that could be chosen. It's stupid. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

After governers sign? 

[TimHauck 1,814]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Why would I? You are the one who determined the only answers that could be chosen. It's stupid. 

Ok so you only think abortion is murder if it’s illegal in the particular state you happen to be in, got it

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Ok so you only think abortion is murder if it’s illegal in the particular state you happen to be in, got it

You got what? You have this habit of posting that you read something as it was written and then drawing stupid conclusions that doesn't match anything logical. 

 

[jerryskids 5,216]

Hey @TimHauck, what was your vote?  It doesn't look like you made the vote public.   

[TimHauck 1,814]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Hey @TimHauck, what was your vote?  It doesn't look like you made the vote public.   

19-24.  Is it not public?  I can see

[dogcows 1,029]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Hey @TimHauck, what was your vote?  It doesn't look like you made the vote public.   

If you click the little icon to the right of each answer in the poll, it pops up people’s votes.

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

19-24.  Is it not public?  I can see

You have to show names. 

[TimHauck 1,814]

58 minutes ago, craftsman said:

You got what? You have this habit of posting that you read something as it was written and then drawing stupid conclusions that doesn't match anything logical. 

 

I’m just trying to follow your logic.  Do you disagree with any of the following statements?

1. Abortion = “killing a child”

2. Killing a child = murder

3. You don’t care what the abortion law is, let the states decide

[craftsman 1,045]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’m just trying to follow your logic.  Do you disagree with any of the following statements?

1. Abortion = “killing a child”

2. Killing a child = murder

3. You don’t care what the abortion law is, let the states decide

Let the states decide. I don't have to agree with what they choose to do. 

I look at all the murder in liberal run cities, all I can do is vote against it. 

[TimHauck 1,814]

4 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Let the states decide. I don't have to agree with what they choose to do. 

I look at all the murder in liberal run cities, all I can do is vote against it. 

Lol, murder isn’t legal in liberal run cities 

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Lol, murder isn’t legal in liberal run cities 

Yet it runs rampant more that any other cities in the US. The DAs let federal crime committers run free. Hence, murderers on the loose and higher crime rates.