Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.define straight 2.Denver democrat council woman post on government site all democrats infected with coronovirus should attend every MAGA event 3.Democrats refuse to vote on relief money unless $35 million goes to Kennedy center 4.democrats and associated press close believeallwomen twitter account after Biden sexual assault case came to light 5.democrats refused to vote on relief bill unless $25 million was secured for house paychecks Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
You see people, what have we been trying to tell you? Men taping their dicks into their butt cracks and growing boobs are NOT WOMEN. They DO have a advantage. Further test will prove even moreso.
only registered users can see external links
uh what part of that quote is difficult to understand?
I see nothing wrong with a review panel of sorts being used on all mur,I mean abortions.
Who is to say a babys life isn't worth more than a crack head ,dead beat mothers that just wants to have it yanked out so she can go back to fucking and shooting up?
That's a dodge, being 'pro-life' also means making a choice sometimes.
That's exactly what the proposed panel should determine;
what is the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus.
I say, it's not up to some Death Panel, it's the choice of the woman about her own body.
And don't use stupid strawman arguments, because every choice has it's limits
and the current limits are already reasonable and justified.
the limits should be very strict. Not impossible because of the rapist and ****'s but strict
Having children takes your life away. If that's your choice, OK,
but to be forced to do that, not OK.
Now if you really care about preventing abortion, give the women you force
into giving birth of an unwanted child 100% certainty of easy adoption
and pay the women for the time, discomfort, lost income and hospital bills.
I have not heard any conservative talk about compensation for the lost rights.
Did someone magically cause her zipper undone?
Did someone deny her birth control?
Did someone deny her a exit from the situation?
In the case of r@pe and 1ncest,I understand the answer to be yes ,someone did, and that someone should be held accountable.
BUT in most cases, the woman allows the sex to happen ,and that is her right ,but decisions have consequences, like a baby as a result. Not the babies fault, but yet in abortion the baby pays the ultimate price.
I can't see any rights being taken at all with abortion bans or regulations.
I see rights being ABUSED by having the rights to a abortion by irresponsible women
The right of bodily autonomy! You know, what was really important to you,
when they wanted you to get a little shot, to fight a pandemic.
The consequences; a 1 in million chance of some harm.
The consequences of taking away women's bodily autonomy; labour,
giving birth, recovery, medical costs, lost income, the costs of taking care of a kid
and lost of worries for at least 18 years. And for what future? It's the US!
"Did someone magically cause her zipper undone?"
On average, there are 463,634 victims (age 12 or older) of r.a.p.e and sexual assault each year in the United States.
And even then, sometimes accidents happen. Having sex is not a reason to be forced into having kids.
"Did someone deny her birth control?"
Not yet, but your supreme court political hacks are thinking about it.
Did someone deny her a exit from the situation?
Same argument as before, see the 2nd and 3rd answers.
Well at least you approve for r@pe and 1ncest, but many states don't.
"BUT in most cases, the woman allows the sex to happen"
I fucking hope so! And I also hope they enjoy it, but with all those conservatives in the US, I fear many women are left unsatisfied, because misogynists don't care.
A 'baby' is a human that is living independently after birth. We are talking about zygotes and fetuses at a gestation before viability. It doesn't pay any price, when it is aborted, because it has no price yet. It only has the value that the woman puts onto it, because it is dependent on her body.
Women have the right to chose now, the right to bodily autonomy. A ban would take that right away. It is a right of self protection. You as a 2nd amendment defender should understand that.
Actually, I think everyone who takes care of a baby should receive payment.
Women have been doing unpaid work way too long, but at least it was by choice.
You are now taking that choice away and force women to take care of children.
Forcing people to do unpaid work is called SLAVERY.
liberals loved it then, but let a gop propose it for abortion and it is just terrible .hypocrisy again.
only registered users can see external links
Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.
Of course there are claims it was false,to make the gop look bad.and it was not included in the final bill. but liberals seem to forget they will get old to.
If a health insurance thinks you are not worth their money, they don't pay.
But even they don't forbid you to have the surgery, by punishment of prison,
of the person getting the surgery and the doctor performing it.
However, it this case lawyers will have to decide whether the woman's life is in danger enough, to allow abortion. It wouldn't be up to the doctors, because Republicans created laws that would send a doctor to jail, when politicians do not agree with their assessment of danger to the mother. That's a death panel. And many women will die, while the death panel is considering whether she is in enough mortal danger to save
their lives, by means of abortion.
Aren't Republicans always talking about government overreach? This is it!
Never say impossible. Someone might figure it out tomorrow.
That's possible, if he didn't have gender affirming surgery yet.
But hormone treatment might make that very unlikely.
It would make it likely it would be an unwanted pregnancy, because he would not expect to get pregnant or hormone treatment might mess with contraception.
Actually, there was such a case in the TV series; The Good Doctor.
In my country, anyone who has an unwanted pregnancy, has the right to an abortion, before 24 weeks of gestation by law, but in practice 22 weeks by most doctors, unless the pregnancy is endangering the pregnant person or the fetus has no or low life expectancy. Why would it be different if it was a transgender person?
I think you were messing up your pronouns there a bit.
But, I understand it's hard for you to put your mind around those things.
It may look like a male because of pills and shots and surgery on it's outer shell, but if it is pregnant ,damn it is A FEMALE human being.
It going to get to a point that a fellow will have to pay for a cat scan to make sure he is actually asking a woman to marry him.
What the fuck?
You know, a big store front, surgery and hormones, can only trick people so long before the TRUTH comes out.
If you were born a man, all the surgery in the world is not going to help you to produce viable nutrition for a baby from your fake tits.
Nor will you sprout a womb.
Here's a Repucker that doesn't know what is a woman either
Salt Lake County Council member tells Kamala Harris fetuses are not part of women’s bodies
Because, I might agree with that premise; a fetus is a separate organism.
(They had a point IF the fetus was growing in a machine and not in women's bodies.)
But they don't give a sound or even a valid argument, for why that premise results
in a conclusion that the woman has no right to chose whether to continue supporting
that separate organism.
Up to a point in gestation, that organism is dependent on the woman to survive,
which makes it a parasite by definition.
Unless the woman thinks there is some benefit to her, as host, it is a parasite.
What we do with parasites is: killing them and flush them out of our system.
Google 'what to do with parasites' and see.
IF the woman thinks there is some benefit to her, to have the parasite, it's a 'commensal'.
The woman is completely FREE to support that commensal up to birth. She is the host.
(It would help support that freedom, if society helped more to support lost income during gestation, childbirth and recovery, with free or affordable healthcare and when taking care of the child and parenting, with free or affordable childcare or by compensating for lost income, when people cannot afford to lose that income and because working is not compatible with caring for a child and parenting)
I can make a sound argument for abortion:
- Premise 1: An unwanted pregnancy of a zygote or fetus, before it's viable to survive outside the womb, makes it a parasite by definition.
- Premise 2: Parasites are killed and flushed out of the system, on the host's request.
- Conclusion: An unwanted pregnancy of a zygote or fetus, before it's viable to survive outside the womb should be killed and flushed out of the system on the host's request.
Zygotes and fetuses have their own genetic code and metabolism,
so I do agree they are separate organisms.
The placenta separates the blood of the mother from the blood of the fetus,
but the oxygen, glucose and other nutrients filter through.
However, a parasite is: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
That fits for zygotes and fetuses. They only survive and grow by deriving nutrients
at the mother's expense. So it's not an INDEPENDENT organism.
That's the trick they use; confusing 'separate' and 'independent'.
They are dependent on tricks, because they don't have real arguments.
They can get a premise right sometimes, but they are incapable of providing
any complete valid or sound argument. But they don't need to, for THEIR audience.
WHY? What is your argument?
People don't have abortions if they get pregnant by their willing actions.
How can you put so much nonsense in just one short sentence.
'Close them legs' ... It all boils down to sex.... Why do you hate it so much?
Vasectomies are for people who never want to have children (again). Some people just don't want a child NOW. For example, when they just lost their job, because of
a recession and they are forced into food-lines or they risk losing their home like
60 million Americans experienced, due to Trump fucking up in fighting a pandemic.
It wasn't a good time for being pregnant and needing hospital care. Can we at least agree on that?
There is nothing to correct, because there is no point.
Closed legs, no babies.
vasecotmys,no babies.
no abortions needed.
And I don't what planet you are from but in the big city locally women do just fuck recklessly and stop in at the clinic like they were getting their hair done.
That shit needs to stop. Murder is murder.
According to you, they're all lazy and should be deprived of any social benefits or they'll just sit on their ass all day. The American women get abortions just like they were getting their hair done. And American parents would send their kids to clinics to get their private parts cut off, unless right-wingers 'protect' them. Americans who smoke a bit of weed should be locked up forever or just executed, to be sure they don't turn into drug addicts. Americans who want to use another restroom just want to ra.pe. If you don't arm yourself, Americans come take your stuff and kill you.
I would imagine you would love abortion. It prevents more Americans from being born. Are you sure you want all those extra horrible Americans around?
only registered users can see external links
There is serious discussion about doing hysterectomies on prepubescent girls for the sake of gender reaffirm.
This can't be good for a k1d.I HOPE it is all HYPE.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
People should be FREE to be who they want to be.
Can't you read? It's right there: "We only perform gender-affirming hysterectomies on patients who are age 18 or older."
Has anyone actually presented any evidence, when they claim hospitals
do hysterectomies on younger patients? Because I haven't seen any.
(That audio recording is from some desk clerk, who obviously knows nothing)
These are just obvious lies to keep the stupid culture war going.
Or don't you even care that they are lying, as long as the outrage and violence that the lies create serve your purpose?
Understand that it's not YOUR purpose. You are just getting your head filled with bullshit, with the only purpose of distracting you from issues that actually matter.
They are doing that, so you are an accomplice in your own oppression.
You are in poverty and bad health, because you are brainwashed into thinking people deserve nothing, so the rich can take everything. They point you to some imaginary enemy and you are fooled. They are laughing how easy it is.
Do you even look at your own links? One is some repost from a stupid Twitter account on a just as stupid Australian, right-wing, ideologue, fake-news website and the other is mostly confirming that right-wingers are going mad over the newest fake outrage story. Are they supposed to be credible references?
But I have seen evidence on people threatening that hospital and hospitals like that. Just look on YouTube and see Matt Walsh asking for violence against that hospital. By the way, according to US laws, that's a violation that transgresses limits on freedom of speech, so Matt Walsh should be banned from YouTube,
at least temporary. He has clearly caused danger for the hospital and patients.
Why would hospitals do such a thing? Profit motives?
Maybe reconsider your for-profit privatized healthcare system then.
only registered users can see external links
Most Americans are pro-choice and lots more are not as extremely pro-life as the Republicans are now pushing. The Republicans fear it will make them lose the midterms.
"Lord, please God, don’t make me scrub clothes in a bucket and have to hang them out on the line when we switch over to wind turbines and solar panels,” the Republican House member said.
She also seemed to suggest that these technologies would prevent people from keeping the lights on at night.
“I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets,” Rep. Greene added.
She doesn’t know what storage batteries are for.
Actually, she doesn’t know. 🤪
One complete lunatic in that room is statistically probable.
But the whole crowd was cheering for that stupidity.
Republicans really lift up the most ignorant among them, don't they?
At least I hope so, or it means that the rest was even dumber!
When the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, there are still many other technologies that can provide renewable energy. Sun and wind are just the most economically beneficial ones, because they are so much cheaper than fossil fuels.
And it's not like we couldn't keep a few old-tech-powerplants standing backup, for when all weather dependent renewable energy systems take a day off simultaneously.
This is not that difficult to understand. Why do people listen to a dumb-ass like her?
Now we have the timeing saving machines to wash our clothes effortlessly. We went from stones in the creek to washboards to gas powered machines in the 20's and up to the weird shit we have now.
Windmills and solar panels ,make electricity. But do they make enough? Battery's store it, do they store enough?
Have you added up the cost of a solar pack and battery back up system enough to power a entire home?
Most of the folks that live with "off grid" power have went back to washing clothes by hand and using a clothes line. WHY? because they can't afford a system large enough to power a clothes dryer. A resistance heat source, like a dryer element is the least efficient use of energy of any type. study it.
You understand the progress we went through, but than you prefer to get stuck in the 20's with those gas powered machines. Most people (at least in the rest of the world) understand that those gas powered machines will be the end of us and want to progress beyond them.
When you have only a solar panel, if you are that "off grid" person, you have way more than just being "off grid". Than at least you can run your electric washing machine during the day. If you than add a wind turbine and geothermal heating, it starts looking civilized. If you than add hydro-power from the stream nearby, your getting pretty well coverage. You understand that, because you were thinking about that. Now connect that to a million times the size, to a smart grid and everyone is covered. It might take some storage capacity, but it isn't absolutely necessary. It is possible to cover 80% of the electricity and massively reduce CO2 emissions AND have much cheaper electricity.
It sounds fun. I also love seeing steam engines and I loved
the light of gas lighting we had once on a vacation in Germany.
Those are all things that are fun for having sometimes,
like grilling meat over a coal fire.
But they are all technologies we have to abandon for daily use,
and progress to new technologies that burn less fossil fuels.
It is the only option to keep living like we are living now.
If we wait too long, that option will not be enough to save us anymore
and then we will have no option left, other then using no technology.
Because maybe you think it will happen past your life, but there are more
people who have more life in front of them and they will demand their future.
And people who have their future taken away, make dangerous enemies.
Green was not using sarcasm. She is just plain ignorant and too lazy to do the research
New Comment Go to top