Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

tigol

tigol 2395

Posted
Posted
Jonathon Mitchell, the drafter of much of the legislation, has made it clear he is interested in pursuing birth control next; that if a women does not want to get pregnant that she should abstain from sex. Men's sexual health is taken for granted and they are free to do as they please, but a woman's is irrelevant since she has but one purpose in his view. He also is on the record as looking to overturn Obergefell.

Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45888

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Did you read the context?

Of course I did.  You quoted his entire post, which was his response to someone wanting to discuss fetus -> human.

You have a pathological need to pick fights, even when people agree with you.  I'm not biting.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, tigol said:


Jesus.

^^^^Treated women with compassion.

 

I didn't use Mitchell's exact quote from his brief, so here it is:

Quote

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45888

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I didn't use Mitchell's exact quote from his brief, so here it is:

Quote

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse.”

It remains baffling to me that these people seem to think the man has no responsibility in these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, half the guys writing this shit are either gay or virgins...or both.  So unintended procreation is kind of a foreign concept to them.  really, all vaginal-based ejaculation evades them.  Escapes them?  Dammit!  I had something for this!

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21178

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Lobo said:

Well, half the guys writing this shit are either gay or virgins...or both.  So unintended procreation is kind of a foreign concept to them.  really, all vaginal-based ejaculation evades them.  Escapes them?  Dammit!  I had something for this!

Wide stance Republicans are the majority of the GOP, it seems.  I imagine many of our local dotard boot lickers are wandering around walk in closets. 

Edited by DigglerontheHoof
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19100

Posted
Posted

Jonathan Mitchell has a lot of issues.

From a NY Times article about him. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/texas-abortion-lawyer-jonathan-mitchell.html)

Quote

The oldest of seven brothers, Mr. Mitchell was raised in a religious Christian home in Pennsylvania. He attended Wheaton College, a small school in Illinois that “prepares students to make an impact for Christ,” according to its website. Friends refrain from calling him on Sundays, as they know he spends at least several hours at church.

 

Jonathan Mitchell.PNG

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17835

Posted
Posted

 

SIAP.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-california-sanctuary-625a118108bcda253196697c83548d5b

Quote

“We’ll be a sanctuary,” Newsom said, adding he’s aware patients will likely travel to California from other states to seek abortions. “We are looking at ways to support that inevitability and looking at ways to expand our protections.”

Quote

The California Future of Abortion Council, made up of more than 40 abortion providers and advocacy groups, released a list of 45 recommendations for the state to consider if the high court overturns Roe v. Wade — the 48-year-old decision that forbids states from outlawing abortion.

The recommendations are not just a liberal fantasy. Some of the state’s most important policymakers helped write them, including Toni Atkins, the San Diego Democrat who leads the state Senate and attended multiple meetings.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom started the group himself and in an interview last week with The Associated Press said some of the report’s details will be included in his budget proposal in January.

Quote

The report recommends funding — including public spending — to support patients seeking abortion for travel expenses such as gas, lodging, transportation and child care. It asks lawmakers to reimburse abortion providers for services to those who can’t afford to pay — including those who travel to California from other states whose income is low enough that they would qualify for state-funded abortions under Medicaid if they lived there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27538

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Now I'm really going to freak you out by stating that a human sperm cell is human.  And human fingernail is human.

 

On 12/2/2021 at 8:30 PM, tantric superman said:

There are all humans.  An human egg is human.

 

Uhuh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Okay, two things here.

politics aside, the ‘California Future of Abortion Council’ is just a creepy ad fuck sounding name.  I don’t have any other suggestions, but that is just horribad.  
 

And let’s all be honest.  A group of Texans with a probably equally shitty name for their organization…will setup little checkpoints from El Paso to Southern California watching for Texas plates on any car thst appears to have a female inside, entering this abortion sanctuary.  They’ll then run the plate number through one of those pay sites and figure out the owner.  And then contact that household to say they think a young woman from their household has entered California to get an abortion.  And a bunch of evangelical freaks will harass any 20-30 year old at the airport at a gate with a flight to California.  
 

“my god, look Karen…it’s a whole group of ‘em going to LAX to get abortions!  Hey you, yeah…you group of sinners wearing matching outfits to go get your abortions!  God sees you!”

”sir, we’re the USC volleyball team…we lost in straight sets to Texas.  We’re going home.  And you’re going to hell.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Like in distinguishing between adjectives and nouns, for instance.

Yep, or in deciding whether the argument that a fetus is or is not a human really changes the argument much.

I don't think it does.  Once the entity has two sets of chromosomes it's on it way, and whether you call it a human or a person or fetus, you still have the same argument as to whether the state has an interest in protecting this entity at the expense of the liberty of the female.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11029

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yep, or in deciding whether the argument that a fetus is or is not a human really changes the argument much.

I don't think it does.  Once the entity has two sets of chromosomes it's on it way, and whether you call it a human or a person or fetus, you still have the same argument as to whether the state has an interest in protecting this entity at the expense of the liberty of the female.

 

 

so then sperm and eggs aren't human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bonnieblue

bonnieblue 542

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

That's a bit of a big qualifier. 

 

If it can’t survive (even with hospital care) without being connected to/propped up by the “mother”, it’s an extension of the mother. 
 

No one is forced to donate a kidney to their child once it’s out of the womb, why should a parent be forced to “donate” her nutrients etc., while in the womb? Pregnancy is very demanding on a lot of the systems on the body (teeth for example). It’s a tremendously high ask for someone who doesn’t want to participate in it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34223

Posted
Posted

nsiap, SB8 is a piece of shit:

Quote

The fetus had a rare neural tube defect. The brain would not develop, and the infant would die at birth or shortly afterward. Carrying the pregnancy to term would be emotionally grueling and would also raise the mother’s risk of blood clots and severe postpartum bleeding, the doctor warned.

But the patient was past six weeks’ gestation, and under the new law, an abortion was not an option in Texas because the woman was not immediately facing a life-threatening medical crisis or risk of permanent disability.

“So we look at them like a ticking time bomb and wait for the complications to develop,” Dr. Palmer said of her patients.

In this case, the woman had the means to travel, and she obtained an abortion in another state, an option unavailable to many low-income and working class women.

Texas’ new measure was intended to impose stringent limits on abortion. But it is also affecting women who have no desire for termination but are experiencing medically risky pregnancies. Many doctors say they are unable to discuss the procedure as an option until the patient’s condition deteriorates and her life is at risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/26/health/texas-abortion-law-risky-pregnancy.html

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2088

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

If it can’t survive (even with hospital care) without being connected to/propped up by the “mother”, it’s an extension of the mother. 
 

No one is forced to donate a kidney to their child once it’s out of the womb, why should a parent be forced to “donate” her nutrients etc., while in the womb? Pregnancy is very demanding on a lot of the systems on the body (teeth for example). It’s a tremendously high ask for someone who doesn’t want to participate in it.

Once out of the womb, the kid wouldn't be able to fit their mothers kidney since they are just babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Planned Parenthood is racist. Yes, that makes total sense -- that's the takeaway. Not that people of color might have fewer options in life financially and socially due to the legal and extralegal reverberations, through generations, of discrimination against them. Yes, we should definitely take away their options now, because we are most definitely, certainly not racist NOW, and we deeply, truly care very very much about black babies in our society. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Planned Parenthood is racist. Yes, that makes total sense -- that's the takeaway. Not that people of color might have fewer options in life financially and socially due to the legal and extralegal reverberations, through generations, of discrimination against them. Yes, we should definitely take away their options now, because we are most definitely, certainly not racist NOW, and we deeply, truly care very very much about black *babies* in our society. 

*or should I say black fetuses, because self-proclaimed pro-life people fetishize fetuses like they are puppies or something. The actual born babies, no thanks. It's fucking pathological.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...