Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Brew 3047]

Just now, elfenix said:

what anastasis is eliding is that "dead fetus that is likely to cause sepsis but hasn't yet" isn't a "medical emergency" necessary to "save the mother's life" even though the sepsis would be.

TX has the heartbeat statute doesn’t it? I read that as a fetus without a heartbeat can be aborted although it’s not 100% clear because it say once a heartbeat is detected. Does that mean it’s off limits at that point or only while there is a heartbeat. TN for instance doesn’t have a medical emergency or heartbeat statute. Right now, any pregnancy termination here is illegal.

[Anastasis 23394]

46 minutes ago, Brew said:

Go look at the Elizabeth Weller pregnancy issue that was made public. What happens when you have a nonviable pregnancy but the mothers life isn’t in immediate danger? Water breaks at 18 weeks, pregnancy has virtually zero chance of viability, mother isn’t dying today but doctors would end the pregnancy under any prior circumstance?

 

Well yeah, that is the case in the news article that Ant decided to tag me in on. I read it. The doctor determined there was an emergent need to abort and the hospital administration decided otherwise. I think that that situation would rightly fall under the medical emergency language of the texas statute SB8. 

 

46 minutes ago, Brew said:

What about a case where a mother is diagnosed with cancer and treatment is dangerous to an early term fetus? What about an older women that has an unplanned pregnancy that puts her in an extremely high risk situation where the doctor believes her life is in danger later in the pregnancy but is not today? What about a prenatal screening that shows the baby has Trisomy 13 or some other catastrophic early life death sentence? Should the mother have to carry to term, have the baby, all the while knowing the baby will not live to see 1 or likely end up stillborn?

I think that these examples need more detail, but imo 1 would likely fall under the language of the statute but the specifics need to be considered, 2 very much less clear without details, 3 would not appear to fall under the statutes exemption.  

Edited July 29, 2022 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23394]

42 minutes ago, elfenix said:

what anastasis is eliding is that "dead fetus that is likely to cause sepsis but hasn't yet" isn't a "medical emergency" necessary to "save the mother's life," even though the sepsis would be.

The definition of medical emergency in SB8 is as follows:

"Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

 

[Brew 3047]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Well yeah, that is the case in the news article that Ant decided to tag me in on. I read it. The doctor determined there was an emergent need to abort and the hospital administration decided otherwise. I think that that situation would rightly fall under the medical emergency language of the texas statute SB8. 

 

I think that these examples need more detail, but imo 1 would likely fall under the language of the statute but the specifics need to be considered, 2 very much less clear without details, 3 would not appear to fall under the statutes exemption.  

You asked for scenarios, those are scenarios that doctors face where they are making medical decisions that are now dictated by ambiguous language in a law which is what everyone is f-Ing telling you is a problem. “Medical emergency” has no clear legal definition in Medical terminology including the definition used in the law.

Also, based on what the AG has said in public, do you think he is going to take the doctor at his/her word that it was a medical emergency and move on? Doctor signed off, it’s good with me? Doesn’t feel like that is the case.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Brew

[Willfully Horn 7916]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The definition of medical emergency in SB8 is as follows:

"Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

 

You agtee the state ought make the rules. That there is no right to privacy, as an enumerated right, despite an earlier SCOTUS ruling, one untainted by the lies of zealot wingnuts. That free will, in the case of abortion, is not God given. Got it.

I’m curious upon which basis you draw these conclusions. Feel free to reference natural law.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Claro

[elfenix 34171]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The definition of medical emergency in SB8 is as follows:

"Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

 

well i'm glad that's 100% clear we can all rest assured that no zealous prosecutor would ever decide that since SB8 revived art. 4512 that a doctor and accomplice hospital should be charged with a felony for performing an abortion when it's only likely that sepsis set in, not actually having set in. 

[Anastasis 23394]

 

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

“Medical emergency” has no clear legal definition.

It's defined in the statute, but this really isn't about medical emergencies. There were ~630k abortions in 2019.  We all know that the vast vast vast majority of those were not medical emergencies, the result of rape, incest, or other very tragic circumstances.  Of those about 95k were people using abortion as a serial means of birth control (i.e. on their 3+ abortion). I have never advocated on this board for anything other than maybe addressing some of those situations via means that do not involve the legislative nor judicial process. In fact there was an exchange up thread where I suggested that perhaps a place where reasonable people could agree was on tackling the problem of women that are coerced into abortion by their abusive spouses or partners.  Those posts never really seem to get much traction or interest here though.    

[wildcat09 29258]

Ana keeps evading the obvious fact that all medical emergencies have early stages where they aren’t yet emergencies but will become emergencies if left untreated. This is because he’s actually perfectly ok with inflicting unimaginable physical and mental trauma on women for being sluts.

[Anastasis 23394]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’m curious upon which basis you draw these conclusions.

You guys are funny with your strawmen. I expect as much from Ant, and you now as well. 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This is because he’s actually perfectly ok with inflicting unimaginable physical and mental trauma on women for being sluts.

[Captainant 27466]

Annie seems to be falling back on his old safety blanket of missing the actual content of a post in favor of calling out poor decorum, because we should all be civil when talking about forcing women to carry dead fetuses to sepsis. It's so wild how he's trying to convince us to not believe our lying eyes that it wasn't a completely acceptable outcome for the antiabortionists. Because if the state or county or really anyone in power gave a shit, they'd be making public statements and taking measures to prevent such a horror from happening again. 

But they ain't. Because they don't give a shit. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

I think that these examples need more detail, but imo 1 would likely fall under the language of the statute but the specifics need to be considered, 2 very much less clear without details, 3 would not appear to fall under the statutes exemption.  

Cool. You need more details. You need to think on it.
Meanwhile, physicians have to decide, sometimes quickly in emergent situations, with the question of whether they go to prison for life being on the other side of the equation.
This is beyond fucked up, but it was always where the psychotic “anti abortion” movement was headed. And it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Fancy-pants doctors and their science are tools of the devil, and the whores are getting what they deserve. This. Is. How. They. Want it.

[Homercles 10205]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

It's defined in the statute, but this really isn't about medical emergencies. There were ~630k abortions in 2019.  We all know that the vast vast vast majority of those were not medical emergencies, the result of rape, incest, or other very tragic circumstances.  Of those about 95k were people using abortion as a serial means of birth control (i.e. on their 3+ abortion).

And none of that shit is any of your/our business

[Willfully Horn 7916]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

strawmen

[elfenix 34171]

51 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

It's defined in the statute, but this really isn't about medical emergencies. There were ~630k abortions in 2019.  We all know that the vast vast vast majority of those were not medical emergencies, the result of rape, incest, or other very tragic circumstances.  Of those about 95k were people using abortion as a serial means of birth control (i.e. on their 3+ abortion). I have never advocated on this board for anything other than maybe addressing some of those situations via means that do not involve the legislative nor judicial process. In fact there was an exchange up thread where I suggested that perhaps a place where reasonable people could agree was on tackling the problem of women that are coerced into abortion by their abusive spouses or partners.  Those posts never really seem to get much traction or interest here though.    

i don't recall you ever actually proposing any sort of solution to this problem that you've identified (and, as i recall, called barbaric and declared anyone who disagreed to be unreasonable and/or tools of racist eugenicists if not racist eugenicists themselves).  so, if you want a discussion, maybe actually start one instead of talking in mealy mouthed platitudes and vaguely directed insults. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by elfenix

[Brew 3047]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

It's defined in the statute, but this really isn't about medical emergencies. There were ~630k abortions in 2019.  We all know that the vast vast vast majority of those were not medical emergencies, the result of rape, incest, or other very tragic circumstances.  Of those about 95k were people using abortion as a serial means of birth control (i.e. on their 3+ abortion). I have never advocated on this board for anything other than maybe addressing some of those situations via means that do not involve the legislative nor judicial process. In fact there was an exchange up thread where I suggested that perhaps a place where reasonable people could agree was on tackling the problem of women that are coerced into abortion by their abusive spouses or partners.  Those posts never really seem to get much traction or interest here though.    

As the father of two daughters, it is about medical emergencies. I’m in a state with no out clause. As a father of two daughters, it’s about the 10 year old rape victim who’s doctor is now under investigation. As the father of two daughters, it’s about their right to make decisions that impact them being taken away from them. As I said earlier, I would consider myself pro life in principals of what I think, but pro choice in the way the laws should be written. I’m all for more counseling options, better adoption options, anything else that gives women a better option to go to term, but I’m not naive enough at this point to believe it should be forced upon anyone.

[Da Fino 2740]

Go look at the Elizabeth Weller pregnancy issue that was made public. What happens when you have a nonviable pregnancy but the mothers life isn’t in immediate danger? Water breaks at 18 weeks, pregnancy has virtually zero chance of viability, mother isn’t dying today but doctors would end the pregnancy under any prior circumstance?
What about a case where a mother is diagnosed with cancer and treatment is dangerous to an early term fetus? What about an older women that has an unplanned pregnancy that puts her in an extremely high risk situation where the doctor believes her life is in danger later in the pregnancy but is not today? What about a prenatal screening that shows the baby has Trisomy 13 or some other catastrophic early life death sentence? Should the mother have to carry to term, have the baby, all the while knowing the baby will not live to see 1 or likely end up stillborn?
What qualifies as a medical emergency? Does the fact that it will become a medical emergency later in the pregnancy but isn’t today valid for terminating today?

My wife and I had a consultation with a gestational carrier therapist today. They are really in a weird spot right now. This shit could 100% change our decision to try for another child. I can go into further detail tomorrow. Too tired and pissed off right now.

[Brew 3047]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ana keeps evading the obvious fact that all medical emergencies have early stages where they aren’t yet emergencies but will become emergencies if left untreated. This is because he’s actually perfectly ok with inflicting unimaginable physical and mental trauma on women for being sluts.

I read what he is saying as if a doctor makes a call that it‘s medically needed then so be it. I may not be reading that correctly though.

I also think people on here get carried away with putting someone with a different belief in the most extreme box they can think of rather than realizing that some people may be on the other side of the issue but more to the middle than the extremist. Not everything is strictly for/against. Discussion/discourse used to be a useful tool of trying to work together.

[hookemATL 11611]

Why does there need to be discourse when we are talking about the denial of basic human rights?  Get the fuck out with that bullshit. 

[Brew 3047]

5 minutes ago, Da Fino said:

My wife and I had a consultation with a gestational carrier therapist today. They are really in a weird spot right now. This shit could 100% change our decision to try for another child. I can go into further detail tomorrow. Too tired and pissed off right now.

I typed out a couple things, but shit they all sound weird in the context of this discussion and not knowing you. Without going into details you don’t want to share, I am interested in the guidance that was given in what sounds like a situation with inherent risks.

In certain states the conversations that have to be had before going into a pregnancy attempt where there are risks make you wonder what era we actually live in. Could my spouse or doctor face prosecution, death, disability, etc because of a gray area that results in inaction/hesitation? It’s fucking nuts.

[Brew 3047]

7 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

Why does there need to be discourse when we are talking about the denial of basic human rights?  Get the fuck out with that bullshit. 

Abortion is and has always been a divided topic with a lot of variables. In it’s simplest form where is the line in the sand between the fetus rights and the mother’s rights? I assume we can all agree that a late term abortion is a problem although that does infringe on the mother‘s rights. I have zero interest in debating specifics because I don’t know where my line is, but to pretend that it’s entirely black/white is stupid.

[hookemATL 11611]

Just now, Brew said:

Abortion is and has always been a divided topic with a lot of variables. In it’s simplest form where is the line in the sand between the fetus rights and the mother’s rights? I assume we can all agree that a late term abortion is a problem although that does infringe on the mother‘s rights. I have zero interest in debating specifics because I don’t know where my line is, but to pretend that it’s entirely black/white is stupid.

That’s not what we are talking about and what I was referring to. Abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Late term abortion shit is a red herring/distraction from the central goal of controlling women and/or imposing theocratic thresholds to modern life/decisions/situations. 

[elfenix 34171]

3 minutes ago, Brew said:

I assume we can all agree that a late term abortion is a problem although that does infringe on the mother‘s rights.

is it?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Love to read a bunch of men reducing women to a bunch of hypotheticals to argue about.

[Captainant 27466]

3 minutes ago, Brew said:

Abortion is and has always been a divided topic with a lot of variables. In it’s simplest form where is the line in the sand between the fetus rights and the mother’s rights? I assume we can all agree that a late term abortion is a problem although that does infringe on the mother‘s rights. I have zero interest in debating specifics because I don’t know where my line is, but to pretend that it’s entirely black/white is stupid.

Sure. Tell that to the women being forced to carry non viable fetuses because some nutjob considers it ACKSHUALLY an abortion and could jam up a hospital or threaten a doctor's medical license thanks to the bounty law. 

I hate to tell you this, but the ban and it's application so far have been pretty fucking black and white. 

You're equivocating. Yes or no: Do you think women should have the last say on what medical action is taken on their bodies?

[Da Fino 2740]

I typed out a couple things, but shit they all sound weird in the context of this discussion and not knowing you. Without going into details you don’t want to share, I am interested in the guidance that was given in what sounds like a situation with inherent risks.
In certain states the conversations that have to be had before going into a pregnancy attempt where there are risks make you wonder what era we actually live in. Could my spouse or doctor face prosecution, death, disability, etc because of a gray area that results in inaction/hesitation? It’s fucking nuts.

I can expand tomorrow. To be clear, it wasn’t guidance that was given. These were things that were brought up in relation to how they match a couple with a carrier.

[Brew 3047]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sure. Tell that to the women being forced to carry non viable fetuses because some nutjob considers it ACKSHUALLY an abortion and could jam up a hospital or threaten a doctor's medical license thanks to the bounty law. 

I hate to tell you this, but the ban and it's application so far have been pretty fucking black and white. 

You're equivocating. Yes or no: Do you think women should have the last say on what medical action is taken on their bodies?

Feel free to read each of my posts above. My position on your first and second paragraph is crystal clear in multiple posts.

On the last paragraph, I think I was clear in what you quoted. There is a line somewhere where outside of medical issues viability has to be considered. Treating it as a for/against issue isn’t going to work in whatever legislation hopefully comes to resolve this and protect the right. Even Roe took into account prenatal life in their decision.

[mchookem 16224]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

We all know that the vast vast vast majority of those were not medical emergencies, the result of rape, incest, or other very tragic circumstances. 

....and we also all know that the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of those were not some murderous late term stab-a-baby-as-it-shoots-out-the-vajayjay monstrosity. and yet that also gets thrown around a lot as the prime 'example'.

i wonder which of those situations actually does occur with more frequency... 🤔

 

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Love to read a bunch of men reducing women to a bunch of hypotheticals to argue about.

while i appreciate @Brew laying out some good medical examples, every time the conversation gets to this point i start thinking 'what if SHE JUST DECIDES SHE DOESN'T FUCKING WANT A BABY??' 

[Brew 3047]

6 minutes ago, mchookem said:

while i appreciate @Brew laying out some good medical examples, every time the conversation gets to this point i start thinking 'what if SHE JUST DECIDES SHE DOESN'T FUCKING WANT A BABY??' 

It should be her decision at least up to a point in time in my view just like it has been which is going to require federal legislation at this point.

[Anastasis 23394]

21 minutes ago, mchookem said:

'what if SHE JUST DECIDES SHE DOESN'T FUCKING WANT A BABY??' 

Cultures have dealt with this question for a long time. Infanticide has been the norm throughout most of history. In many ancient cultures, the preferred approach was to just leave the newborn to exposure, but other forms of infanticide were also socially acceptable. Hopefully we continue to progress. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Anastasis

[bonnieblue 542]

Regardless of your feelings on fucking abortion, there should NOT be a single goddamn scenario where a group of doctors, lawyers and administrators are forced to huddle together to decide whether or not a woman is severely injured enough by a pregnancy to provide her the care she needs. The fact that each and every one of these politicians hasn’t yet been castrated or what have you by an angry mob only speaks to the generally less violent nature of women. Every single person who believes this is fine or an acceptable trade off for some other political pet issue should be run out of town with pitchforks at their tail. A woman (or child) is more important than a fetus. JFC

[Pods 7530]

Women should make their own decisions about their bodies and what they do with them. Full stop. 

If it's not your vagina and uterus, it's none of your fucking business. 

 

[Captainant 27466]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Cultures have dealt with this question for a long time. Infanticide has been the norm throughout most of history. In many ancient cultures, the preferred approach was to just leave the newborn to exposure, but other forms of infanticide were also socially acceptable. Hopefully we continue to progress. 

This is a salient example of your rhetoric being extreme and giving the impression of you being an extremist. You are directly comparing and equivocating pro-choice people to ancient cultures leaving children to die to exposure and calling it infanticide. 

This is fucking ridiculous, even for you. 

Abortion isn't infanticide. Stop making these cowardly rhetoric implications and just fucking own your position. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

7 hours ago, Pods said:

Women should make their own decisions about their bodies and what they do with them. Full stop. 

If it's not your vagina and uterus, it's none of your fucking business. 

 

This right here.  This isn't hard.  And hey, if you are a woman who doesn't support abortion, then don't fucking have one.

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Cultures have dealt with this question for a long time. Infanticide has been the norm throughout most of history. In many ancient cultures, the preferred approach was to just leave the newborn to exposure, but other forms of infanticide were also socially acceptable. Hopefully we continue to progress. 

You are a real piece of shit.

[safe sex 11684]

BuT i DidN'T cAlL EVerY peRsON bArBAriC

[elfenix 34171]

12 hours ago, elfenix said:

so, if you want a discussion, maybe actually start one instead of talking in mealy mouthed platitudes and vaguely directed insults. 

 

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Cultures have dealt with this question for a long time. Infanticide has been the norm throughout most of history. In many ancient cultures, the preferred approach was to just leave the newborn to exposure, but other forms of infanticide were also socially acceptable. Hopefully we continue to progress. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

Cultures have dealt with this question for a long time. Infanticide has been the norm throughout most of history. In many ancient cultures, the preferred approach was to just leave the newborn to exposure, but other forms of infanticide were also socially acceptable. Hopefully we continue to progress. 

Future historian:
“In 21st century America, they practiced infanticide by shooting children en masse while they are at school. But to really pump up the numbers, they also denied them what in other countries were easily accessible health care, affordable housing, and basic nutrition. America was curious in this mix; they either killed their young quickly, with bullets, or slowly with neglect.”
And fuck you for equating an act of bodily autonomy with infanticide.
It’s about the woman. All of it. And you don’t give a fuck about her, her life, rights, or liberty. Which puts you in a pretty shitty club.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

I think there is real risk in focusing on the extreme cases, because it tends to tacitly create the expectation that we are conceding every abortion which isn't an extreme case should be illegal.  Unfortunately, we have to address the real danger women face right now as a result of these absurd laws.

Take an ectopic pregnancy -- there is no "human life" to save.  An abortion in that circumstance is analogous to surgically removing a potentially malignant tumor.  "Wait and see" is often really bad medical strategy.  What benefit is there in delaying treatment?  Yes, I get the @Brisketexanangle, "it's not a bug it's a feature", "THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT", etc., but that hand-waving derails legit discussion.  I would like to know why any of our pro-life friends thinks it's prudent to not abort an ectopic pregnancy until the mother's life is in danger?

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

I think there is real risk in focusing on the extreme cases, because it tends to tacitly create the expectation that we are conceding every abortion which isn't an extreme case should be illegal.  Unfortunately, we have to address the real danger women face right now as a result of these absurd laws.
Take an ectopic pregnancy -- there is no "human life" to save.  An abortion in that circumstance is analogous to surgically removing a potentially malignant tumor.  "Wait and see" is often really bad medical strategy.  What benefit is there in delaying treatment?  Yes, I get the [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention]angle, "it's not a bug it's a feature", "THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT", etc., but that hand-waving derails legit discussion.  I would like to know why any of our pro-life friends thinks it's prudent to not abort an ectopic pregnancy until the mother's life is in danger?
 

Because she’s a whore of Babylon jezebel who led Adam astray. She deserves it.

[Anastasis 23394]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s about the woman. All of it.

In every abortion there are at least two genetically distinct human entities involved.  An appropriate application of biomedical ethics requires weighing the ethical principles involved from the perspectives of each, and perhaps other perspectives as well.

This isn't an extremist position. The assertion of a radical autonomy that overrides the other principles (e.g. justice, beneficence) weighed from the other perspectives at all times is, otoh, an extremist position. There is good bit of literature on the application of bioethical principles in this setting, arriving at a wide range of conclusions. This isn't just shit I made up to be an asshole.

    

Edited July 29, 2022 by Anastasis

[Neonmoon 38127]

Per usual, in the current Republican Party, when you break down all the rhetorical walls, you realize they’re just horrible people who want horrible things. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

In every abortion there are at least two genetically distinct human entities involved.  An appropriate application of biomedical ethics requires weighing the ethical principles involved from the perspectives of each, and perhaps other perspectives as well.
This isn't an extremist position. The assertion of a radical autonomy that overrides the other principles (e.g. justice, beneficence) weighed from the other perspectives at all times is, otoh, an extremist position. There is good bit of literature on the application of bioethical principles in this setting, arriving at a wide range of conclusions. This isn't just shit I made up to be an asshole.
    

Summary: the sexual act results in women losing their most basic liberty (the freedom to control their own body) to the state, and results in men….going about their business unimpaired.
And Ana thinks this is awesome, and makes him super-ethical.
That difference is ok, because women deserve it for spreading their legs.
We don’t even need to get to the biomedical ethics question. We just stop when we get here: after fucking, men are free, women are prisoners.

[elfenix 34171]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In every abortion there are at least two genetically distinct human entities involved.  An appropriate application of biomedical ethics requires weighing the ethical principles involved from the perspectives of each, and perhaps other perspectives as well.

This isn't an extremist position. The assertion of a radical autonomy that overrides the other principles (e.g. justice, beneficence) weighed from the other perspectives at all times is, otoh, an extremist position. There is good bit of literature on the application of bioethical principles in this setting, arriving at a wide range of conclusions. This isn't just shit I made up to be an asshole.

    

no, the things you do to be an asshole are throwing around terms like "infanticide" and "racist eugenicists" after claiming, yet again, that you think there's some reasonable discussion to be had. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by elfenix

[Captainant 27466]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would like to know why any of our pro-life friends thinks it's prudent to not abort an ectopic pregnancy until the mother's life is in danger?

To your point on useful discussion, this ain't gonna get you there either. They'll just say "well I don't agree with THAT part of it!" and completely ignore that the legislation they support does nothing to prevent the awful outcome 

[softlynow 1783]

Y'all need to stop feeding the religious extremists that only ever argue in bad faith. You will feel better. Also you're only helping them argue with the weak-minded in other fora by allowing them to practice on y'all. Answer them once, if at all, then go about your day. It will be OK if y'all leave unanswered a few ana replies thinly veiling his view that he knows better than us what God thinks. Why beat your heads against that wall of acute narcissism and topical moral insanity?

And some of y'all really need to digest this post:

12 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Love to read a bunch of men reducing women to a bunch of hypotheticals to argue about.

[Anastasis 23394]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Summary: the sexual act results in women losing their most basic liberty

The vast majority of posters on this thread know that this is not an accurate summary of that post, but I'll go ahead and point it out without feeling the need to unpack the details. 

[mchookem 16224]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no, the things you do to be an asshole are throwing around terms like "infanticide" and "racist eugenicists" after claiming, yet again, that you think there's some reasonable discussion to be had. 

 

13 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Y'all need to stop feeding the religious extremists that only ever argue in bad faith. You will feel better. Also you're only helping them argue with the weak-minded in other fora by allowing them to practice on y'all. Answer them once, if at all, then go about your day. It will be OK if y'all leave unanswered a few ana replies thinly veiling his view that he knows better than us what God thinks. Why beat your heads against that wall of acute narcissism and topical moral insanity?

And some of y'all really need to digest this post:

as a non-ideologue i've defended Ana in the past thinking he was more of a critical thinker than our flyby DT trolls.

yeah...my bad 😒

Edited July 29, 2022 by mchookem

[elfenix 34171]

12 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Y'all need to stop feeding the religious extremists that only ever argue in bad faith.

there's not a lot of people who use religious terminology as their internet username.  and in the US, at least, i'm going to guess they tilt pretty hard in one direction on this topic. 

 

Spoiler

 

(had to do it for @Bama Chick)

 

[horn4life 3755]

If I was Beto, I would be running shit tons of Ads about the Texas Foster care system, and how the "lover of life and children" has abdicated his responsibility the the foster children in our care.  Summer if for defining you opponent.  The abortion outrage opens up an opportunity to point out the LIE of giving an actual crap about children or abortion beyond politics.  The reality is that if Abbott were a parent, the children in his care would be taken by the state for their safety.

Lots of documentation of the negligence toward the Children in Abbott's care."From bad to worse," U.S. Judge deplores Texas Foster care conditions

Quote

A Michigan facility housing Texas foster care children was missing its front door while it was 28 degrees outside and there hadn’t been indoor heat for 24 hours.

Staff didn’t make calls to get either the heat restored or the door fixed. They also didn’t attempt to move the children or give them blankets or jackets.

That’s just one of the out-of-state facilities where Texas recently sent 106 foster children, spending millions, after failing to find suitable placements in Texas, according to a new report from federal court-appointed monitors who act as watchdogs for the system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALSO- Don't feed the troll who prefers endless low percentage hypotheticals to every day realities.  It's a waste of fucking time.

 

[wildcat09 29258]