Jump to content

the alabama abortion attack

hayden_horn

By hayden_horn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bolverk

bolverk 29679

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Is that one of the Hidden Duggar Sisters?

Could be. I was thinking more akin to a Huckabeef who surely would never get an abortion or approve of a woman who would under any circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 708
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

WhatTheBuck
WhatTheBuck

A 20-year-old in Alabama in 1969 didn't need a tv to see that. 

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Someone asked one of the bill authors why they didn’t include a punishment for the destruction of embryos in labs if this is about saving all “babies”. He said since it’s not in a woman it doesn’t co

Pancho
Pancho

Fuck Alabama and those inbred fucksticks

Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

If the orange one isn't your type, maybe this crimson one will be more willing to serve as your breed stock.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8E45lDy1e3zs56WFPgkl

 

3 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

RIP, Vic.

 

7f6tcp4xr2031.jpg

 

That pic ( of the woman in the orange shirt) cannot be real.

Tell me that it cannot be real.

Tell me that it is not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, bolverk said:

If the orange one isn't your type, maybe this crimson one will be more willing to serve as your breed stock.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8E45lDy1e3zs56WFPgkl

 

5 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Is that one of the Hidden Duggar Sisters?

 

Looks more like she has at least 3 Duggar sisters hidden under there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think you mean the position is biological as hell.

Ignoring the man for 9 months might be semi normal during a relationship LOLz, but with ragard to the pregnancy,  saying he has no say after conception( wow, what a coincidental starting point!) and then 9 months later saying he's on the hook financially makes sense to you?

No way.  Not without severely shaded political lenses.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
M12BH

M12BH 545

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think you mean the position is biological as hell.

Hey I guess we should be grateful that he took time out from justifying the use of lethal force against a teenager threatening a dude with a paintball gun from said dude’s front yard. It takes a special kind of manly man to be afraid of a kid with a paintball gun while you’re inside your locked house to the point that you can rationalizing  killing him. If that same “person” was inside another person literally sucking the life out of the latter, then the former must be protected. Cult of the fetus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, M12BH said:

Hey I guess we should be grateful that he took time out from justifying the use of lethal force against a teenager threatening a dude with a paintball gun from said dude’s front yard. It takes a special kind of manly man to be afraid of a kid with a paintball gun while you’re inside your locked house to the point that you can rationalizing  killing him. If that same “person” was inside another person literally sucking the life out of the latter, then the former must be protected. Cult of the fetus. 

No matter how many times you say it, it still doesn't work.

 

But in both of your scenarios, I the father would be protecting my child.

 

Get a new script.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
M12BH

M12BH 545

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Ignoring the man for 9 months might be semi normal during a relationship LOLz, but with ragard to the pregnancy,  saying he has no say after conception( wow, what a coincidental starting point!) and then 9 months later saying he's on the hook financially makes sense to you?

No way.  Not without severely shaded political lenses.

LOL. He has no say over what happens within a woman’s body ever. Before conception, after conception, before birth, after birth. That’s the whole fucking point.  There is nothing inconsistent with this position.  Once there is an actual, you know, person that exists outside the woman, to whom he is biologically linked, is when he is on the hook. It’s not that difficult to comprehend for anyone with a modicum of intelligence and understanding of biology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, slorch said:

Ignoring the man for 9 months might be semi normal during a relationship LOLz, but with ragard to the pregnancy,  saying he has no say after conception( wow, what a coincidental starting point!) and then 9 months later saying he's on the hook financially makes sense to you?

Total sense.  A man who fucks a woman knowing that the woman may get pregnant knows exactly the risks associated with such behavior.  Society benefits greatly if the the man is called to task to support the baby so that the baby won't be a burden to society.

Biology being what it is, the woman bears the full physical burden of the pregnancy - hence her liberty interest means it completely makes sense to allow her to determine whether the pregnancy should end.  Allowing the man to have any kind of legal say in that decision would obviously take away her liberty interest.

There is nothing coincidental about the starting point -- its when the man impregnates the woman.  Nothing coincidental with the ending points, viability or birth.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
M12BH

M12BH 545

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, slorch said:

No matter how many times you say it, it still doesn't work.

 

But in both of your scenarios, I the father would be protecting my child.

 

Get a new script.

If you think your child inside your locked house is in danger and needs to be protected with lethal force  from a kid outside with a paintball gun then you are even a more fearful person than I imagined. 

“Script” indeed. When you’ve got something other than “It’s MURDER!!”, while not even being able to provide a cogent definition of what you consider this word to mean, get back to us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45957

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, slorch said:

Ignoring the man for 9 months might be semi normal during a relationship LOLz, but with ragard to the pregnancy,  saying he has no say after conception( wow, what a coincidental starting point!) and then 9 months later saying he's on the hook financially makes sense to you?

No way.  Not without severely shaded political lenses.

How drunk are you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
M12BH

M12BH 545

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How drunk are you?  

Yeah I think he's done.  When he advocates for Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, or any other jurisdiction to commandeer his fluids to save an INNOCENT PERSON I'll listen to what he has to say about what can be done with my fluids.  Until then, I guess he can just mumble into his beer about his apparently unresolved issues with how women treat men.  I'll continue to open my own doors (not that I don't appreciate a little chivalry now & then, I am after all a Texas girl), buy my own shoes and purses and have autonomy over my own insides.  Beats the hell out of the alternative.   

Y'all have a nice holiday and thank you to all who served to preserve ALL our freedoms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-abortion-indiana-fetal-remains-20190528-story.html

The court’s action Tuesday signals that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his fellow conservatives are not ready to directly confront abortion rights, at least during a presidential election year. Had the high court agreed to hear the Indiana case, it would have been argued in the fall and decided by June 2020.

 

Looks like SCOTUS is going to balk on all these laws and keep Casey/Roe as settle law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
On 5/24/2019 at 6:52 PM, slorch said:

Ignoring the man for 9 months might be semi normal during a relationship LOLz, but with ragard to the pregnancy,  saying he has no say after conception( wow, what a coincidental starting point!) and then 9 months later saying he's on the hook financially makes sense to you?

No way.  Not without severely shaded political lenses.

It's amazing how upset you get when you feel like a man's rights are being infringed upon, but you could give a shit when it's a woman's rights that are being infringed upon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-abortion-indiana-fetal-remains-20190528-story.html

The court’s action Tuesday signals that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his fellow conservatives are not ready to directly confront abortion rights, at least during a presidential election year. Had the high court agreed to hear the Indiana case, it would have been argued in the fall and decided by June 2020.

 

Looks like SCOTUS is going to balk on all these laws and keep Casey/Roe as settle law. 

Until 2021 at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

My goodness the stupidity just won’t quit.

UA law school to return a $25 million donation - largest in school history - because, according to the law school, of a disagreement over how the donor would like the money spent.

Mind you, Culverhouse (the donor) has had the same requests in place since last November when he made the donation.

But it just became a deal breaking issue this week that is apparently so egregious that the school is willing to turn down $25 million.

So what happened all of the sudden that caused this rejection of his generous gift?

He spoke out about the abortion law and isn’t comfortable with a state funded institution promoting what he considers an unconstitutional law. And he plans to spend some of his other millions to help fight it.

Alabama has a very good law school - top 25 in fact. But they’re going to turn down the largest donation they’ve ever been given because the donor doesn’t meet their abortion purity test.

Oh, and the law school is actually named after this guy and they’re going to strip his name off the place too.

Roll Fucking Tide

https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20190529/university-of-alabama-to-return-donors-215-million-gift

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Knight

Michael Knight 12980

Posted
Posted
On 5/20/2019 at 11:05 PM, Thetexashammer said:

So an infant is a "cost", in your words. I think I see the problem. Simply a matter of making the ledger balance. I happen to think we are one human family. Human life shouldn't be blendered up and thrown in the garbage. But I'm just a crazy extremist troll, what do I know.

Can we still detain human life at the border and cage them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26445

Posted
Posted
On 5/29/2019 at 7:38 PM, Bama Chick said:

UA law school to return a $25 million donation - largest in school history - because, according to the law school, of a disagreement over how the donor would like the money spent.

Mind you, Culverhouse (the donor) has had the same requests in place since last November when he made the donation.

But it just became a deal breaking issue this week that is apparently so egregious that the school is willing to turn down $25 million.
 

The thought of UA and/or lawyers turning down money is so Man Bites Dog that I had to check it out. The danger to neighboring states is real, because if it turns into an Entitlement Contest, Alabama Lawyers vs Floridian NFL-Team Heir is off the charts. We're talking Godzilla vs Mothra. There is a real risk that they could meet, explode, leaving not only a Yucatan crater but also having Entitlement Fallout towards the northeast. It would salt the soil, poison the water tables, and lead to a Bizarro Earth where Virginians are full of themselves.

Fortunately for mankind, Culverhouse has committed the tactical error of turning it into a "Fuck You" contest. "Fuck You" is Alabama's superpower. In his arrogance, he is a French knight charging the despised lowbowmen, in the mud.

 

 

 

 

 

I still can't get over the idea of UA Law turning down money. The UA pimple-suck lawyers expended untold effort to grub an extra nickle out of a guy who was making coffeecups with his own paintings of Alabama football on them. These are not generous souls. It has to be that Culverhouse ran up against their control-freak nature, plus, the Power of Fuck You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted

I assume Message Board User is all for increasing taxes on the wealthiest, completely dismantling our private healthcare system in favor of a single payer universal model, and making sure we completely change where our current government funds go (funding more money to our military than the next 5 or whatever counties do combined) so that women who are forced to give birth can have the proper safety nets in place to raise their child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17856

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2019 at 12:09 PM, Message Board User said:

The new law also repeals the Partial Birth Abortion ban, which imposed restrictions on doctors performing abortions on women who were 20 weeks pregnant or later. The American Civil Liberties Union says about 90 percent of all abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

Partial-birth abortions remain banned by federal law, except to save the life of the mother. The new measure does not change factors around partial birth abortions, Cassidy said.

Cassidy told lawmakers claims that doctors can perform abortions at any stage of the pregnancy are “medically and factually incorrect.” It allows for doctors to make their own professional decision if a patient’s health is at risk, which is already in current state law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26445

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Nivek said:

I remember hearing a Muslim fundy speak about how his culture honors women and respects them. Which is why they are covered up, and protected from voting and driving. It’s all about love.

I heard the same thing about why Japanese soldiers would die in Banzai charges. It was love.

Of course, this was from a New Zealander who should have known better. Or maybe she did know better.  Shikata ga nai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Yeah, slorch is a full-blown aggy.

 

and you're Barry Switzer...

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted

For those of you not familiar with The National Constitution Center, there is a fantastic podcast that discusses what the Court may (or may not) do in the future. 

It's "fantastic" because it focuses on the legal arguments both sides will use in a calm and professional manner.

HERE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
 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...