SCOTUS apparent draft of the Roe decision leaked by someone in SCOTUS . Could be a staffer or maybe even an associate justice or even Chief Justice Roberts .

The courts were once considered (falsely ) as the most trustworthy branch of government . This leak peels that veneer away for good .

I will not even bother reading the leak because I know there is a lot of back and forth between the justices before the final decision is reached . Roberts did his best McBeth agonizing act before he decided to change the plain language of the AHA law to justify his vote on Obamacare . So I know justices deliberate up until the final ruling is made .

I have guessed for a long time that SCOTUS would reverse the unconstitutional decision they made when they decided Roe v Wade . But it's the details that matter .

The earthquake inside the court this betrayal of trust will create will rock the American system. If the intent was to burn the place down ;well done .

wow listening to commentary on this all morning. left is speaking about women's rights like you haven't heard since before to woke LGBTQ++XYZ movement began .
Appears the only right a woman has in the woke world is the right to snuff out the life of their baby .

wow listening to commentary on this all morning. left is speaking about women's rights like you haven't heard since before to woke LGBTQ++XYZ movement began .
Appears the only right a woman has in the woke world is the right to snuff out the life of their baby .
May Purgatory include earthly males being straight, lesbian, bi, ace, or trans females of any race, culture, religion for a term of 50 years.

I will not take the bait and be dragged into a religious discussion.

I will not take the bait and be dragged into a religious discussion.
Nope, not religious at all. Understanding and empathy, probably. Can you even imagine what we go through, as exemplified by this Alito draft?? Nope, I didn't think so.

I can't wait to find out who blew the whistle and why!

I did not read it ;nor will I . The release is an attempt to influence a justice to change his/her mind . The only issue to me is constitutionality . empathy is the left buzz word to explain why they can justify unconstitutional rulings.

When they realize that laws are a legislative process and not a judical one we will all be better off.

I can't wait to find out who blew the whistle and why!I doubt any of us will ever know that.

Purgatory. Now there's an utterly unscriptural idea. Even worse, you would have Jesus himself condemned to fifty years of purgatory for the supposed crime of having been a straight male.

Women from a hundred years ago would look with astonishment at this modern argument about a woman's supposed right to control her body (which has never been absolute) extending to being able to have her unborn child's life snuffed out. They would wonder why any woman living in the golden age of birth control options would ever have an "unwanted" pregnancy. It's just an incredible line of argument being advanced by the most pampered, spoiled generations to have ever existed.

Purgatory. Now there's an utterly unscriptural idea.
I'm a Lutheran PK. Purgatory isn't part of our beliefs. I was making a generic, even sarcastic, point, not a religious one.

Roger that.

They would wonder why any woman living in the golden age of birth control options would ever have an "unwanted" pregnancy. It's just an incredible line of argument being advanced by the most pampered, spoiled generations to have ever existed.
A few gears ago, when this site was still populated, several long-time female members bemoaned the fact that they had gotten pregnant despite the correct use of several birth control methods. Not spoiled or pampered, for sure!

I have no idea if purgatory exists or doesn't . There are references in the Bible that Catholics quote or infer from. Too deep for me. Catholic by birth and heritage . I'm the least of all . Purgatory seems tailor made for me .

A few gears ago, when this site was still populated, several long-time female members bemoaned the fact that they had gotten pregnant despite the correct use of several birth control methods. Not spoiled or pampered, for sure!Those are rare occurrences. I would bet that none of them complained about becoming pregnant after NOT having sex.

Clueless tweets
I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental. Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.We will be ready when any ruling is issued.

Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land for 58 years . There is no 'precedence ' for bad law . It should be reversed no matter how many years it was on the books .

I believe that a woman’s right to chooseAnd we must remember that we are about to confirm a SCOTUS justice who claims not to know what a "woman" is.

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox tweeted

“Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said ‘f-ck it! Let’s burn this place down.'”...

That is really what the progressive left wants to do to all of American society .

And we must remember that we are about to confirm a SCOTUS justice who claims not to know what a "woman" is.
You're taking that out of context, m'dear.


I would bet that none of them complained about becoming pregnant after NOT having sex.
All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.

All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.

An absolute dictatorship would consider that . China had the one child policy.

simple solution The Dems have both houses of Congress and the executive. Besides blowing smoke up Dems a$$es looking for donations ,why don't they just pass a law ?

All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.

An absolute dictatorship would consider that . China had the one child policy.
It would certainly cut down on the use of the STAR program, also on homelessness, mental illness, illegal drug use, robberies, shootings, murders. After all, which gender is the one who .... AND maybe we could encourage chastity belt use too!

see..... no people no problems

Clueless Earth Day address - Page 2 (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=849236&page=2&p=3880191#post3880191)

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.


This leak is designed to stoke up mob rage to intimidate justices . This was Schmucky the Senate majority leader before the leak threatening justices with violence .

Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQY8vbIjC8)


You see the freak show on the court steps today ? i can't speak for the women . But the men there don't respect woman. They just want to have sex with no strings attached .

You're taking that out of context, m'dear.Please explain how.


All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.Yes. We certainly wouldn't want to make a call for female responsibility.

Please explain how.
What was the ENTIRE quote?


Yes. We certainly wouldn't want to make a call for female responsibility.
You and I exist and have become the wonderful human beings that we are because of female responsibility.

You claimed I took a quote out of context, but you don't even know the context? Hmm. Sounds like another of your shots in the dark.


You and I exist and have become the wonderful human beings that we are because of female responsibility.Yes, and male responsibility as well. But that doesn't change the fact that female irresponsibility leads to hundreds of thousands of abortions.

What was the ENTIRE quote?
Here, I'll help --

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.

“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

"Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said, adding, "In my work as a judge, what I do is address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide."

You claimed I took a quote out of context, but you don't even know the context? Hmm. Sounds like another of your shots in the dark.
I was posting while you were carping.

Yes, and male responsibility as well. But that doesn't change the fact that female irresponsibility leads to hundreds of thousands of abortions.
If there were males in our lives, we were very blessed. Far too many don't have responsible fathers - just "shoot and run" impregnators.

And what do you plan to do with those hundreds of thousands of babies not aborted?

So you really believe that a person has to be a biologist to know what a "woman" is? So that means that 99.9% of the American people are not qualified to know what a "woman" is?

"Pastor, I'd like to marry this person, but I can't since, not being a biologist, I'm not sure I know what a 'woman' is."

"I had a date with a wonderful person last night. She might have been a woman, but I'm not sure since I'm not a biologist and thus am not qualified to know for sure."

Second grade teacher. "Now children, let's have all the girls line up on this side of the room, and all the boys on the other side. Oh wait! We can't do that since none of us are biologists and are thus not qualified to know these things."

I'm not a expert on rhetoric, but I do know when a person is simply dodging a question and looking really foolish in doing so.


If there were males in our lives, we were very blessed. Far too many don't have responsible fathers - just "shoot and run" impregnators.Far too many also don't have responsible mothers.


And what do you plan to do with those hundreds of thousands of babies not aborted?I don't plan on doing anything with them. They are not my children. But I sure don't plan on following your logic and having the pesky little irritants (in your view) killed.

A friend is 47XXY. How would you classify that?

- just "shoot and run" impregnators.

Who love that the nation allows the snuffing of babies they make so they can avoid the responsibility.


I heard all day yesterday the silly argument that Roe was the law of the land for 50 years . As previously stated ;Plessy v Ferguson was the law for 58 years before Brown v Board of Education reversed it .
There is no such a thing as a super precedent when the decision is a bad and unconstitutional one .
Who agrees with me ? Ketanji Brown Jackson does . In her confirmation hearing she said" I am not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis."
This counters the lunatic ranting by various Dem Senators including the Schmuckster or various Reps like Pramila Jayapal who said SCOTUS has "no right to change this law ".

I would describe Klinefelter syndrome as a genetic defect amongst males. As one site put it, "Klinefelter syndrome (KS) also known as 47,XXY or XXY, is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males." It's a genetic disorder in the same fashion that Down Syndrome is. But wouldn't it be true that since you are not a biologist, then neither I, K. Brown, or you, agreeing with K.B. as you do, would expect you to be able to comment on that?


Who agrees with me ? Ketanji Brown Jackson does . In her confirmation hearing she said" I am not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis."She should have declined to answer on that one. It just illustrates why she lamely refused to say what "woman" means. Words have a way of coming back to haunt you. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine she is "not aware of" the concept of super-precedents. Barrett was very open in her discussion of them.

so just how bad a ruling was Roe ? The truth is that it is hard to find legal scholars who support the right to kill a baby who say Roe was good constitutional law.
Here is a sample of some ;a couple may surprise you so I will start at the top.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg ... “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

(see other comments about Roe by RBG here )
Microsoft Word - Document1 (usccb.org) (https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Comments-on-Roe-v-Wade-by-the-Supreme-Court-Justices.pdf)

Lawrence Tribe Harvard Law school and lawyer for Al Gore's 2000 campaign .
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Supreme Court Did Not Resolve Abortion Controversy: It Created It | USCCB (https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/supreme-court-did-not-resolve-abortion-controversy-it-created-it)

Edward Lazarus former clerk to Justice Harry Blackburn ;author of the Roe ruling .
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method,Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….
“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”


The rap against liberals is that they do not care about the text or history of the Constitution and do not have any principled method for interpreting the document. Instead, they simply enshrine their moral choices in the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. In common parlance, this is called legislating from the bench.
There is some truth to this charge. In the 1970s, for example, liberal justices declared the death penalty per se unconstitutional even though the Constitution's due process clause (which protects against the deprivation of "life" absent due process of law) explicitly contemplates the idea of capital punishment. Roe v. Wade is another example. The generalized right to privacy on which the 1973 ruling is based has no obvious textual basis in the Constitution; the decision's grounding in history and precedent is scant; and the opinion itself spends only a few sentences trying to explain its constitutional justification.
Liberals have tried to paper over these flaws with nice-sounding rhetoric about the Constitution's grand promises of individual liberty and the "evolving standards" that infuse them with meaning. A case can be made for this -- up to a point. But when unelected, life-tenured judges use their power of judicial review to overturn the enactments of elected representatives, there has to be some greater justification than a judge's own sense of modern morality or wise policy.

Liberals, Don't Make Her an Icon (archive.org) (https://web.archive.org/web/20130116033136/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070802261_pf.html)

The rap against liberals is that they do not care about the text or history of the Constitution and do not have any principled method for interpreting the document. Instead, they simply enshrine their moral choices in the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. In common parlance, this is called legislating from the bench.Stunningly accurate.

The so called 'right to privacy ' is very loosely based on the 9th amendment which is a catch all amendment that says that because the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly enumerate all the rights the people hold does not mean the right doesn't exist. So, in Griswald v Connecticut Justice William Douglas concocted a word salad and wrote that penumbras, formed by emanations” from non-textual “guarantees" give "life and substance” to the right to privacy.

A penumbra is a partial shadow during an eclipse . An emanation is gas from radioactive decay ;an emission . Best guess is that some rights are concocted out of thin air .
Roe expanded that right to eliminate one of the very basic guarantees and protections in the constitution ....the right to life.

I thought Blackburn invented the "penumbra" justification of abortion rights. Didn't realize it went back to the Griswald decision.

This was part of Black's dissent. "I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."

Clueless is demagoguing this for all it is worth . Today he said that the SCOTUS potential ruling could mean that states can pass laws that "children who are LGBTQ++xyz cannot be in classrooms with other children.".....segregate children by sexual identity .

When Peppermint Patty Psaki was asked what he had in mind she said he had nothing in particular except that the Court and Republicans are "capable of" anything.

The Dems are alternately spinning Handmaid's Tale fiction and Grimm's Brother horror about Republican boogie men coming to take your children away.

what he had in mindI won't say what I'm thinking.

I wonder what liberal dems think about the plunging births of children with Down Syndrome? It's happening because there are tests that can detect that genetic abnormality in the womb, so many of them are simply aborted. What if tests are developed that are able to detect LGBTQ babies in the womb? Will liberal dems be OK with parents saying, "Abort the little pervert!!" How about parents aborting female babies because the dad wants sons who can be great athletes? Are liberal dems OK with all of that?

Please list five reasons why women want an abortion.


Are liberal dems OK with all of that?
Those reasons sound like what has come out of the mouths (whispered, of course) of conservative Republicans I've known all my life.

Evasive as always.

Evasive as always.
Evasive how? I have no idea how "liberal dems" would answer -- except by reading the newspaper and watching tv news. You can do that too.

You're the biggest liberal dem on this site.

Come to think of it, I guess you are now the ONLY liberal dem here.

You're the biggest liberal dem on this site.
Hardly! I'm an "I like Ike" Republican.

I just finished a bio of Ike's 2 terms as President .( 'Ike's Bluff ' by Evan Thomas )It was mostly about how he kept the peace when hawks in the US were over selling Soviet capability to beef up US defense spending . It speaks of how he bluffed the world into thinking that he had a nuclear hair trigger when in fact he probably never would've used them. Nukes were cheaper so he preferred them over expanding conventional forces.
In the end he warned the US about over spending on defense . But his plan of leaving the conventional forces demobilized would've forced his hand to use the nukes if Mao or Khrushchev had ever called his bluff.

I can assure you that domestically he had nothing in common with the positions you take on this board unless you do not believe what you write . He would never had committed the resources spent in the 1960s for the social changes that came .The government expanded during his watch but he would never had committed the US to a program that had us in debt well above our GDP . He was a traditionalist who despised the counter culture . He would not have approved of the social changes that allow the murder of children .He probably would've supported woman's rights to a point . He never would've supported the muddling of the genders ;the LGBTQ++XYZ movement that actually dilute those rights . He despised the counter culture during his retirement years . He despised both Jack Kennedy and LBJ .

Yes he kept many of the New Deal programs in tact . Some even expanding during his watch. The US was alone as an economic power house in the 1950s so that was easy to do . He never would have sacrificed a balanced budget over expanded gimmees.

On the US borders he allowed temporary workers to enter the country . They were not permitted to stay . He supported the Bracero program .But also initiated Operation Wetback that used immigration to round up Mexicans to deport them .He was never the open border ;let them all come in type of person .

He greatly expanded the spy state . The CIA was in it's hay day under his watch even though their record during that time was just terrible in both predicting events and in covert activities that still negatively affect us . He was mostly hands off when he should've had them completely under his control .His State Dept was another failed organization .

A person can't support every liberal dem position known to man and then claim to be a repub based on the idea of supporting a candidate from the 50's that she was likely far too young to vote for to begin with. It's like the owner of a meat packing plant claiming to be an animal lover.

49354 49355

Didn't realize you were a published author. Impressive!

sorry to mislead. I just finished reading the bio .

The Dems say that the apparent decision to reverse Roe means that next comes all the rights gained since before Brown v Board . take your pick ...woman's rights ;gay marriage ;contraception ,inter-racial marriage are all now on the block . This is demagoguery of the worse kind. Where is a minister of misinformation when you need one ?

Oh well. At least you have read the book. I have to discipline myself to read. Love to watch documentaries but not so crazy about reading.

I am trying to do much more reading since retiring .I had been limiting myself to what I could get on the web .Also have begun to read more fictions although my preference is still history.

To be honest ;Roe was on the way out long before this apparent decision. Look at all the states who have passed abortion laws recently both expansive and restrictive laws .My former state NY passed an il duce Cuomo signed law in 2019 that basically decriminalized the act of abortion .It also expanded who was eligible to do the baby executions. In NY the killing of a baby in utero by anyone is no longer actionable as a homicide.

Illinois defined a “health care professional” for the purpose of wacking a baby to include a “physician,.... a registered nurse, ...a physician assistant, or even... a person acting under the supervision of one of the above” .

Rhode Island allows for the killing of babies past the age of viability . Fathers in the state have no say in the matter.

Most of the states that have passed restrictions have already been mentioned and debated on these boards '

This decision will not be the end of the issue. It will return control of abortion law to the states. Many states will ban abortions, but others will have the doors wide open to include abortions at 9 months. Even worse, California is now considering legislation allowing for "perinatal" abortions, meaning the death of a newborn. So the battle for life will continue. This will be the end by no means.


New language added to AB 2223 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223) last week revealed the disturbing intent. The proposed legislation would shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy, “including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.” Although definitions of “perinatal death” vary, all of them include the demise of newborns seven days or more after birth.The bill from Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks additionally protects anyone who “aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising” these rights. It also allows a woman to sue any police department or legal authority which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing her child under provisions of the bill.

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/03/24/california-bill-would-allow-killing-babies-in-infanticide-up-to-28-days-after-birth/

the radical lefty fact checkers are on the case . Colorado passed a law making abortion available at any time during pregnancy. It was noted in a tweet and shared on Facebook . Well that was just not acceptable to the propagandist fact checkers .

Now get this logic. They don't deny that the abortion can be done any time during pregnancy . BUT since abortions are rare after 21 weeks they say it makes the tweet and postings false .

PolitiFact | No, this Colorado law does not allow abortions ‘up until the moment of birth’ (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/07/facebook-posts/no-colorado-law-does-not-allow-abortions-until-mom/)

Was listening to a clip of VP Harris passionately supporting abortion "rights". After defending the destruction of human lives, she closed with, "God bless you, and God bless America." Kind of a disconnect there, Madam Vice President.

If rapists and sex abusers were locked up, if fathers stepped up, if daycare was not cost-prohibitive, if health care was reasonable, if housing was reasonable, if paid maternity leave lasted at least six months, there would be no need for abortion.

You know not of what you speak.

You know not of what you speak.
Thirty years as a professional counselor says I do.

Then what's your take on it?

Was listening to a clip of VP Harris passionately supporting abortion "rights". After defending the destruction of human lives, she closed with, "God bless you, and God bless America." Kind of a disconnect there, Madam Vice President.
Fetuses are human lives?

Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And thus, if abortion, killing the unborn, is forbidden, so should war, killing the born, be forbidden.

Fetuses are human lives?Well, they are definitely human, and they are definitely alive, so what do you think?


And thus, if abortion, killing the unborn, is forbidden, so should war, killing the born, be forbidden.Great idea.


Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.If you find a "dust of the ground" human, then please be sure to take a pic of that. Otherwise, it is not a relevant point. God no longer breathes life into our nostrils that we might become living souls.


Then what's your take on it?
1. All of your excuses could equally be applied to children already born. It all comes down to the question of the human nature of the unborn. If they are not human, then abortion just becomes another med procedure. If the unborn are human, then abortion becomes an unspeakable travesty justified only when the mother's life is truly endangered, which is scarcely ever the case. Your other excuses pale in comparison.

2. I'm sure the situation would be better if some socio-economic conditions were better. However, life is FAR better now than a hundred years ago, and yet abortions were relatively infrequent then. How do you explain that?

3. I've shown you this pic before to no avail, but it's worth trying again. Look like a living human to you? Look like it's worth protecting? This is 16 weeks.
49356

This is 10 weeks. Eyes, nose, ears, beating heart, brain, hands, fingers, and toes all present. Look like a living human to you worth protecting?
49357

God no longer breathes life into our nostrils that we might become living souls.
The first time a fetus breathes is when it has left the mother's body, when it is born. That's when it becomes human, a living soul.

2. I'm sure the situation would be better if some socio-economic conditions were better. However, life is FAR better now than a hundred years ago, and yet abortions were relatively infrequent then. How do you explain that?
You must be joking!


3. I've shown you this pic before to no avail, but it's worth trying again. Look like a living human to you? Look like it's worth protecting? This is 16 weeks.
49356

This is 10 weeks. Eyes, nose, ears, beating heart, brain, hands, fingers, and toes all present. Look like a living human to you worth protecting?
49357
I would save the life -- and emotional health -- of the woman.

You must be joking!Nope.


I would save the life -- and emotional health -- of the woman.Saving the woman's physical life is scarcely ever an issue. As to her emotional health, you'd do that by killing her unborn child? Yep...liberal dem, you are.

Yep...liberal dem, you are.
Nope, a God-fearing PK who has been blessed with common sense, not cursed with fanaticism.

You are a God fearing person who advocates for the killing of unborn children? That only makes sense in the world of liberal dems. You are fanatically in favor of abortion.

You are a God fearing person who advocates for the killing of unborn children? That only makes sense in the world of liberal dems. You are fanatically in favor of abortion.
Read much? Understand any of it? I didn't think so.

WHO wants an abortion?
WHEN does she?
WHY does she?

answer.... there is an inconvenience, so the option is to kill the kid.

Read much? Understand any of it? I didn't think so.An insulting comment, which you claim to oppose but clearly don't, establishes nothing other than your lack of answers. However, I will not run off and pout. I just stick with it.


WHO wants an abortion?
WHEN does she?
WHY does she?A woman, though as a non-biologist, that term would hold no meaning for you.

When she is pregnant, though your non-biology background probably renders that term meaningless as well.

For a number of potential reasons. In most cases, Tom's answer is pretty much it, and she gets supported by "God-fearing" folk like you.

answer.... there is an inconvenience, so the option is to kill the kid.
Inconvenience: raped by your uncle
Inconvenience: gang raped
Inconvenience: husband is verbally and physically abusive
Inconvenience: am menopausal, thought I was finished having babies
Inconvenience: a pregnancy will put my life at risk
Inconvenience: the fetus has a congenital disorder that guarantees hospital care and medication throughout its probably short life


An insulting comment, which you claim to oppose but clearly don't, establishes nothing other than your lack of answers. However, I will not run off and pout. I just stick with it.

A woman, though as a non-biologist, that term would hold no meaning for you.

When she is pregnant, though your non-biology background probably renders that term meaningless as well.

For a number of potential reasons. In most cases, Tom's answer is pretty much it, and she gets supported by "God-fearing" folk like you.
I was just tossing back at ya insults similar to the ones you throw at me. Why oh why can't you stick to answering the questions or at least challenging the ideas in them without beating up the questioner???

You mean you were just doing what you claim to despise? Interesting bit of hypocrisy, eh?

Your attempts to justify killing children in cold blood fall far short.

By the way, can you be specific about these supposed insults I have hurled at you?

Your attempts to justify killing children in cold blood fall far short.

Scenario: Susie, age 15, was raped by her brother's best friend. In about six weeks, not wanting to believe it, she realized she was pregnant. Now what?

In your view, she should have the little inconvenience killed.

In your view, she should have the little inconvenience killed.
Please answer my question.

Why? You don't answer mine. Shouldn't it be a two way street?

For instance.

1. By the way, can you be specific about these supposed insults I have hurled at you?
2. As to her emotional health, you'd do that by killing her unborn child?
3. I've shown you this pic before to no avail, but it's worth trying again. Look like a living human to you? Look like it's worth protecting? This is 16 weeks.
4. This is 10 weeks. Eyes, nose, ears, beating heart, brain, hands, fingers, and toes all present. Look like a living human to you worth protecting?
5. Well, they are definitely human, and they are definitely alive, so what do you think?


The first time a fetus breathes is when it has left the mother's body, when it is born. That's when it becomes human, a living soul.There is nothing in the Bible to support an idea like that. But at any rate, does that mean you are OK with an abortion a day or two previous to delivery?

There is nothing in the Bible to support an idea like that. But at any rate, does that mean you are OK with an abortion a day or two previous to delivery?
Abortion is mentioned in the Bible.

That's EXTREMELY rare and means the mother will die if nothing is done.

Rape is mentioned in the Bible. Does being mentioned make it ok?

What if a woman loses her job at 37 weeks and so changes her mind. You ok with an abortion then? Colorado specifically allows that. You ok with it?

A fifteen year old raped and pregnant is also EXTREMELY rare and yet you used that as your example. Oh well.

Rape is mentioned in the Bible. Does being mentioned make it ok?
Apparently so. Literalists believe if it's in there, it's okay.

What if a woman loses her job at 37 weeks and so changes her mind. You ok with an abortion then? Colorado specifically allows that. You ok with it?
Did you answer my question?

Scenario: Susie, age 15, was raped by her brother's best friend. In about six weeks, not wanting to believe it, she realized she was pregnant. Now what?

No they don’t. That’s absurd and a ridiculous assertion.

in Susie’s case, the first step should be to execute the boy for rape. He is, after all, the only guilty party. You with me so far?

No they don’t. That’s absurd and a ridiculous assertion.

in Susie’s case, the first step should be to execute the boy for rape. He is, after all, the only guilty party. You with me so far?
Have you been drinking?

Ah. Another evasion. Predictable.

Ah. Another evasion. Predictable.
You, my dear, refuse to answer my questions that were posted before yours.

More evasion. I started my answer. Are we in agreement so far?

Inconvenience: raped by your uncle
Inconvenience: gang raped
Inconvenience: husband is verbally and physically abusive
Inconvenience: am menopausal, thought I was finished having babies
Inconvenience: a pregnancy will put my life at risk
Inconvenience: the fetus has a congenital disorder that guarantees hospital care and medication throughout its probably short life

All exceptions. Most abortions are done as a contraceptive measure after the fact . That is why the abortion pill has become so popular. Killing a baby by taking a pill is more convenient than having to get a health care provider to wack the baby .

I remember when the radical left' mantra was "safe ,legal and rare" . Rare has definitely been removed . Now it is kill the babies because of almost every pretext including population control.

Someone on the left has published the addresses of every justice who apparently signed on to the pending Dobbs ruling.
@RuthSent (https://www.ruthsent.us/)

The "safe, legal, and rare" argument never made sense. If the unborn child is truly a precious human life, then it should be rare, but certainly not legal for any and all comers. If the unborn child is not a human life, then why should we care that it be rare? At any rate, it is never safe for the child. It was just one of those sayings that sounded wise but upon any inspection at all was actually foolish.

Let's go back to the fifteen year old girl for a minute. A complaint was lodged earlier about using an example that was said to be EXTREMELY rare. I would lodge the same complaint here. You don't find many fifteen year old girls pregnant from rape. But let's extend the story a bit. She tells her parents that she is six weeks pregnant, so off to the abortion clinic they go. The parent explains that the girl is pregnant from rape. They are asked for a police report to verify the rape. Did she report the rape? Was the boy arrested? If not, then can she just claim "rape" and expect that to be accepted? Suppose she has an abortion, but then it's later found out that the sex was actually consensual. Who will be held responsible for that? Who will apologize to the dead baby? Why is it that in the world of liberal dems, it is only the truly innocent baby that is asked to die?

The young man has been lusting after his friend's sister for a long time. Yes, he raped her when she refused his advances. He later confessed to police and is in jail awaiting his first hearing.

How much later?

Did the girl go to the ER after being raped?

" Who will apologize to the dead baby? Why is it that in the world of liberal dems, it is only the truly innocent baby that is asked to die?"

Now in all fairness, I have trouble with your EXTREMELY rare example. I am often tempted to say it would ok to have an abortion in that instance, but when I consider that a precious, innocent human life will be extinguished forever for that to happen, I just can't agree with it. And I feel pretty safe in saying that when the girl turns 30, she will be forever happy that she did the right thing.

Yes, her mother took her to the ER.

What do you propose for that fetus if it is born and becomes a living soul?

It sounds like you would be willing to take responsibility for "that precious human life."

What do you propose for that fetus if it is born and becomes a living soul?Your living soul proposition is just so much nonsense, and it's interesting how you refuse to take any passage literally UNLESS, of course, you think it supports your preconceived ideas. At any rate, God breathed the breath of life into Adam since, you should notice, he was not already alive. He did not do that for Eve or anyone else who has lived, so your idea just falls apart.


It sounds like you would be willing to take responsibility for "that precious human life."If necessary, then of course I would.

Now that I've answered a half-dozen or so of your questions, it's time for you to answer one you dodged earlier. If a woman is 37 weeks along, loses her job, and decides she cannot afford the child, should she be allowed to have an abortion? If so, how should the doctor kill the child before delivering a dead baby?

Or supposed the 15 year old girl initially decided to have the baby, but then at 37 weeks changes her mind and decides on an abortion. Should that be allowed?

Please don't dodge those questions. Be forthcoming.

Your living soul proposition is just so much nonsense, and it's interesting how you refuse to take any passage literally UNLESS, of course, you think it supports your preconceived ideas. At any rate, God breathed the breath of life into Adam since, you should notice, he was not already alive. He did not do that for Eve or anyone else who has lived, so your idea just falls apart.
But then, we know that story is an allegory. And Eve was transgendered from human bone.

If necessary, then of course I would.
You're gonna have a lot of babies to raise. Hope you're up to this.

Now that I've answered a half-dozen or so of your questions, it's time for you to answer one you dodged earlier. If a woman is 37 weeks along, loses her job, and decides she cannot afford the child, should she be allowed to have an abortion? If so, how should the doctor kill the child before delivering a dead baby?
Nope. Our taxes will be raised so she can afford to keep the baby.

Or supposed the 15 year old girl initially decided to have the baby, but then at 37 weeks changes her mind and decides on an abortion. Should that be allowed?
She's not THAT stoopid!!!

What wouldve happened if one of those MAGA "extremists" had published Ruth Bader Ginsberg's address on a site and urged people to go to her house to protest ? Then Kayleigh McEnany replied when asked that President Trump's position is that "there is a lot of passion" How would ve the left and the compliant press reacted ?

She's not THAT stoopid!!!The usual evasion. It's what I hate about having a "discussion" with you. Anytime you feel cornered, you run for cover. It really gets old. Not enough courage on your part to truly be honest.


And Eve was transgendered from human bone.Well, this lunacy has gone too far for me.

Where did Eve come from?

Now that I've answered a half-dozen or so of your questions, it's time for you to answer one you dodged earlier. If a woman is 37 weeks along, loses her job, and decides she cannot afford the child, should she be allowed to have an abortion? If so, how should the doctor kill the child before delivering a dead baby?Your answer was, "Nope". Why? According to you, the baby has no soul. Why no abortion?

Your answer was, "Nope". Why? According to you, the baby has no soul. Why no abortion?
37 weeks? And that's not why women get late-term abortions.

But you said it should not be allowed. My question is, why not? How is 37 weeks different from 30 weeks different from 24 weeks different from 15 weeks? Why are you taking the decision away from the mother at 37 weeks but not at 15 weeks?

Eve came from Adam. It clearly says that God created them, "male and female". She was not XY but then decided to become XX.

But you said it should not be allowed. My question is, why not? How is 37 weeks different from 30 weeks different from 24 weeks different from 15 weeks? Why are you taking the decision away from the mother at 37 weeks but not at 15 weeks?
I bet you've never been pregnant.

Eve came from Adam. It clearly says that God created them, "male and female". She was not XY but then decided to become XX.
Allegory. "She decided"???

And Adam and Eve's free will opened up the universe to all sorts of contradictions and unlimited possibilities.

I bet you've never been pregnant.Just more evasion. As I said, it gets old. Why you don't have the courage to confront your own convictions is strange.


And Adam and Eve's free will opened up the universe to all sorts of contradictions and unlimited possibilities.Yes, otherwise known as sin.

Just more evasion. As I said, it gets old. Why you don't have the courage to confront your own convictions is strange.
My point was -- and YES, I was making a point -- you have no idea how the love for that fetus grows over the months. In the early months, there's little or no emotional connection to it. By the end of the fourth month, the pregnant woman feels movement that becomes more vigorous as the weeks go by. And of course, the woman's abdomen becomes rounded as the fetus grows in size. By 37 weeks, the pregnant woman has become quite enamored with the fetus she is carrying and would need a very good reason to consider abortion.

Yes, otherwise known as sin.
Be sure to ask God for forgiveness each time you eat a grilled beef steak or pulled pork sandwich or lobster tail, all of which were killed (5th commandment) for your pleasure.

My point was -- and YES, I was making a point -- you have no idea how the love for that fetus grows over the months. In the early months, there's little or no emotional connection to it. By the end of the fourth month, the pregnant woman feels movement that becomes more vigorous as the weeks go by. And of course, the woman's abdomen becomes rounded as the fetus grows in size. By 37 weeks, the pregnant woman has become quite enamored with the fetus she is carrying and would need a very good reason to consider abortion.Nice try, but that's not what you said. You said she would NOT be allowed to have an abortion. So the question is, why not? And as I ask the question, already I know you will not answer it, but will respond with more silliness.


Be sure to ask God for forgiveness each time you eat a grilled beef steak or pulled pork sandwich or lobster tail, all of which were killed (5th commandment) for your pleasure.And the lunacy marches on. If you were more familiar with your Bible, you would be embarrassed at having made that post.

Nice try, but that's not what you said. You said she would NOT be allowed to have an abortion.
You said that.

And the lunacy marches on. If you were more familiar with your Bible, you would be embarrassed at having made that post.
Ah, the insult again. Jesus is watching.

Oh. So you DO approve of abortion at 37 weeks. Got it. So how should the doctor kill the baby prior to delivering a dead infant? Note: You will not answer that question. That is a given.

Your post deserved insulting. It was ridiculous.

Oh. So you DO approve of abortion at 37 weeks. Got it. So how should the doctor kill the baby prior to delivering a dead infant? Note: You will not answer that question. That is a given.
If the mother's life is in grave danger and her death would result, the doctor has the means to end the pregnancy as gently as possible.

If the mother's life is in grave danger and her death would result, the doctor has the means to end the pregnancy as gently as possible.That was not the scenario and you know it. You're being evasive again. I'll just drop it since you are not going to be honest about it.

At any rate, it is never necessary to have an abortion at 37 weeks to save the life of the mother. One way or the other, the baby must be delivered, so an abortion does nothing to spare the mother that ordeal. And if you think a doctor has means to end the pregnancy "gently", then you have no knowledge at all of late term abortions. I would really challenge you to look at how a dilation and evacuation is performed, or a saline abortion, or partial birth abortions. You can read about it here. I doubt that you will. Ignorance is bliss. And that is not meant in a mean fashion. I just know your approach.

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

Have you ever heard of c-sections?

The techniques you described are not done when the fetus is nearly full term.

Have you ever heard of c-sections?Yes.


The techniques you described are not done when the fetus is nearly full term.I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. Partial birth abortions are done late term. The same is true of saline abortions.

But if you are so sure of your statement, then tell us what technique is used?

Didn't read the article, did you?

That dated, right-wing, anti-abortion article?

The one you were afraid to read, lest you find the truth to be inconvenient.

Most people are sensible enough to know that an abortion at 37 weeks would be a grotesque breach of morality. But they can't explain WHY they believe that. You are evidently in that group. So we ask them questions to help them explore their own standards. How about 30 weeks? How about 24? If "yes" for 24 but "no" for 30, then why? What difference justifies that distinction? The idea is to get them to assess their own position. Getting people to think benefits the pro-life position, but that won't work unless a person has sufficient courage to do it. I haven't observed that you do. You just seem to prefer living in a make-believe world where abortions are "gentle" and usually involve a scenario along the lines of a 15 year old rape victim who has become pregnant. It's much easier to live with that belief than to discover that abortions are ugly, violent procedures usually chosen by a woman who simply does not want the baby. You ask questions such as, "Is the fetus a human life," but then choose not to explore your own question, or any other question you find threatening. I think that's tragic. So we end up having these pointless discussions that never arrive at any destination since you can't defend your position and yet don't want to honestly examine any others.

Don't say that meanly. It's my view of the situation.

very funny . That nonsense about Eve !! next up Jesus had no male chromosomes because he was birthed from a virgin .

next up Jesus had no male chromosomes because he was birthed from a virgin .Classic!!

Jesus had no male chromosomes because he was birthed from a virgin .
You therefore deny God was Jesus' father.

God, a Spirit, has chromosomes?

Does God have a gender ? I don't want to get into that whole pronoun thingy

Does God have a gender ? I don't want to get into that whole pronoun thingy
(You opened the door, tomder.)

What gender pronoun do the Christian Creeds and the Bible use? Which do you use? You call God IT, don't you!!! Hmm, now I can't stop thinking about Pennywise, the Dancing Clown.)

God is universally referred to in the masculine in the Bible other than a very occasional use of "us" or "our" as in Genesis 1:26. "Let US make man in OUR image..."

MR. JENSEN: Jen, can I ask a question? A Catholic church was just vandalized with pro-abortion slogans in Colorado. It just happened recently. Is the White House aware of that, first of all?
MS. PSAKI: I’ve not seen that report. Obviously, we don’t condone vandalism. We condone peaceful protest, and that’s something certainly we’re encouraging with everybody who feels passionate —
MR. JENSEN: What would you say to those vandals going after — targeting Catholic churches, especially when it involves Roe? That’s what they’re basically focusing on.
MS. PSAKI: Again, we don’t condone vandalism. We condone peaceful protest.
I think it’s important to note that 60 percent or 70 percent, depending on the poll you look at, of the American people do not want Roe to be overturned.
I’m going to move on. Go ahead.
MR. JENSEN: Will the President respect the High Court’s final decision on Roe (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: I think we’re moving on. Go ahead.
Q Jen —
MR. JENSEN: This is a follow-up question. That’s all. Just like everyone else gets.
(SEVERAL MINUTES LATER)
MR. JENSEN: Quick follow-up. Is anyone in the administration —
Q Thank you, Jen.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, last — last one. Go ahead.
MR. JENSEN: — looking out for the unborn child?
MS. PSAKI: Sir — sir —
MR. JENSEN: Is anyone in the administration looking out for the unborn child?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve taken two questions from you —
Q No, no, no.
MS. PSAKI: — so I’m going to take a question over here. Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Jen.
MR. JENSEN: When does the President believe life begins?

Thank you


Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, May 5, 2022 | The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/05/05/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-may-5-2022/)

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280255296_10228302479769888_275891547873820494_n.j pg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=adv_mq6VVVYAX9MyleR&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT_9B54buMVFB1bmFVhUcWxR86DDT_yn3AUWeQYr8DI8 mA&oe=627C60BE

We agree with that, but it needs to be done on a state level. Of course if we started becoming a marriage-honoring culture, then...

We agree with that, but it needs to be done on a state level. Of course if we started becoming a marriage-honoring culture, then...
Why aren't we?

Because marriage requires discipline and self-denial, and we don't like that. And when women adopt a loose attitude towards sexual involvement with men, then one of the encouragements towards marriage disappears. No-fault divorce has been another enemy of marriage.

So it's the fault of women.

Why don't men tell them no?

So it's the fault of women.Who said that?


Why don't men tell them no?We certainly should, but men tend to follow their animal instincts in such instances.

Who said that?
You did, first thing.: "And when women adopt a loose attitude towards sexual involvement with men..."

He can't say no? His "animal instincts" take over.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280255296_10228302479769888_275891547873820494_n.j pg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=adv_mq6VVVYAX9MyleR&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT_9B54buMVFB1bmFVhUcWxR86DDT_yn3AUWeQYr8DI8 mA&oe=627C60BE

Overturning Roe is returning law making to the people's representatives away from the black robed unelected oligarchs.

I did not say it was the fault of women. Many women are behaving foolishly as are many men. Both sexes should behave more responsibly.

Albert Ellis, the famous psychologist, said, "Don't should on yourself."

Too often both sexes don't behave responsibly. Yet the "problem" -- and its solution -- falls on the woman. The man, smiling, walks away.

Too often both sexes don't behave responsibly. Yet the "problem" -- and its solution -- falls on the woman. The man, smiling, walks away.To be certain, the woman takes practically all the risks. If I was a woman, I'd be VERY careful. There are many careless, deceitful men out there. When I go to bed at night, I'm careful to lock the doors. I don't wish to take the risks of unlocked doors, and I'm not going to appeal for more caring, loving burglars. My house is my responsibility and no one else's.

Locking the door. Thus, a chastity belt would be most helpful.

How does a woman know when a man is deceitful?

How does a woman know when a man is deceitful?Same way you tell if any person is deceitful. Are they manipulative? Are they honest? Do they keep their word? Time, time, time. It comes out eventually.

Time, time, time. It comes out eventually.
Time, time, time. How long do I have to be with him before "it" comes out?

When they have an end goal in sight, they are perfect gentlemen. I can tell you stories 'til the cows come home.

How long? Depends on how much you value yourself.

How long? Depends on how much you value yourself.
But the woman hasn't yet experienced any deceit. He's very clever.

Yep. Time, time, time. But that woman knows deceit. She need only look in her own heart.

Yep. Time, time, time. But that woman knows deceit. She need only look in her own heart.
Nope, she's an innocent.

Let's you and me write a children's book about how to identify deceit in someone! Maybe we would be guests on Dr. Phil!

Sure she is.

Sure she is.
She's 15. Just started dating. Church group activities only!

There are few things more devious than a teenager. You claim to be a counselor and you don’t know that???

There are few things more devious than a teenager. You claim to be a counselor and you don’t know that???
Not the ones I grew up with and raised and have known. Must be something in Southern cooking or parenting that makes them devious.

I CLAIM to be a counselor????

Strange that you always consider yourself to be the noble exception. Well, you won’t sell me on that nonsense. Not buying today.

I think you read too much fiction.

Strange that you always consider yourself to be the noble exception. Well, you won’t sell me on that nonsense. Not buying today.

I think you read too much fiction.
Church youth group I belonged to went on all-day hikes at Letchworth State Park, Watkins Glen State Park, Niagara Falls. Also played volleyball, miniature golf, bowling, cared for our garden, learned how to make simple meals, of course Bible study, and so on. No time or opportunity to be deceitful. Similar for my sons' age groups.

P.S. I'm a fiction writer as well as reader. And published nonfic writer.

No time or opportunity to be deceitful. Similar for my sons' age groups.Sorry but just don't believe that. I was a principal for far too many years. You think that because you went on hikes and played volleyball that you weren't devious? You're the very person on this site who claimed Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers and Jesus and John were homosexual lovers, and yet you think you weren't devious???

You obviously have NO idea what devious means.

I know precisely what it means.

I know precisely what it means.
Going on hikes etc. does not make one devious. Having an opinion different from yours does not make me devious.

No one said any of that. I certainly didn't.

No one said any of that. I certainly didn't.
Yes, and you were very devious when you said it. :-)

You're the very person on this site who claimed Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers and Jesus and John were homosexual lovers, and yet you think you weren't devious???
I didn't "claim it"; I suggested it as a possibility. That's not being devious.

I never said that.

You did claim it. It's a devious strategy to make the Bible appear to condone what it very plainly disallows.

Good night. Been a good yet tiring day.

I did NOT claim it! I threw it out as a possibility.

And where does the Bible disallow it?

I did NOT claim it! I threw it out as a possibility.Even more devious. "I merely suggested it might be true!" It's trying to take both sides of the issue at the same time.


And where does the Bible disallow it?I just posted it two or three days ago. Remember where you said Paul was wrong? And that is just one of a half dozen or so places.

Even more devious. "I merely suggested it might be true!" It's trying to take both sides of the issue at the same time.
That is NOT being devious!

I just posted it two or three days ago. Remember where you said Paul was wrong? And that is just one of a half dozen or so places.
You're no longer making sense and are misremembering, twisting my words and their meanings just like you do the Bible's.

Yep. Devious you are.

Post 234 under Transgender Women. Read it and weep.

“Paul was wrong,” is tha actual quote. Ready to correct yourself?

Post 234 under Transgender Women. Read it and weep.

“Paul was wrong,” is tha actual quote. Ready to correct yourself?
Nope. Our loving and forgiving God knows that the universe He created isn't ABC123 any longer. Jesus said, "Love one another" and show love to His Father's creation.

He didn't say, "Accept anything, and ignore Paul if he doesn't agree with WG's preconceived ideas." You are sadly deceived.

This is what I meant for you to correct yourself on. "You're no longer making sense and are misremembering, twisting my words and their meanings..." I twisted nothing. You said exactly what I posted. In all honesty, you should admit you were wrong in your allegation. I know you won't, but you really should.

"...twisting my words...just like you do the Bible's."

I post two dozen passages that clearly say the same message. You don't like the message, so you lash out and claim words are being twisted. We both know that is not true.

"...twisting my words...just like you do the Bible's."

I post two dozen passages that clearly say the same message. You don't like the message, so you lash out and claim words are being twisted. We both know that is not true.
You are the devious one who is "losing" so then changes the subject and makes the discussion a personal diatribe.

My goodness. You'd rather get mad than simply admit you were wrong. Sad.

I recall thousands of peaceful protesters on both sides of the abortion issue in the 1970s . Somehow I don't think the protests we are seeing will end as peacefully .

Pro-Choice Protesters Stormed Brett Kavanaugh's House (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-choice-protesters-stormed-brett-kavanaughs-house-abortion-rights-scotus-2022-5)

I’m afraid that is true. It seems to be the volatile issue of our day. Who would have thought that defending the lives of the unborn would prove to be so enraging?

My goodness. You'd rather get mad than simply admit you were wrong. Sad.
You're describing yourself. I never get angry, especially when I'm laughing so hard.

Imitation. The sincerest form of flattery.

I’m afraid that is true. It seems to be the volatile issue of our day. Who would have thought that defending the lives of the unborn would prove to be so enraging?
And when those fatherless, maybe motherless too, perhaps very ill, dependent babies are born, where will you be?

I won't be casting my vote to have them killed for the crime of being inconvenient. Will you?

I'll be doing what I'm doing now, which is helping those who need help.

I'll be doing what I'm doing now, which is helping those who need help.
Hope you are VERY wealthy.

I find it much preferable to just having them killed.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280295853_5422497841117382_3789752283084815302_n.j pg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=FcQQF8rBHAAAX8_mHzP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT_8TQ6QSqzbTMGvqdTkDnlkHFL4Gr1dR5b2kIyKlkV6 vg&oe=627E14C8

What is your point?

The U.S. NEEDS "a domestic supply of infants"???

As opposed to killing them?

If you had looked up the passage you posted, you would have noted that it was not part of the text of the draft decision. It was simply reference 46 being used to support the portion of the decision found on pages 33 and 34 which was making the point that there is a demand for adoptive babies in our country. Is that some sort of controversy?


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft

Adoptive babies in our country are legion!

If you had read your own post, you would have found that over a million women were seeking to adopt, but the number of domestic children available for adoption was virtually non-existent.

At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.

Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.

If you had read your own post, you would have found that over a million women were seeking to adopt, but the number of domestic children available for adoption was virtually non-existent.
That's a bunch of hooey!

Uhm...it was your post.




At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.

Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.

Uhm...it was your post.
Yes, it shows the idiocy of anti-abortionists. C.f. my post #172.

Says the lady who did not realize she was posting a notation to a court decision and not part of the decision itself. Even worse, the article came from the CDC. So if there was idiocy, it was idiocy from the CDC which is scarcely pro-life. It would be from (drum roll) the pro-abortion side!!!

here is Mayor Beetlejuice inciting violence
.
To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms
(https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot)

Lori Lightfoot on Twitter: "We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844511658647553)




(https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot)


(https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot)

















.
















(https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot)

Nope, we, the LGBTQ+ community, will not surrender our rights! Jesus said, "Love one another," not bash one another physically, emotionally, and politically.

It's a shame they don't choose to stand up for the rights of unborn children to live.

It's a shame they don't choose to stand up for the rights of unborn children to live.
Knowing full well about rejection, members of the LGBTQ+ community are the ones who adopt them after they're born!

In relatively rare cases that is true, but it's not even close to being a significant number. Married people are far more likely to adopt than singles.

One of the sad results of Roe.


The percentage of infants given up for adoption has declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/1-50/db12_Fig_3.png

Yup, they end up in foster care and in institutions.

Kathy Barnett is a Senate hopeful in the PA primaries. She has pulled to within the margin of error of lead candidate Dr Oz .
She very well could be the next Pa Senator .

She was born to a poor mom who was raped when she was 11 years old by a 21 year old scum bag of a man . Kathy Barnett was raised on a pig farm with no running water . By the progressive left narrative her mom was a prime candidate to justifiably snuff out Kathy . Instead Kathy was raised and became the first person in her family to attend college. She earned a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Troy State University and Fontbonne University. She became an adjunct professor of corporate finance. She is now a political commentator . She served in the Armed Forces Reserves for ten years and spent five years on the board of a pregnancy crisis center after working in corporate America for two large financial corporations. She has also written a book,' Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain: Being Black and Conservative in America'. For 6 years she home schooled her own children.

She has as mentioned pulled to within the margin of error even though she is being vastly outspent in the campaign by celeb Dr Oz who is endorsed by Trump ;and by billionaire David McCormick ,the purported favorites in the contest .

So how does the ultra lib progressive compliant press treat her ? Politico calls her the "Ultra-Maga " .

‘Ultra-MAGA’ longshot roars into contention in key Senate race - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/10/kathy-barnette-pennsylvania-senate-gop-primary-00031262)

All I can say is thank God her mother did not decide that she would've been an unnecessary inconvenience.

Name someone who should have been "snuffed" before birth and has become a "necessary inconvenience".

We can point to millions who were "snuffed" before birth because they were inconvenient.

Thus, fertilized eggs waiting in a lab to be put into a woman are also human babies and cannot be destroyed.

There are plenty of testimonials of people who were not aborted ;of mothers who are happy to have decided to not abort and raise their child; of mothers who aborted and regretted . I'm sure there is testimonials of women who were glad they decided to end their pregnancies . The testimonials you won't hear are from the snuffed babies . Norma McCorvey was Roe . She regretted her role in the case and became a lead anti-abortion advocate .

Thus, fertilized eggs waiting in a lab to be put into a woman are also human babies and cannot be destroyed.On what basis would you say they are not human?


The testimonials you won't hear are from the snuffed babies .Exactly correct. And you won't find many liberal dems willing to take up their cause.

Robert Casey was elected Guv of Pa in 1986 . He ran as a pro-life Dem and won, As Guv he signed a law requiring parental consent for abortions for minors and it would require a 24 hr waiting period before the act of killing a baby could take place. He was the Casey in the 'Planned Parenthood v Casey ' decision that SCOTUS is about to overturn .

Fast forward to today . His son Bob Casey Jr is the Dem pro-life Senator from PA . But the Dems are a monolithic cult that will not allow dissent within their ranks.

So Bob Casey Jr did the politically expedient thing today . Against his own moral convictions ,he voted with the Dem Senators to attempt to codify in law the Roe and Planned Parenthood decisions (aka the Women's Health Protection Act ) The symbolic procedural vote failed to pass by a vote of 49-51 . Kam the Sham presided over the Senate vote.

That won't stop the Dems . They plan on tweaking the bill and doing some arm twisting of Republican who could fold (Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski ). But if it came to an actual vote ,the Congress would not pass it . The Dems are desperate because they know their control of Congress has a short expiration date .

I doubt Congress can pass a bill that is an open violation of a SCOTUS decision.

In this case they can. If SCOTUS reversed Roe and Casey then the state's laws rule because there was no national law. What is needed is a right to life law ;and even better a right to life amendment .

Yes. I’m assuming a reversal of roe.

A con amendment would be great but we would need 33 states and that would be difficult.

I did not say it would be easy . SCOTUS reversing Roe and Casey is just a first step. There is more work to be done. I don't think it would happen with the traditional amendment process of Congress introducing the amendment before it going to the states .

But the framers in their wisdom gave us another way to introduce amendments that bypasses Congress . The resolution to have a convention of the states could pass this year . 19 states have already passed the application (the latest being my state of SC on March 29 of this year ,Texas passed it May 4,2017 ) .

There are 6 more states where it has passed in one of their chambers of their legislatures . There are 22 states considering it .Once 34 states have passed it then a convention can be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments and there would be nothing Congress could do about it .

Now there is risks in this procedure . Guidelines need to be agreed upon so the convention doesn't turn into a radical dismantling of the Constitution .But with so many needed amendments gathering cobwebs in Congress ,I think it is time .

Black woman are far more likely to terminate their baby than white women .....just the way Margaret Sanger envisioned it. Normally racial disparities brings charges of institutional racism. But not in this case .

Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. The impact in years of potential life lost, given abortion’s high incidence and racially skewed distribution, indicates that it is the most demographically consequential occurrence for the minority population. The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it. In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.
Perceiving and Addressing the Pervasive Racial Disparity in Abortion - James Studnicki, John W. Fisher, James L. Sherley, 2020 (sagepub.com) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2333392820949743)

The authors cited data from the CDC .

Clarence Thomas noted this in 2009 :
“there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”
(Box v Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky)

Root cause ? No not poverty . White poor and Hispanic poor women are less likely to terminate their child than a Black Woman

Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks notes in his book; 'Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone', that : “A single woman with an unplanned pregnancy is about twice as likely as a married woman to abort”...“Black women thus may have so many more abortions than other groups in part because they are so much less likely to be married.”
The irony is that a single Black woman is actually less likely to terminate their child. But there are so many more single Black women ;and that is the cause of the disparity .

From a column today by Stephen J. Lyons:

So far, there are no bills being put forth by [Republicans] to support single mothers; to help lift poor women and their children out of poverty through free college education; or to provide free and safe child care and health care for working mothers. No sirree, not on their watch.

Let us not forget that other part of this pregnancy equation: men. I know most Christians believe in immaculate conception, but in the real world where we all reside, it takes two to conceive a baby. Where are the increased penalties for failure to provide child support? Why do women descend into penury while the “fathers” remain unscathed?

That argument is comparable to a Southerner complaining that the feds had not put forward legislation to help support former slaves and help lift them "out of poverty". No sirree, not on their watch! It's just silly. It's similar to saying that poor women should be allowed to have their born children killed unless the feds are willing to give them, "free college education, or to provide free and safe child care and health care for working mothers."

It completely ignores the fact, of course, that single moms and their children have been receiving support from the feds for decades. Maybe Mr. Lyons needs to get out more?

I would completely agree that the fathers should be held accountable. There is actually a plan that provides for that. It's called "marriage". It worked very well for millennia. At any rate, those are state issues and not federal ones.

I would completely agree that the fathers should be held unaccountable. There is actually a plan that provides for that. It's called "marriage". It worked very well for millennia.
Thus, no sex before marriage. Now, find me a male in 2022 who would want to abide by that rule.

Exactly correct, and another practice which was widespread and very effective for millennia. And no group should be more in favor of such a plan than women who take practically ALL of the risks in premarital sex.

In our culture, of course, it is believed by many that it is much easier to simply have a doctor kill the unborn child.


Now, find me a male in 2022 who would want to abide by that rule.I'm sure there are many, but your argument is ridiculous. Why should a woman give a blankety blank about what some man wants to abide by? Doesn't she have the right of choice? Isn't it her body and thus her choice. Isn't that the argument you make constantly for having her unborn child killed?

Have you ever been on a date with a guy who is responsible and respectable, but during kisses after the movie, a switch flips, and he tries to unbutton your blouse while his tongue forces itself between your lips? And he pushes forward from there. Or for your first date, the guy, who promised to take you to a nice restaurant for a late dinner, instead drives into a deserted warehouse zone, and parks in a very dark section, then proceeds to .... I'm sure you can imagine the rest.

That's how women can get pregnant. They're lied to and then attacked by a physically stronger male. What can she do? She isn't always wanting the over-the-top attention she has foisted upon her..

Have you ever been on a date with a guyUhm...no.


What can she do?"I am woman, hear me roar!" Get rid of the loser and find a respectable man. Why does that seem so complicated to you? Do women only have the right to choice when it involves killing their unborn children?

Uhm...no.
I have. No fun, no fun at all. Had to talk my way out of those situations as well as several others.

"I am woman, hear me roar!" Get rid of the loser and find a respectable man. Why does that seem so complicated to you? Do women only have the right to choice when it involves killing their unborn children?
I finally did find that respectable man. And my dating adventures were during the '60 when most young men were Christian and lived in two-parent families. I can only imagine what it's like now. Carry a taser? Concealed carry of a firearm?

Why not drive your own car the first few dates, meet the guy at a restaurant or coffee shop, have a nice time (hopefully) in a public setting, say good night, and drive your own car back home. In other words, make some wise and safe decisions. Not only that, but tell him early on that you don't sleep around. Don't dress like a slut when you're dating. Know your own rules before you go out.

Make sense?

Why not drive your own car the first few dates, meet the guy at a restaurant or coffee shop, have a nice time (hopefully) in a public setting, say good night, and drive your own car back home. In other words, make some wise and safe decisions. Not only that, but tell him early on that you don't sleep around. Don't dress like a slut when you're dating. Know your own rules before you go out.

Make sense?
I was in my late teens and had no license or car. My parents knew the young men and their families, approved of them.

"Sleeping around" was not a consideration or even a vague thought back in the early '60. The term hadn't been invented yet -- plus that activity wasn't in the dating playbook. That's not what girls did where I lived.

Do women only have the right to choice when it involves killing their unborn children?
You believe a woman who has been raped and made pregnant should carry that fetus to term?

I was in my late teens and had no license or car. My parents knew the young men and their families, approved of them.Then your parents were terribly wrong in that regard, and you were foolish for not informing them of their very wrong approval of these boys. Even worse, there was nothing to prevent you from having your parents drive you to a restaurant so you could have a public date with the boy to get an idea of his character, and then have your parents pick you up afterwards. Was there a reason you couldn't do that? Did your father have a good talk with your dates as they arrived to pick you up. "I am trusting you with my daughter. She is precious beyond description to me. I expect you to return her in the same condition she is in now. Do we have an understanding???"


"Sleeping around" was not a consideration or even a vague thought back in the early '60. The term hadn't been invented yet -- plus that activity wasn't in the dating playbook. That's not what girls did where I lived.Then why did the boys think you were open to that idea?

So these were the "Christian boys" you were dating? Don't sound like Christians to me. Why didn't you slap the snot out of the little twerp and insist he take you home? "...but during kisses after the movie, a switch flips, and he tries to unbutton your blouse while his tongue forces itself between your lips? And he pushes forward from there. Or for your first date, the guy, who promised to take you to a nice restaurant for a late dinner, instead drives into a deserted warehouse zone, and parks in a very dark section, then proceeds to .... I'm sure you can imagine the rest."

A really good strategy for a Christian girl is to bring up the subject of Jesus and saving faith during her first date. Not just in passing, but in a truly serious and extended manner. That will set a pretty good tone.

I've already addressed the rape issue a little over a week ago. At any rate, let's finish our dating discussion before changing subjects.

Then your parents were terribly wrong in that regard, and you were foolish for not informing them of their very wrong approval of these boys. Even worse, there was nothing to prevent you from having your parents drive you to a restaurant so you could have a public date with the boy to get an idea of his character, and then have your parents pick you up afterwards. Was there a reason you couldn't do that?
We had only one car and my dad was always busy with church work and church members -- no time to drive his daughter many miles anywhere for a date and then pick her up later. And yes, I spilled the beans on the guys (whose parents were valued church members).

We had only one car and my dad was always busy with church work and church members -- no time to drive his daughter many miles anywhere for a date and then pick her up later. And yes, I spilled the beans on the guys (whose parents were valued church members).So after you told your father that a boy had forcefully kissed you and attempted to remove your clothes, what did he do?

If your dad was so busy with other things that he did not take care of his daughter, then sorry, but he was far too busy. I just don't buy that excuse.

At any rate, your history aside, we have discussed what women can do to stay away from losers. Do you know of any reason they should not do so?

A really good strategy for a Christian girl is to bring up the subject of Jesus and saving faith during her first date. Not just in passing, but in a truly serious and extended manner. That will set a pretty good tone.
They hadn't planned anything ahead of time, had always been respectful. They were acting on a sexual impulse during a golden opportunity.

Why did you give them a golden opportunity? Why are you making excuses for them?

And again. "So after you told your father that a boy had forcefully kissed you and attempted to remove your clothes, what did he do?"

Why did you give them a golden opportunity? Why are you making excuses for them?
Teen hormones at work. They were very nice guys. Apparently, I was a nifty challenge.

And again. "So after you told your father that a boy had forcefully kissed you and attempted to remove your clothes, what did he do?"
I was forbidden to date for a time except in groups. Id est, I, not them, was the one punished.

Like too many women who've been impregnated and will not be allowed to get a needed abortion if Roe is tossed out.

So you told your father these things, and his response was to forbid YOU to date other than in groups? A boy is supposed to take you to a restaurant but instead he takes you to a deserted warehouse and tries to have sex with you, and your father's response was nothing more than that? Sorry...that is hard to believe.

I would still like to know why you gave those boys that "golden opportunity". Sounds like you weren't exactly the little miss innocent that you are presenting yourself to be.

I would still like to know why you gave those boys that "golden opportunity".
I was the pastor's daughter. A goal to brag about later.

Like I said. You were not the little miss innocent after all. It was not altogether the fault of the boys. I don't believe for one second you ever told your father the story that you posted here. Good grief I hope not. Surely he was have responded more forcefully with the boy than that. Boys shouldn't be allowed to get by with that behavior. Of course that's assuming you were protesting.

Girls need to be taught these things. They need to be taught to dress properly and set clear boundaries. Parents need to be taught these things. Boys need to be taught to respect girls. Instead of being responsible, we have just settled on the solution of killing the unborn baby. What a culture we are in.

Like I said. You were not the little miss innocent after all. It was not altogether the fault of the boys. I don't believe for one second you ever told your father the story that you posted here. Good grief I hope not. Surely he was have responded more forcefully with the boy than that. Boys shouldn't be allowed to get by with that behavior. Of course that's assuming you were protesting.
He was not a confrontational man. His responsibility was for me, not the boys.

Girls need to be taught these things. They need to be taught to dress properly and set clear boundaries. Parents need to be taught these things. Boys need to be taught to respect girls. Instead of being responsible, we have just settled on the solution of killing the unborn baby. What a culture we are in.
I ALWAYS dressed properly. So somehow it's the woman's fault. She didn't dress properly or behave properly or set boundaries (like the guy will always respect her then, ha ha!). I figured you'd end up there. That's why Roe is where it is now.

A boy sexually assaults your daughter but you’re not a confrontational man???

We are not talking about “the woman”; we are talking about you. You referred to these incidents as goals to be bragged about later. Now you’re trying to find an escape route, but they were your words. So rather than being honest you instead put words in my mouth I never said. Miss evasion at work again.

I never said you didn't dress properly. Another evasion.

A boy sexually assaults your daughter but you’re not a confrontational man???
Sexually assaults??? He didn't get past the kiss. I demanded to be taken home. He did so. Back in the '60s, males knew their place.

We are not talking about “the woman”; we are talking about you. You referred to these incidents as goals to be bragged about later. Now you’re trying to find an escape route, but they were your words. So rather than being honest you instead put words in my mouth I never said. Miss evasion at work again.

I never said you didn't dress properly. Another evasion.
Obviously you have greatly misunderstood. I was the cute PK, in general a desirable female, a goal to be bragged about by a MALE, not me. Again, another reason Roe must be kept.

That’s not what you said. You said he took you to an abandoned parking lot and tried to take your clothes off. Change of story? Now you claim those boys knew their place.

Ok so why did you give that golden opportunity for a light switch to be flicked?

You would be a terrible witness in a court case. Your story changes every ten minutes. We’ve gone from sexual assaults to boys that all know their place and only try to steal a kiss. Hmmm.

That’s not what you said. You said he took you to an abandoned parking lot and tried to take your clothes off. Change of story? Now you claim those boys knew their place.
And he failed. They knew they had to stop when told to. They don't know that nowadays.

Ok so why did you give that golden opportunity for a light switch to be flicked?
Being a passenger in a car and on the way to eat a late dinner?

You would be a terrible witness in a court case. Your story changes every ten minutes. We’ve gone from sexual assaults to boys that all know their place and only try to steal a kiss. Hmmm.
No, YOU keep changing it as you deliberately twist or misunderstand. YOU made it sexual assault.

I'm done. Sorry, Tom. Back to SCOTUS.

Dear WG. You went from this


"...but during kisses after the movie, a switch flips, and he tries to unbutton your blouse while his tongue forces itself between your lips? And he pushes forward from there. Or for your first date, the guy, who promised to take you to a nice restaurant for a late dinner, instead drives into a deserted warehouse zone, and parks in a very dark section, then proceeds to .... I'm sure you can imagine the rest."

to this...

I have. No fun, no fun at all. Had to talk my way out of those situations as well as several others.

to this...

And yes, I spilled the beans on the guys

to this...

I was forbidden to date for a time except in groups. Id est, I, not them, was the one punished.

to this...

Sexually assaults??? He didn't get past the kiss. I demanded to be taken home. He did so. Back in the '60s, males knew their place.

and lastly to this.

And he failed. They knew they had to stop when told to.

So a "nice guy", a Christian boy who "knew his place" and knew he had to stop when told to drove you to a deserted parking lot, put his tongue past your lips, tried to take off your clothes, and it was all so bad that we must "imagine the rest"? Then you "spilled the beans" on not just him but several "guys" with the result that your father, who did not want to confront anyone about these repeated, shall we say "problems", punished you instead of addressing the boys?

Now that's quite a story. I have no doubt that it has some truth to it, and I have no doubt it was a terrible experience. It just seems you change direction frequently in accord with whatever point you happen to be trying to make at the time. You started with hormone-crazed, sex maniacs and ended up with a group of nice guys who knew their place and know when to stop. It's just all puzzling.

And all of that to justify your idea that it's OK for a doctor to brutally kill an unborn child. If it's not OK for men/boys to sexually assault women, and it certainly is not, then why would it be OK for a doctor to kill the unborn?

Imagine the rest -- I gave him a very huge piece of my mind. And never went out with him again.

Stop embroidering.

Men DO assault women all the time. And get them pregnsnt. If your daughter or granddsughter was assaulted and got pregnant, then what?

Imagine the rest -- I gave him a very huge piece of my mind. And never went out with him again.And the story changes yet again. It is hard to think that "imagine the rest" was somehow intended to convey the far from shocking idea of you giving the boy a "very huge" chunk of your mind and never going out with him again. So that's change #7 or so? A good witness in a trial you would not be. I'm afraid you'd end up in jail for perjury.

You told that highly malleable story to convey the idea that a female never knows what kind of person she is dealing with when a woman goes out with a man. I gave some suggestions of how she could protect herself against that. You've never given your ideas. How should a woman protect herself from the possibility of dating a guy who is far too aggressive, especially in our present culture when practically all television shows and movies depict women as every bit as sexually eager as men with a corresponding expectation of intimacy on the first date?

If your daughter or granddaughter was assaulted and got pregnant, then what? Would she carry the fetus to term, then keep it? Give it up for adoption?

And the story changes yet again.
I'm a writer and saw you were bored. It kept you awake, didn't it.

From today's column by Clarence Page:

One of the laws the Supreme Court justices are considering is a Mississippi law that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy, about two months earlier than Roe and later decisions allow. Mississippi lawmakers last year rejected a bill that would have let mothers keep their Medicaid coverage for a year after giving birth, up from the current two months.

Once again, we see in Mississippi a sad case of “right to life” advocates whose concern for the unborn appears to evaporate as soon as they’re born.
The likely result is to make abortion unsafe, illegal and even more tragic.

And from today's Voice of the people:

Consequences for men?

After hearing the details of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and listening to the discussions about its fallout, I have
regretfully heard not one consequence that any male participant suffers. Except for men’s part in conception, no man will have to anxiously await the unwanted results of a pregnancy test, have to delve into the deepest part of his soul for guidance or make the life-altering decision to terminate a pregnancy.

And even if a mother decides against abortion, unless the man involved admits to his fatherhood or chooses to become a part of that child’s life, it seems the woman is not only carrying the child in her body but she is also permanently responsible for the child’s well-being and rearing. In some cases, the biological father does not carry that burden, and the mother must rely on a court for financial assistance. Even in those situations, the biological father can opt out of his child’s life.

So for all of the outrage of a woman’s decision to abort a fetus, where is the outrage when a biological father has no responsibility to the happiness, security or welfare of his child? Are the states that are so aggressively pro-life willing to identify and force biological fathers to be financially responsible for their children? Are they willing to force these men to be active parents? Is such a mandate possible?

Yes, adoption is one option for a woman’s pregnancy, but again, this is a decision primarily made by the mother, sometimes with regret and lifelong grief.

I have not heard any pro-life advocates speak about any intolerable anxiety or grief that any man suffers when a decision to terminate is made. I hear only about the righteous indignation of pro-life advocates when they speak of women killing their babies. So women, besides being the procreators, live with a potential human being in their wombs, have to make a monumental decision regarding their personal health and child-raising ability, and suffer the legal and moral consequences if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Sounds like it is a “man’s world.”

only men support laws to protect babies from infanticide ?

I'm a writer and saw you were bored. It kept you awake, didn't it.Fiction is certainly your specialty. I don't intend that to be mean, but it's difficult to have a serious discussion with a person who seems to have but little regard for the truth.



Once again, we see in Mississippi a sad case of “right to life” advocates whose concern for the unborn appears to evaporate as soon as they’re born.His column is about as full of falsehoods as a recent fake story was. The statement above is flatly wrong. Our organization helps a number of women with raising their children and our state is awash in crisis pregnancy centers, all run, I might point out, by pro-lifers. It's just another fake-news column by a person who thinks the killing of unborn children is the answer for the irresponsible behavior of adults. The lying news media is going to go into high gear in an attempt to panic the American people.

One thing about men . A man who would have his baby killed so as not to be stuck with the mom is probably not a good choice to hook up with .

One thing about men . A man who would have his baby killed so as not to be stuck with the mom is probably not a good choice to hook up with .
And she doesn't. Plus, he denies it's his. Watch Maury Povich's show weekday mornings. DNA tests galore! (requested by the mothers)

Watch Maury Povich's show weekday mornings. no can do . I have a life

Watch Maury Povich's show weekday mornings.I think we are on to a problem here.

I think we are on to a problem here.
You don't want to see men in denial faced with DNA results that prove they are fathers? And pump your fist when you see the crestfallen and despondent looks on their faces once they realize they now will be required to be responsible parents.

It's not that. I just prefer to watch shows of a considerably more serious nature.

At any rate, I don't know of anyone who would not agree with the necessity of having men step up to the plate and support the children they father, but at the same time it would be desirable in the extreme for women to behave responsibly and refuse to sleep with any man who is not that woman's husband. That is one of the great purposes of marriage. It is a marvelously simple solution to the problem.

I'll say one thing. Any of those clowns protesting on the steps of SCOTUS are not men to marry . They only want to get into the pants of women without any responsibility or consequences .

It's not that. I just prefer to watch shows of a considerably more serious nature.
Ah, sports.

At any rate, I don't know of anyone who would not agree with the necessity of having men step up to the plate and support the children they father, but at the same time it would be desirable in the extreme for women to behave responsibly and refuse to sleep with any man who is not that woman's husband. That is one of the great purposes of marriage. It is a marvelously simple solution to the problem.
That's why the guy rapes her; she refuses, is too lacking in muscle power to get the upper hand.

Be sure to tell men about those great purposes of marriage.

Ah, sports.Even that is better than Povich. Still, I watch very little in sports.


Be sure to tell men about those great purposes of marriage.
I do so frequently. You might want to try championing marriage yourself. It is far preferable to having a doctor kill a woman's unborn child.

You might want to try championing marriage yourself.
I do so at every opportunity. But that's not what men -- and yes, women -- want to bother with, to commit to one person. Movies, tv dramas and sitcoms, novels, magazine articles all encourage the joys of life as a single and without the burden of kids.

I completely agree with that. That's why believers in Jesus need to lift up the banner of righteousness and advance marriage. The, "joys of life as a single and without the burden of kids," is scarcely worth the lives of over 900,000 children a year.

For me, getting married was the best decision I ever made aside from committing my life to Christ. My wife has done a lot for me. She is amazing.

Summer of rage
Abortion rights protesters rally across the U.S. in hundreds of 'Bans Off Our Bodies' marches | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abortion-rights-protesters-rally-across-the-u-s-in-hundreds-of-bans-off-our-bodies-marches-1.6453578)

So they will stage a 'summer of rage ' because some babies get a chance to live.

And then there's this: During the early part of Wednesday's congressional hearing on abortion access, this GOP-summoned witness said: "In places like Washington D.C.," fetuses are "burned to power the light's of the city's homes and streets," claimed Catherine Glenn Foster (http://post.spmailtechnol.com/f/a/0sFCBWc030DzMEdD71sZVA~~/AASU4wA~/RgRkafm7P0RZaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYy1zcGFuLm9yZy92aWRlby 8_YzUwMTU3NzkvdXNlci1jbGlwLWFudGktY2hvaWNlci1jbGFp bXMtZmV0dXNlcy1wb3dlci1saWdodHNXA3NwY0IKYoa7dIdinW PYy1IUY2VlYmVlMTExMEB5YWhvby5jb21YBAAAACg~).

I'm surprised you don't know about it .Guess you never heard of a waste to energy biomass incinerator . DC has one of the largest in the nation .

What do you suppose happens to baby body parts after an abortion ? They are packed up in medical waste containers and incinerated or go through a process of thermal hydrolysis pressure cooking . . It happens in other states ;and I have no doubt it is true in DC too..

Fetal Tissue Used to Generate Electricity in Oregon (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fetal-tissue-used-generate-electricity-oregon-n88716)

Why Are Aborted Fetuses Burned? | Live Science (https://www.livescience.com/45139-aborted-fetuses-burned-incinerated-medical-waste.html)

Even more to the point, if the unborn is merely a non-human, "clump of cells" and no more than a part of the woman's body which she wants to get rid of, then why object to burning the little dead body to provide electrical power?

My goodness. It has been a busy day so far.

Even more to the point, if the unborn is merely a non-human, "clump of cells" and no more than a part of the woman's body which she wants to get rid of, then why object to burning the little dead body to provide electrical power?
But but but fetuses are real babies!!!!

Except you don't believe that. And since you don't, why would you object to burning the bodies to produce electricity?

Burning deceased humans will produce electricity In Durham, England, human corpses will soon be used to generate electricity. A crematorium is installing turbines in its burners that will convert waste heat from the combustion of each corpse into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours of juice — enough to power 1,500 televisions for an hour.

Thus, this should become the norm worldwide.

cremations of the dead is one thing . Mutilating babies and then incinerating their parts(the parts that can't be sold ) is right up there with Hitler's ovens.

Why selling baby parts should shock no one – Baltimore Sun (https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/bal-why-selling-baby-parts-should-shock-no-one-20150723-story.html)

cremations of the dead is one thing . Mutilating babies and then incinerating their parts(the parts that can't be sold ) is right up there with Hitler's ovens.Yep. Sad how that concept just sails right over the heads of so many. And the reply, instead of seriously looking at the significance of the human factor, is to react with the usual, "Who's going to feed these children???"

"Who's going to feed these children???"
Apparently no one right now.

Yep, thanks to the current pres who you defend so ardently.

Yep, thanks to the current pres who you defend so ardently.
Please quote me on that, O screamer for quotes.