There isn't enough room to list them all here! My head hurts just thinking about them and the lack of cooperation and synchronicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
There isn't enough room to list them all here! My head hurts just thinking about them and the lack of cooperation and synchronicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
is Choo an Obstetricians or does she specialize in anything prenatal ? Of course not .She practices in emergency rooms and spends a good deal of her time as an activist for extreme progressive causes
I'll use the words libs use..... Peer reviewed scientific concensus says that
The fetal heart rate gradually increases with gestational age from approximately 110 beats per minute (bpm) at 6.2 weeks to approximately 159 bpm at 7.6-8.0 weeks
Role of ultrasound in the evaluation of first-trimester pregnancies in the acute setting - PMC (nih.gov)
If no heartbeat is detected that indicates a pregnancy failure.Stacy Abrams and Dr Choo are just plain wrong. There is zero evidence that Dr Edward Hon who invented fetal heart monitoring in 1958 invented his device as a means for men to control woman's bodies . It is an absurd statement .
The facts say that medical textbooks ,leading prenatal heart specialists ;the nation's leading heart hospital and all serious peer reviewed studies conclude that there is a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks .
The usual evasiveness. You haven't a clue.Quote:
There isn't enough room to list them all here!
Well said. I'm not sure how to continue a discussion with a person who has so little regard for the truth that she equates an unborn child with dirt. It just boggles the mind.Quote:
The facts say that medical textbooks ,leading prenatal heart specialists ;the nation's leading heart hospital and all serious peer reviewed studies conclude that there is a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks .
I ask a simple question ....is there any point in the pregnancy where killing the baby should be illegal ? The way I figure it ;acceptance of abortion before 6 weeks is already a huge political compromise by the pro-life policy makers. I just wonder if there are any acceptable restrictions for the so called pro-choice crowd .
Peter Doocy attempted to get the official WH position from KJP
here was the exchange :
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, September 23, 2022 - The White HouseQuote:
DOOCY: “Republicans are saying we don't want abortion after 15 weeks. Why can't you say how many weeks the president thinks the law should be?”
KJP: “As you know, as you know Kevin McCarthy put out the GOP agenda.”
DOOCY: “I’m not asking about Kevin McCarthy, I’m asking about Joe Biden and his position on abortion. How many weeks?”
KJP: “Peter, I am answering your question. What Republicans are trying to do is take us backwards. They're trying to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans, that's what we're calling out and that's what we're going to continue to call out. House Republicans oppose a pharmacy bill that would deny women essential medications. As of September, 166 House Republicans have signed on to a heartbeat bill that would decide abortion at the federal level even though 28 of those members have since said decisions on abortion should be left to the state. And this week a Michigan GOP official said he wants to ban contraception. So we should really listen to what Republicans are trying to tell us and that's what we are speaking out against. And that's what we're going to talk about - about the national ban that Republicans are continuing, continuing to push when majority of Americans do not want that.”
DOOCY: “We’re all covering the Republican plan. Why can’t you say how many weeks for Biden.”
KJP: “No. I answered your question.”
DOOCY: “You did not answer my question, Karine. Why can’t you say?”
The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born,
So the truth now becomes apparent. Someone here is channeling KJP!!Quote:
KJP: “No. I answered your question.”
DOOCY: “You did not answer my question, Karine. Why can’t you say?”
It might be more complicated. I'm convinced that most (or many? some?) dems are not on board with late term abortions, but they also realize that setting a limit will involve answering the question, "Why did you pick that number of weeks?" That's a dangerous question for them because it forces them to think. If they choose 24 weeks, then why not 22? What is special about 24? And if 22, then why not 18? How are 22 weeks and 18 weeks different? You can see where it is heading. You eventually backup to the moment of conception and are forced to admit that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life at any point in pregnancy. Then they are reduced to pointing out that men cannot become pregnant as if that had any impact at all on the moral consequences of abortion.Quote:
The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born,
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a brainless clinic escort. He claimed that the unborn was not alive until 24 weeks. Oh? Then what is it prior to 24 weeks, dead? And why pick 24 weeks? How is that point different from 23 weeks?
Abortion, the choice of those who do not wish to think about it.
The Dems sponsored ' Women’s Health Protection Act' states exceptions for the 'health of the mother'. That vague language is the loophole they added that overrules any limits in the act . The fact that late term abortions are rare is their defense of this . Who defines when the health of the mother is the deciding factor ? ..... a doctor like Kermit Gosnell ? At least 10,000 murders of babies occur after 20 weeks ;well into the 2nd trimester and where the medicine has advanced where premature babies can be saved
MAGA voters rampage in store in Philadelphia. Well...maybe not.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1573860676417851393
And how do repubs help those babies once they've taken their first breath, especially if they've been born into poverty and broken families or to teen mothers or to women whose birth control didn't work? Those babies become just so much dust to brush away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And, predictably, you get no answer. Just more channeling of KJP. The non-answer is the perfect confirmation of this.Quote:
I ask a simple question
I'm convinced that most (or many? some?) dems are not on board with late term abortions, but they also realize that setting a limit will involve answering the question, "Why did you pick that number of weeks?" That's a dangerous question for them because it forces them to think. If they choose 24 weeks, then why not 22? What is special about 24? And if 22, then why not 18? How are 22 weeks and 18 weeks different? You can see where it is heading. You eventually backup to the moment of conception and are forced to admit that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life at any point in pregnancy.
Let's chat about this after you've been pregnant and were in a very bad place.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I guess anything beats having to answer a serious question. "I'll say something silly that contributes nothing rather than having to answer a really vital question." And you will doubtless respond by complaining about putdowns. If you don't like them, then get serious in your replies. Stop the silliness.
It bears repeating, even though there is no ghost of a chance it will be answered since the required courage is missing. "I ask a simple question ....is there any point they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born." It's such a great question that I've asked the pro-abortion crowd many times. On only two occasions have I received answers, and in both cases the persons made it clear that they had no problem with an abortion for any reason up through the 38th week.
Being a mother who has experienced all the ups and downs of pregnancy including a traumatic delivery, I can only begin to imagine becoming pregnant under vile circumstances with no good future for the fetus growing inside me. It's a heart-rending decision to make, to get an abortion, but sometimes it's the only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Neither of us has ever been in combat, and yet it would be a stupid argument to suggest that we can have no opinions on war. The same is true of suggesting that a man can have no ideas about abortion. It's just nonsense coming from someone who lacks the courage to answer a simple, basic question. Is there any point in a pregnancy where you would not allow an abortion??? We all know you will not answer that under any circumstances.
I DID answer your question and even used my own experience. Very few, if any, pregnant women say, "Oh, gee whiz, I'm so tired of being pregnant. Guess I'll schedule an abortion." Earlier in this thread I noted several reasons why an abortion would be sought. An abortion toward the end of a pregnancy is because the mother's very life is in danger if the pregnancy continues, or because the fetus has become mortally compromised or has died.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's not my place to "allow" anyone to get an abortion. That's the purview of the one who's pregnant. And I would urge her to get professional counseling before she makes a final decision.
Perhaps you did, though in a predictably round-about way. You are basically saying you would never object to an abortion all the way through the 38th week for any reason. I think this one statement chillingly sums up your position. "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust." Tom pretty well summed up your position with this. "The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born." I had hoped for better from you.Quote:
I DID answer your question and even used my own experience.
An abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life towards the end of the pregnancy. In those rare cases, you would simply deliver a live baby. It's just another excuse the lying pro-abortion crowd uses.
Your gross and deliberate "misunderstanding" of my answers is why I'm reluctant to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"never" and then "rare cases". Yeah, sure. That makes absolutely no sense. AND you are so greatly misinformed.Quote:
An abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life towards the end of the pregnancy. In those rare cases, you would simply deliver a live baby. It's just another excuse the lying pro-abortion cause uses.
OK. I'll just quote you and let the chips fall where they may.Quote:
Your gross and deliberate "misunderstanding" of my answers is why I'm reluctant to answer.
You said, "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust."
You said, "It's not my place to "allow" anyone to get an abortion. That's the purview of the one who's pregnant."
You said, "It's a heart-rending decision to make, to get an abortion, but sometimes it's the only one."
You said, "I DID answer your question."
The reason you are reluctant to answer is because your answers eventually reveal your true heart. Unborn babies are just dust to you and you would never oppose any abortion. Those are your words, not mine. Now you are wanting to beat a hasty retreat.
BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY SUMMATION, WHY NOT TRY MAKING A CLEAR AND PLAIN STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE ON ABORTION INSTEAD OF HIDING BEHIND MANY WORDS??? PUT ON YOUR BIG GIRL PANTS AND GIVE IT A SHOT FOR ONCE.
The "rare cases" referred to late term pregnancies which endangered the mother's life.
The "never" referred to the need to kill the unborn baby to save the mother's life.
Perhaps this is clearer. "In those rare cases where a mother's life is endangered by a late term pregnancy, it is never necessary to kill the unborn child since it is actually easier to simply deliver a live baby." It makes sense to anyone who has progressed beyond the fifth grade.
I am not reluctant to answer questions from people who don't twist my answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And born babies are just dust to you.Quote:
Unborn babies are just dust to you
Of course I would!Quote:
you would never oppose any abortion.
And your insults and putdowns continue to flow thick and fast.
First you say unborn babies are dust to you. Then, stricken I would think by your conscience (as well you should be), you try to put words in my mouth. Poor and obviously desperate strategy.Quote:
And born babies are just dust to you.
You replied, "Of course I would!" Fine. Tell us which ones you would oppose. (Note to other readers. She will never, ever do that. Watch and see.)Quote:
you would never oppose any abortion.
These discussions always go off course because I am perfectly happy and even eager to express my beliefs while you run and hide when asked to do so. I'm sure you are a nice person and I'm sure you have tried to help other people in your life, but when you characterize unborn babies as nothing more than dirt, then it's really a sad day. I would say I'm shocked, but very little shocks me anymore.
You are a fundie Christian and a conservative Republican. Born babies are dust to you. You et al. have no interest in emotionally and even financially supporting them and their mothers/parents (especially if they are not white).Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you can be civil, I will answer this.Quote:
You replied, "Of course I would!" Fine. Tell us which ones you would oppose. (Note to other readers. She will never, ever do that. Watch and see.)
A statement from an obviously prejudiced person whose conscience is convicting her for considering unborn children to be mere dirt, so you want to lash out and lie about someone else. I understand but do not approve.Quote:
You are a fundie Christian and a conservative Republican. Born babies are dust to you. You et al. have no interest in emotionally and even financially supporting them and their mothers/parents (especially if they are not white).
Civil? You mean "civil" like the desperate, lying comment you made above? That kind of civil? You might want to listen to your own sermon first before preaching it to someone else.Quote:
If you can be civil, I will answer this.
I simply took a page from your playbook, calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Lying is not a page from my playbook. Calling unborn children dirt is not a play from my playbook. Racial prejudice is not a page from my playbook. That all belongs to you as your post clearly showed.
Show me where I've done that. Truth is, you are angry because you answered a question (unborn children are dust) and now you're upset because you've been nailed because of it. You would be far better served to simply correct what you said. That will likely open up new cans of worms for you, but at least you wouldn't have that despicable comment on your conscience.Quote:
calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me.
I didn't say LYING. (There ya go again.) Read back.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nope, according to Republicans, they're dust AFTER they're born.Quote:
Calling unborn children dirt is not a play from my playbook.
So you love all those refugees and immigrants coming into our country. Got it!Quote:
Racial prejudice is not a page from my playbook.
I don't get angry, even at you. And my conscience is clear. Maybe I'll start a thread about the LGBTQ+ community I adore and the mini united nations who were the library patrons I enjoyed interacting with every day.Quote:
you are angry
Just an angry, foolish comment for which you have no evidence at all. Again, you called unborn children dust, and now you're angry because you got caught in it, so you're lashing out at whoever is available. Why not just "woman up" and try to defend that comment instead of lying about other people and trying to put your words into their mouths? After all, you're the guilty party here.Quote:
Nope, according to Republicans, they're dust AFTER they're born.
Yes, I do.Quote:
So you love all those refugees and immigrants coming into our country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
LOL - good one!
You initially called them that because I had correlated their lack of breath with Adam who had no breath until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You are lying again. I never called unborn children dust. Here it is from post 31. I had asked you, "You are really trying to make the argument that a fetus has no more life than dust? Really??" Incredibly, you responded, "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust."
Earlier, I had even posted, "He (Adam) had no more life than dust has. That is scarcely true of an unborn human being."
Own it. It's yours. And please stop lying. It's becoming a bad habit for you.
You've also never provided any quotes for this. "calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me." Certainly seems to indicate that comment is...well, let's just say "untrue".
Is all this because you're a MAN...and I'm just...a...woman?
What's not true? You can't hold them, interact with them, feed them, diaper them, baptize them, look into their eyes. They're not even breathing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How sad. A woman becomes pregnant. She treasures her unborn child. She treasures the ultrasounds. She feels the child kick. She feeds the child through her own blood. The baby is completely dependent upon his/her loving mother and comes to know her voice. But since the baby is still in the womb, to WG it is just dirt. After all, it can't be diapered or interacted with, and it doesn't breathe, so what good is it? Just let a doctor tear its arms, legs, and head off, and then be rid of the bothersome little pile of dust.
I really and genuinely feel very sorry for you. What a dark world you have chosen to live in, and how different it is from God's view. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Or as it is said in Psalm 139:16, “Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, the days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day.”
No wonder you avoid answering questions.
A woman is raped and is made pregnant by stranger who disappears. Now tell that story.
Don't worry so much about me. I have regular conversations throughout the day and night with my Savior. And several times a week I get messages from Jeremy. I look forward to heaven.
Tell that story? She is carrying a brand new human being, not a pile of dust. He/she has a unique genetic code unlike any other person on the earth. That little baby is counting on his/her mother and is not responsible for what his father did to his mother. The internet is full of accounts written by people whose mother chose to give them life. I would encourage that mother to do the same. Only in your world is the completely innocent killed to cover up the sin of the completely guilty.
You really need to deal with your view of human beings in the womb. They are not dirt!! And your silly idea about breathing being necessary for the baby to be considered alive is just a joke. That has been explained to you repeatedly and, in your darkness, you choose to ignore it. Was Jesus just dust in Mary's womb???
No, you are living in darkness. Jesus did not lead you in the direction of regarding unborn children as dirt. Liberal orthodoxy taught you that.
Nope, you've never been pregnant, especially not after being raped.
You've never been pregnant after being raped either, so does that mean you don't get to have an opinion? That's not a good argument. I was never in a concentration camp, but I still think they were terrible places. I've never been pregnant, but I did learn how to read, comprehend, and think. There are many male OB-GYN doctors. They deliver babies by the thousands. They know more about pregnancy than both of us combined times ten, and yet you are advancing an idea that would put them all out of business. That makes no sense at all.
How do we compare to leftist socialist Europe ? Well it appears that abortion bans appears to be common there .
47 of the 50 nations limit abortions to the 1st 15 weeks or less
5 of those countries limit them to 14 weeks
27 limit to 12 weeks
8 of those countries only allow in that time frame for medical or socioeconomic reasons . And all 50 nations have some restrictions unlike states like California ,Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York. The 3 nations that allow a longer period are Iceland (22 weeks), Netherlands (24 weeks) ,and Sweden (18 weeks)
On-Point-63.pdf (pcdn.co)
Good info, Tom. I reposted that on FB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Anti-abortion is a religious position originated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century when they declared that human life begins at conception. Such a declaration was due to internal Church policy, and had nothing to do with the science of reproduction. If the fundies knew that the Whore of Babylon was responsible for their favorite political position, they'd freak out.
Before that, human life was considered to begin at "quickening", roughly at the end of the second trimester. That's about where Roe v. Wade had it.
The mass of cells at conception clearly is not human life. The baby at birth clearly is human life. Somewhere in between human life begins.
The religious position reversing Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court is a violation of the First Amendment. The preponderance of Catholic jurists on the Court is a strong indicator of the Court's reasoning.
I am not taking a religious opinion on this ;either what Catholics believer or that business of dust to dust .
Please show me in the Dobbs v Jackson case where any of the justices made a religious case for Roe's reversal. The majority opinion by Alito was predicated on the fact that Roe was wrongly decided against the concept of federalism and that the "right" to kill babies had been invented by the court in 1973 .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM. |