[jlisenbe]

This is the comment made a group of Indiana senate democrats.

The group wrote, "A massive government overreach. State-mandated pregnancy. A rollback of women's rights. A failure of democracy. Call it what you want – it's a stain on our state."

The state has mandated that a woman become pregnant? Women have a "right" to have an abortion? A vote in the state legislature is not democracy in action? I guess when the truth is not palatable, then something else must be tried.

https://twitter.com/INSenDems/status...n-ban-post-roe

[Wondergirl]

If you were a woman, you'd understand.

State-mandated pregnancy means the woman is not in charge of her own pregnancy; the state is.

[jlisenbe]

If you were a woman, you'd understand.

If you were a man, you'd understand.

Both statements are basically meaningless.

State-mandated pregnancy means the woman is not in charge of her own pregnancy; the state is.

The quote was that the pregnancy was "mandated" by the state. That's ridiculous. Now it is true that once a woman becomes pregnant, then there are two lives at stake and so the state has an interest in protecting that second life.

[Wondergirl]

the state has an interest in protecting that second life.

Why? That pregnancy is none of their darn business.

If you were a man, you'd understand.

Tell me about all your pregnancies!

[jlisenbe]

1. Life is everyone's business. Unlike abortion, it is a Constitutionally protected right.

2. Just a foolish, useless argument used, in my experience, by people who have no reasonable replies. It advances the ludicrous idea that we can only understand that which we've experienced. Well, I've never had cancer, but I know it's bad since I am completely able to think about a life situation without actually experiencing it. And I can add that you've never been a man, and yet you have no hesitancy in advocating that all boys should have mandatory vasectomies.

Confused again, are you?

[Wondergirl]

1. Life is everyone's business. Unlike abortion, it is a Constitutionally protected right.

That has nothing to do with state-mandated pregnancy!

2. Just a foolish, useless argument used, in my experience, by people who have no reasonable replies. It advances the ludicrous idea that we can only understand that which we've experienced. Well, I've never had cancer, but I know it's bad since I am completely able to think about a life situation without actually experiencing it. And I can add that you've never been a man, and yet you have no hesitancy in advocating that all boys should have mandatory vasectomies.

You ran off the dock with this reply.

Confused again, are you?

'Tain't me who's confused.

[jlisenbe]

1. If you want to live in a fantasy world where pregnancies don't involve human life, then go for it.

2. It was solid enough that you have no reply you can make. And frankly, that's par for the course for liberal dems. I have tried to have conversations on a number of occasions and always end up with replies like yours. It's the result of liberal dems trying to defend an indefensible position.

[Wondergirl]

1. If you want to live in a fantasy world where pregnancies don't involve human life, then go for it.

We're talking about state-mandated pregnancy.

2. It was solid enough that you have no reply you can make. And frankly, that's par for the course for liberal dems. I have tried to have conversations on a number of occasions and always end up with replies like yours. It's the result of liberal dems trying to defend an indefensible position.

I replied. Your reasoning is very confused and doesn't stay on topic (cf. #1), but wanders hither and yon.

[Curlyben]

So much for the much vaunted American freedoms, seem to be rather one sided.
Shirley it would be more conducive to legally define the point at which life starts and therefore when a termination of a medical condition would be acceptable.
As an aside, by the same measure, they really should be mandating the consequences of male personal pleasure and the needless destruction of male gamete.

[Wondergirl]

What is the definition of life? (Republicans love their Bibles so should take note of Genesis 2:7 that says man becomes a living soul when he takes his first breath.)

Curlyben, who will legally decide?

[Wondergirl]

How to prevent state-mandated pregnancy:

[jlisenbe]

We're talking about state-mandated pregnancy.

No, we're not.

I replied.

No, you didn't. This is not a serious reply on any planet in the universe. "You ran off the dock with this reply." Even now, you have nothing of substance to say.

The Bible teaches no such thing in Gen. 2:7. What is said there is uniquely true of Adam and no one else. We were not made from the dust of the ground as he was. He had no life at all until God supplied it. It was not true of Eve, of you, of me, or of any other human being in history. And if we used that standard, then we certainly would not attempt to resuscitate drowning victims or others who, because of medical trauma, have stopped breathing. It's ridiculous.

Believe it or not, scientists argue endlessly over the qualities of living organisms. For advanced organisms such as us, you can include metabolism, unique genetic footprint, growth, response to stimuli, and composed of cells. The unborn child checks all of the boxes. To appeal to the "breath of life" would exclude all fish, all plants, all fungi, and all microbes. No one would who knows the science would appeal to such a standard.

As an aside, by the same measure, they really should be mandating the consequences of male personal pleasure and the needless destruction of male gamete.

The needless destruction of male gamete? Not sure what that means. Also not too sure how to mandate, "the consequences of male personal pleasure." Mandate in what way?