Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, g5jamz said:

Mother diagnosed with leukemia.  Chose not to undergo treatment so she could give birth.  She gave birth and girl is doing great.  She is now undergoing treatments, but thankfully it looks like it has gone into remission.

And it’s not ok for the mother in that instance to choose to abort the pregnancy and undergo treatment of her own choice and perhaps have another child? She not allowed to make the “wrong” choice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, g5jamz said:

But it is and all statistics point in the direction that it is.  Hardship isn't a life of mother, caused by rape, or incestual occurrences.  That's why language is being changed to "health" of the mother than encompasses everything not related to just physical life threatening causes.  

What are you talking about? What crack pipe have you been smoking? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G5 doesn't get to dictate what other people do with their bodies and lives because he's had a few hardships. He's counting on you all to be decent people and empathize with him while he supports authoritarianism and takes away women's rights. Don't be fooled. 

Edited by ImaginaryKev
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fryfan said:

Got anything other then a deceptive opinion piece from a right winger?  You really need your head examined if you read this column and bought into this tripe.

 

-

 

The question of craziness, meanwhile, depends upon one’s definition of crazy. Is Alabama crazier than New York, where some protections for babies “born” alive during an abortion were recently eliminated, making it easier to end their life if desired by the abortion-seeker?

Is Alabama crazier than Virginia, where Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam seemed to support infanticide back in January when commenting on a proposed bill that would relax some of the state’s abortion restrictions? In a radio interview, he said that in cases where a mother goes into labor with a late-term fetus that has “severe deformities . . . there may be a fetus that’s not viable . . . the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Trying to clarify after the inevitable firestorm, Northam’s office later said that the “discussion” would be regarding medical prognosis and treatment, not ending the life of the newborn. For a physician, Northam seems challenged to express himself medically

The crucial aspect of both the New York law and Virginia’s proposed law (which has been tabled, for now) is that they reduce medical oversight of late-term abortions. In both cases, only one doctor would be involved in deciding on and performing a late-term abortion, eliminating additional physicians who can tend to a baby that survives an abortion. New York previously had required two doctors in the room; Virginia required that three doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or that it would “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health. Thus, a single doctor could decide that a woman’s perhaps fleeting state would be sufficient to end a baby’s potentially viable life.

Some Americans may find these adjustments acceptable, though they are surely few. More important is to understand that the extremism of what New York did — and Virginia attempted to do — invited the extremism of Alabama, Georgia and other pro-life states.

He has to be dishonest to sound credible. Like all Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The additional doctors have nothing to do with health or medical needs. They are there to make things more uncomfortable and difficult. G5 is just a flat out ass.

Hey G5 you want to get people to agree with your about saving lives and punishing murderers, then get on that guy who Trump is going to pardon, sending the message that killing civilians for fun and revenge is OK, and you will find a life saving crusade that makes sense and has support from non lying assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, g5jamz said:

If you follow gallup polling for the last 3 decades, most americans are for limitations on abortion except for rape, incest, and health of mother.  The slightest minority is for what the left has passed in New York and other states.  For what Alabama has passed, probably about the same.  Post-mid terms the democrats went hog wild immediately and repaid the PP coffers (which baffles me how PP can afford to lobby while getting federal monies).  I can only think the Alabama bill is to force SCOTUS' hand on determining "personhood", if such a thing exists.  Everyone, even liberal attorneys, believe that Roe went through on a thin basis on right to privacy.  Each end of the political spectrum is passing laws testing the limits of the original ruling.  Politicians want SCOTUS to decide, and I personally don't believe it falls on them.  Just think of it from a scientific perspective.  Should we just accept court rulings that were made half a century ago, based on the information they knew at the time where the justifications can be completely different now with modern science (don't limit that thought to abortion).  This is why it should be a legislative process, and believe it or not why Kavanaugh himself would might side with the "prochoice" side of the argument.  

Alabama is just calling the liberals' bluff.  You want unrestrictive/unaccountable ability to destroy a fetus up until birth?  Then they want restrictive protections of a fetus up until birth.  A lot is being made of the rape/incest qualifier, but everyone understands the % of total abortions that accounts for.  Truth be told, liberals could care less about an exception and would fight it even if all three existed in the Alabama law.  

This is all trash but that last paragraph is especially dishonest. Why do you lie so much to support your poo ideas that no one agrees with outside of evangelicals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

Who’s we? You had a baby?

None of those anecdotes of his, tragic as they are, give him the right to make women's healthcare decisions for them, strip them of bodily autonomy in favor of clumps of cells, force children not old enough to vote to carry rape babies to term, or interfere with an adult's family planning. He's a prick who's trying to win centrists to his side by appealing to their emotion, like cra, and it's slimey. He doesn't care about life, look at his every other opinion on actual living people. This fetishization of the unborn is a tool to appear moral. 

fug g5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time, with this subject, is very interesting to me because I'm hearing a lot of "err on the side of life", & "we shouldn't listen to what was decided so long ago before technology changed" type arguments from conservatives. I know that thought process will evaporate with the next school shooting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, g5jamz said:

es anyone with any semblance of a conscience go after that candidate and suggests an abortion should be as plentiful as condoms, IUDs, or birth control hormones

Perhaps if those items were plentiful and not restricted by costs and accessibility we would have less abortions. 

 

No one is “for” abortion but it’s a realty and a choice. You want to cut it down then get with universal health care and give more funding to planned parenthood.  It’s conservative pricks that make abortion hard AND make getting health care hard.  Assholes. It’s about control and Puritan sex values   The sanctity of life is a BS argument see OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we only care about American fetuses?   Should we not feed the tired hungry and poor also. You know immigrants and refugees that the same anti abortion pricks want to deny humanitarian rights to and open our country to them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bunch of morons elected by morons to do moronic things.

Just a hint: If Alabama is doing it first, it's probably really stupid. If Alabama is doing it last, it's probably a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...