Supreme Court Protects Babies With Heartbeats By Allowing Texas’ Six-Week Abortion Ban

[Aldebaran]

Nuh uh. Explain how he politicized the science. That was your claim so how did he do so?

"Nuh uh" hardly refutes what I said.

 

[rambot]

At least you acknowledge that we're talking about a life. (Finally making progress here).

not really. You are just understanding the position better

. They can be, just like the millions of dead corpses left behind after being in gas chambers in Germany, or the beheaded bodies piling up in Afghanistan (which now includes children). One plan could be to show us how evil mankind can be in order to see if His people would stand up and oppose it--or if they would go in with the "science" crowd to make excuses for it.

I do not accept the comparison whatsoever. I'm dipping

 

[Belk]

"Nuh uh" hardly refutes what I said.

It is not a refutation, it is a refusal to accept your unexplained claim. Please explain how you think the science is being politicized because I did not see it in your inked article.

 

[Aldebaran]

not really. You are just understanding the position better

I do not accept the comparison whatsoever. I'm dipping

I don't care if you accept it or not. Plenty of other people have also not accepted it, and thought they were in the right as a result. Margaret Sanger is a perfect example of that.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is not a refutation, it is a refusal to accept your unexplained claim. Please explain how you think the science is being politicized because I did not see it in your inked article.

If you refuse to accept it, then there's no point in explaining it to you.

 

[Belk]

If you refuse to accept it, then there's no point in explaining it to you.

You are saying I have to accept your claims before you will explain them? Isn't that backwards from how things normally operate? I mean I don't know about you but generally the idea is the explanation and the evidence are used to convince people who then accept your point.

 

[BBAS 64]

Meanwhile:

Justice Department will 'protect' abortion seekers in Texas



It should be interesting to see what the Law does with would-be bounty hunters camped out in front of doctors' offices...

Good Day,

The Biden administration takes yet another set back from the courts....

Judge rejects DOJ move to block Texas abortion law

Snip: ""[T]his case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the Court," wrote United States District Judge Robert Pitman in a one page decision Thursday. "Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.""

IN Him,

Bill

 

[Aldebaran]

You are saying I have to accept your claims before you will explain them? Isn't that backwards from how things normally operate? I mean I don't know about you but generally the idea is the explanation and the evidence are used to convince people who then accept your point.

Then explain your point instead of beating around the bush about it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Good Day,

The Biden administration takes yet another set back from the courts....

Judge rejects DOJ move to block Texas abortion law

Snip: ""[T]his case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the Court," wrote United States District Judge Robert Pitman in a one page decision Thursday. "Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.""

IN Him,

Bill

It is a good day indeed!

 

[Belk]

Then explain your point instead of beating around the bush about it.

I'm not beating about the bush on anything. I asked if we should ignore medical science because it could be politicized at some future point. Your claim is it already is by the democrats. I responded that I did not see the evidence of your claims in the linked article and asked you to clarify where you see him politicizing the science.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm not beating about the bush on anything. I asked if we should ignore medical science because it could be politicized at some future point. Your claim is it already is by the democrats. I responded that I did not see the evidence of your claims in the linked article and asked you to clarify where you see him politicizing the science.

Why would you want to ignore medical science?

 

[Belk]

Why would you want to ignore medical science?

I don't, but that seemed to be the thrust of your argument. That is why I questioned it.

Until science becomes political. Then, even after a baby is born, it can be justified that we should just wrap it up and keep it comfortable until the mother and doctor "have a conversation" about what to do with it next.

What is your argument? We should ignore current medical science because it could become politicized in the future?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't what happened here, as there is no post, though you quoted me.

Just wanted to address one statement overlooked in a previous post, in which you had joined comments to me with comments to another, and this was directed at another:

You: 1.And yet you judge a woman going into a clinic to get a procedure done

You need to understand that no one is judging a woman when one says that killing one's baby is NOT good policy, nor anything to advocate. Those are two entirely separate concepts.

Only God judges. He knows the facts; we do not. We can still say as policy that people should let their conceived babies live. Don't conflate those two issues.

 

[Strathos]

Right-wingers: The government should force women to carry all pregnancies to term, in order to save lives!

Also right-wingers: The government has no right to force anyone to take vaccines, even if it saves lives!

 

[Aldebaran]

Right-wingers: The government should force women to carry all pregnancies to term, in order to save lives!

A maturing pregnancy happens naturally, not by government force.

Also right-wingers: The government has no right to force anyone to take vaccines, even if it saves lives!

Especially when the vaccines are proven to not work.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Right-wingers: The government should force women to carry all pregnancies to term, in order to save lives!

Also right-wingers: The government has no right to force anyone to take vaccines, even if it saves lives!

You can flip that, easily. Same old, same old

Left-wingers: The government must force everyone to take vaccines, whether they need them or not, to save lives!

Also Left-wingers: The government has no right to tell me I need to allow a baby created in my womb by my own sexual decisions (caveat: absent attack) to live!

 

[Strathos]

A maturing pregnancy happens naturally, not by government force.

So does immunity to the virus. It just requires a lot more deaths.

Especially when the vaccines are proven to not work.

Good thing we live in reality then, where that's not true.

You can flip that, easily. Same old, same old

Left-wingers: The government must force everyone to take vaccines, whether they need them or not, to save lives!

Also Left-wingers: The government has no right to tell me I need to allow a baby created in my womb by my own sexual decisions (caveat: absent attack) to live!

In case you didn't know, I'm actually against compulsory vaccination. And I'd prefer it if there were no abortions, but outlawing them won't stop them from happening (just like mandating a vaccine won't stop people from not taking it).

 

[Aldebaran]

So does immunity to the virus. It just requires a lot more deaths.

As does an experimental drug.

Good thing we live in reality then, where that's not true.

Too bad the numbers don't agree with you.

In case you didn't know, I'm actually against compulsory vaccination. And I'd prefer it if there were no abortions, but outlawing them won't stop them from happening (just like mandating a vaccine won't stop people from not taking it).

Laws condoning them certainly don't help stop them either, nor does giving money to the places that perform them.

 

[Pommer]

Good Day,

The Biden administration takes yet another set back from the courts....

Judge rejects DOJ move to block Texas abortion law

Snip: ""[T]his case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the Court," wrote United States District Judge Robert Pitman in a one page decision Thursday. "Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.""

IN Him,

Bill

The case will move forward at the usual pace, not the faster pace sought. Winning!

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I don't care if you accept it or not. Plenty of other people have also not accepted it, and thought they were in the right as a result. Margaret Sanger is a perfect example of that.

If there were more people like Margaret Sanger. Then there would be less abortions. She was very pro-Birth control. So women didn't get botched abortion. Now if extremist Conservative states would focus more on BC and proper sex education, not just abstinent programs . There would be less abortions.