Unimaginable tyranny coming to your state soon.

[revanneosl]

This proposed legislation scares the living daylights out of me.

Good. Now imagine legislation forcing you to give birth against your will. Chilling, ain't it.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

LOL, no it doesn’t. It’s explicit. Ya’ll are paranoid.

Yep, I can see a new brand of tin foil hat forming on some of those posting here.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I see no tyranny anywhere in that. Where are you seeing "tyranny"??? Do you consider it "tyranny" when the government tells you that you can't drive your own car while drinking your own alcohol, too???

There is no tyranny in America, never has been in your lifetime.

"Tyranny"... the "atheist" Bill Gates "prophesized". All these buzz words popping up by the wackjobs here. Always one on every message board.

In fact, I think Cuomo methods that all governors should follow.

Funny how the UK and other parts of Europe are co-operating, as they the look upon us and shake their heads.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good. Now imagine legislation forcing you to give birth against your will. Chilling, ain't it.

Children are such a blessing, I can’t imagine the horror of preventing one from opening its eyes for the first time and having a childhood. Even if the child will be born disabled, the child is still a precious gift, capable of giving and receiving love:

 

[Wolseley]

Good. Now imagine legislation forcing you to give birth against your will. Chilling, ain't it.

All you gotta do is keep your legs closed, and you won't have a problem.

 

[loveofourlord]

All you gotta do is keep your legs closed, and you won't have a problem.

Just as you guys just have to keep your mouth closed and wear a mask, and social distance.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I still haven't figured out how Bill Gates became the antivaxxer's bogeyman.

-CryptoLutheran

Gates has been involved with many viruses since the release of Windows 95

 

[loveofourlord]

Gates has been involved with many viruses since the release of Windows 95

Considering that the same security breaches show up time and time again almost like he's making them...maybe there is evidence....:>

 

[Brightmoon]

S

All you gotta do is keep your legs closed, and you won't have a problem.

. Stuff and nonsense! Ask incest, child brides, domestic violence and rape victims how well that works . And for the rest of us in caring relationships some religious fundamentalists want to ban birth control.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yep, I can see a new brand of tin foil hat forming on some of those posting here.

I keep posting these---this is not the first time we, as a nation, have gone through this--And guess what---Democracy went on and we were not under "Government control"--bunch of foolishness!!

 

[Wolseley]

S
. Stuff and nonsense! Ask incest, child brides, domestic violence and rape victims how well that works . And for the rest of us in caring relationships some religious fundamentalists want to ban birth control.

And how many abortions are entered into because of those factors, as opposed to the number entered into as a birth control measure?

 

[Brightmoon]

And how many abortions are entered into because of those factors, as opposed to the number entered into as a birth control measure?

You know that’s irrelevant ! Acting like there’s this single woman-clone that thinks or acts alike and should be subject to other’s (but usually a man’s) opinion of the utility of her uterus, is insulting . Each woman makes her decision based on what’s going on in her life and with her body.

 

[Wolseley]

You know that’s irrelevant ! Acting like there’s this single woman-clone that thinks or acts alike and should be subject to other’s (but usually a man’s) opinion of the utility of her uterus, is insulting . Each woman makes her decision based on what’s going on in her life and with her body.

I'm not going to argue with you. But I will ask you a question. You stipulate (quite firmly) that nobody (especially a man) has the right to make decisions which affect the woman and her body.

Fair enough. But how about the kid? Does the woman have the right to make decisions which affect the kid, and the kid's body?

Or maybe you believe that until the kid is actually born, it's not really a human being, and therefore not subject to the protection and safeties as every other human being? Maybe you think the kid is a parasite, to be treated like a disease? Maybe the rights of the woman are more important than the rights of the kid?

Maybe if the woman "makes her decision based on what’s going on in her life and with her body" and decides that having the kid is just too inconvenient at this particular stage in her life, then it's licit to abort? And if that's the case, then shouldn't it also be licit to "abort" anybody else in her life that are just too inconvenient at the time....husband, small children, adult parents, siblings, friends, etc.?

Oh, wait, I forgot---we haven't yet determined whether the kid is actually a person or not. Therefore, we can't equate a potential "un-person" with "real persons" like relatives, etc. In the latter case, getting rid of them would be considered murder; in the former case, well, you know, that's not really a person yet, so yeah, go ahead and kill it, what the heck.

But if it isn't a person, what is it? "A blob of cells" doesn't cut it, because the cells are going to develop into something, and so far, every time that I know of, that something has turned out to be a human being. I mean, I suppose there's always the chance that it may turn out to be something else----a giraffe, maybe, or an iguana, or maybe a 1957 Chevy, or a nice Italian leather couch; but I'm putting my money the fetus turning out as a human being.

So....vas denken Sie, meine Freund? What say you?

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re asking the wrong person.A developmental biologist or obstetrician can tell you precisely . But since you asked, no I don’t think of a developing fetus under 6 months as a child or as a baby. It’s a fetus totally dependent on the woman’s uterus . After that age , only if the mother’s life is endangered and they do have the option of premature birth

 

[Wolseley]

You’re asking the wrong person.A developmental biologist or obstetrician can tell you precisely.

The problem that we run into there is that the "precise definition" doesn't exist; when a developing child actually becomes a "human being" is a very fluid topic, sort of like transgenderism---"is it or isn't it"? The definite point can change like the wind, depending on the circumstances, which is why the courts have usually refused to rule on it. "Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect." "Yes, it is. But it is politically correct!"

But since you asked, no I don’t think of a developing fetus under 6 months as a child or as a baby.

Interesting.

It’s a fetus totally dependent on the woman’s uterus.

And what is the difference between a fetus and a baby? Six months?

After that age, only if the mother’s life is endangered and they do have the option of premature birth

So where does the concept of "partial birth" abortion fit in with that whole scenario? Is abortion a form of "premature birth"?

It's all very confusing, but this is what you get into when you start meddling in hard-and-fast rules of biology that require only common sense to recognize. You get into what I like to call "magic". For example, a woman who is five months pregnant suffers an accident at work where she is unharmed, but loses the baby (or fetus, if you must). If she had been thinking of an abortion because she didn't want the kid, well, hey, it was just a "fetus" anyway, no problem. On the other hand, if she had wanted the kid, we wave our wand, and hocus-pocus, abracadabra, POOF! Now the kid is a baby, and she can sue her workplace for negligent manslaughter of a child.

You see? Magic. It's very convenient. Illogical, confusing, and twistedly convoluted, yes. But convenient.

 

[rjs330]

You know that’s irrelevant ! Acting like there’s this single woman-clone that thinks or acts alike and should be subject to other’s (but usually a man’s) opinion of the utility of her uterus, is insulting . Each woman makes her decision based on what’s going on in her life and with her body.

No it's not cause you guys keep bringing it up.

 

[rjs330]

I keep posting these---this is not the first time we, as a nation, have gone through this--And guess what---Democracy went on and we were not under "Government control"--bunch of foolishness!!

This is the height of ignorance. Just cause the government engaged in Tyranny in the past doesn't mean it's okay now. The government used to keep black people out of restaurants and allow the killing of them. We are not pointing to that saying we should return it that it was okay. It wasn't okay to shoot people then and it's not okay now.

 

[mmksparbud]

This is the height of ignorance. Just cause the government engaged in Tyranny in the past doesn't mean it's okay now. The government used to keep black people out of restaurants and allow the killing of them. We are not pointing to that saying we should return it that it was okay. It wasn't okay to shoot people then and it's not okay now.

And just because a bunch of ignorant idiots claimed government control in 1918 for mask wearing when there was none---does not mean that this time these ignorant idiots are correct.

 

[rjs330]

I do have to say this about this whole thing. If a person tests positive for COVID then I do believe we have a right to demand the person quarantine for 10 days. At that point we know they are a carrier. If they refuse, I have no issue with putting them in a proper facility until the quarantine is over.

Secondly, if we do quarantine someone for testing positive then we also have an obligation to make sure they are taken care of as well. So we quarantine them at home then we should be making sure they have food and whatever other essentials are needed. We don't want to give them any excuse in why they couldn't stay home.
They also should be tested enough to know the test wasn't a false positive.

I'm not for forcing people to take a vaccine. But if you have it, you shouldn't be out with it.

 

[JohnDB]

The Vaccines prevent disease...
There's no proof yet as to whether they prevent infection...there won't be until summer after next.

It takes two years of study to determine if any of the vaccines prevent infection. The pandemic is just in its first year.

So forced Vaccinations are ludicrous at this point. Sure it will keep people from being sick...but we have no idea if they prevent the spread of the virus or not.