I love it when people take what I say and completely twist it into something they want it to say. CNN would be proud of you.

And yes, I have two children. I will send them your regards.

They have the tools. They choose not to use the tools.

Make it 2 Progressives blocking the rest of the Dem agenda and you will see those tools used.

The issue is here that Dem strategists are going to want to make this a midterms issue in hopes that if can turn the tide and save them. So instead of using the power they have now, they will gamble and if they lose, the cost will be high.

For Dem's the power dynamic is far more important than the actual issue.

Nobody has a "right to pleasure" if it endangers a third party. That's why there are laws against drunk driving, for example.

Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. (Which in my case doesn't require much of a swing by someone's fist. )

It's partly about letting the miracle of nature take its course, but I get that you'll just pivot to that meaning I'm against pharmaceuticals and cancer treatments for kids. Surely you can recognize the difference between not actively vacuuming an unborn baby out of someone's womb and Tylenol.

I don't really have an issue with the concept of abortion, because I do see it as a valid medical procedure on par with chemotherapy for treating human suffering in the appropriate cases. My issue is with the repeat customers. Something like 50% of abortions are provided to women who have had a date with the vacuum before.

I have the same disdain for someone who received an organ transplant and then goes right back to the behaviors that ruined the original in the first place. You don't get a third chance.

Right.

And that's the behavior of a political party that I would suspect doesn't really want to win.

Sure they like winning but....I'm not at all certain it's their primary objective.

Was not some version of that in place for Indigenous people who sought an abortion. Get an abortion and we'll throw in the sterilization for free.

I think Inso0 is just trying to MAGA!

It's okay that you impregnated your wife as long as you didn't actually enjoy the act.

I hope you used the hole in a sheet method as anything else is way too indulgent for a morally upright 2022 dad.

These are not comparable. You don't have a right to drink and drive because you can harm an existing third-party. There is no possibility to harm an existing third-party fetus in consensual sex because the fetus does not exist at the time of sex. Do we restrict any other pleasure that has literally zero potential to harm an existing third-party in favor of an only theoretical (and not even guaranteed) future third-party? I don't think so but feel free to prove me wrong.

laggy, I might be mistaken but are you not of the camp that every sperm is sacred? And thus people should not engage in sex with protection?

Hi, RF.

Back to babbling, I see.

Which is too bad, because when you actually try to make sense, your posts are almost always very good, even when I disagree with you.

No and No.

If you think there is a difference between abortion and other medical procedures and that the crucial factor is an "unborn baby" than my point still stands about sentience. It matters when we consider a person to actually exist. In my mind, sentience is what matters for the reason expressed in the life-support example. We also don't think it's murder to shoot an already dead body, because no one's home inside. If potential life is what matters than you get back to my silly example about harvesting fertilized eggs and bad diets. You could say the same about all the discarded IVF embryos. Or yes, you could extend it to other medical procedures that interrupt nature's course (inlcuding IVF or any medical intervention that improves the odds of a viable birth). I'm also personally against the idea that anything humans do exists outside nature. We are a product of nature. Anything we do is nature taking its course. There is no point where nature ends and humans begin. Isn't it important for you that the things you believe in have a logical consistency?

There is no third party in the act of one on one sex, wtf are you talking about?

That's a tad unreasonable as just about everything else that could harm theroetical people also harms existing people. Generally we do worry about theoretical people - environmental concerns are definitely in part about theoretical people.

The pleasure thing is also an example of the lie some people tell themselves. Sure there are some who want to deny pleasure, and there are many for whom it's about controlling women, but that's not what the abortion debate is really about. Many think it's a human life or even a soul - they may well be wrong or even nuts but that's what they think it is about. It may often be a case of over-emepathy where they equate the precisousness of someone elses unnwanted pregnancy to their much cherished or wanted pregnancy .

hole in a popcorn bucket >>>>>> hole in a sheet

I agree, of course.

But if the consequence of the one-on-one sex is the creation of a new human life, then that human life ought to be protected rather than being sucked out of the mother's womb.

It has been said that a Puritan is someone who is afraid that somebody, somewhere is right now having a good time.

As a matter of science, a human life begins at conception. Whether or not that human life is sufficiently developed to be entitled to protection is what the debate is really about.

I was being nice to nick.

He only has two kids which might imply that he's using contraception.

He knows damn well that his wife is to be used as a baby vessel until she's spent. And here he is whining about aborted fetuses when he's letting his wife go practically barren.

This is why we need more theocrats on the court. Guys like nick are giving you a bad name.

Wait....are you advocating for the protection of all human life now ?

Lefty.

Since you are still babbling, I shan't* respond any more to you today.

Make it a great day!

*Is that still a word?

I'm not at all babbling. You don't seem familiar with the history of laws in this country and the prevailing Christian morality of only a couple of generations ago.

Now that we're allowing the court to decide issues based on direct guidance from their random gods and not on precedent things are only going to get worse for guys like nick.

Poor sheep that he is he won't mind. He'll just bleat as he's doing now.

I've had that tune in my head since the news broke last night.

Of the 26 states that are expected to pass a law that stops or severely restricts abortions if Roe is overturned, how many have populations that would vote in favor of that law? How many have FEMALE populations that would? Same question for the other 24 states although I expect the answer would be "zero", at least for women. Not asking for any specific reason other than it might be somehow useful to know those answers.

the last reaches of the dying breeds of religious fanaticism and theocratic neofascistic trumpism...

A SPECIFIC human life does NOT begin at conception. There is a two week period where the egg may or may not split, and its splitting can be done by surgeons. Since abortions don't occur until after that time period, it doesn't effect anti abortion arguments. But it does affect anti contraception arguments including those concerning the "morning after pill."