Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said. Get ready for the backlash. Women will not stand for having their right to abortion "restricted" out of existence.
You can take that fact to the bank.
I'm not sure. It may not happen as fast as you like. I'm afraid in most states where abortion is banned that it will have to take more than one horror story of a woman who needed an abortion but couldn't get one before women and men who support them will want to organize for a petition to vote on repealing abortion bans. In states that don't permit doing that, it may be hard to vote out incumbent legislators who support abortion bans when there have been no horror stories. Maybe it only means I missed them, but I haven't seen any horror stories that have resulted from Texas restricting abortions to 6 weeks.
If after Roe v. Wade is overturn, Republican legislators may want to ban sales of the morning after pill. If that happens, women and men better turn out by the thousands at state capitols to try to stop it.
How did I twist the facts you brought to the argument --- ? work on that I'll wait. And just to be clear --- I'm against misleading people for other's malicious intent. That's just wrong.
You stated:
Quote:
So once again distorting facts to make your argument stick, doesn't work.
The quote of mine you referenced, I did nothing more than copy verbatim a passage in a cited article. You accused me of distorting facts. Either you have your own definition of what distorting means, or you're just an outright liar.
Cannot take you seriously because you don't understand the basics of a debate. You are out of your depth, and fully unaware how out of your depth you are. Bless your heart.
I hope like hell that the SCOTUS has the gumption to overturn Roe. That’s my dream scenario. Been hoping for this for decades.
Greatest possible gift the Democratic Party could ever receive. PUH-LEEZE do it SCOTUS Conservatives. Not to mention that GOP fundraising based on anti abortion efforts; tens of millions of dollars, will be dead and buried. They’ll have nothing else inflammatory enough to rile up the base to get those millions from small evangelical donors without abortion being on the platform.
My fear is that the SCOTUS simply isn’t stupid enough to pull the trigger. They know what’ll happen.
Overturning would accomplish nothing, evidently you haven't thought this out. It will result in making life more difficult for poor women I guess that is their goal and probably more children on welfare and an increase in foster care. This is the conservative dream come true.
There is the same risk to the child, as well, and so you point is --- ? you don't like Biology, because it can not prove your idea that an unborn child (fetus) is liken' to a parasite sucking life out of someone? Seems to me you're the one trying to sell the pseudoscience and not very well I might add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontH8Me
You literally posted a link promoting a pseudoscience.
Here's a link with actual facts, which you can take or leave. You can even call it my opinion for all I care.
The placenta really does act like a parasite, Reading research suggests – University of Reading
Quote:
The human foetus and placenta have a different genotype from the mother. The foetus has been described before as acting in a parasitic way: it avoids rejection by the mother and exerts considerable influence over her metabolism for its own benefit, in particular diverting blood and nutrients. Now it would appear the similarities go much further. Although the mode of attachment of the phosphocoline (PC) is different in the mammalian placenta, its presence is startling.
"When we saw this, our immediate instinct was to look at other proteins in the placenta. So far, from what we have seen, it appears a large number of them possess this cell surface molecule which cloaks them from the host immune system," Lowry continued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
What the good Professor Lowery discovered was a protein, (neurokinin B (NKB)) that sometimes avoids detection and if caught early in a woman's pregnancy treatment can prevent pre-eclampsia.
From my post and the link to the professor Johnson's findings:
"A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species)."
So in the case that you presented the parasitic is, the protein neurokinin B (NKB), which can lay undetected in the pregnant woman's placenta according to professor Lowry. It contains the molecule phosphocholine and the same molecule is found in parasitic worms. So just to be clear, he's referring to a molecule, not a worm.
So once again distorting facts to make your argument stick, doesn't work. Try again and this time try to make it a bit more challenging ... bringing your own rope leaves the work right out of it.
One reason to mislead someone is so that when they do the thing that in the end may cause them grief, is so that it won't. But when they find out they've been mislead as the facts do eventually get found out, then they become very angry at those that would misled them and very very suspicious of people and their motives, for doing so. There is a big market in the medical industry for discarded fetuses and tied to that market is money.
Science and its facts have caught up to us since 1973, funny how we still pretend that it hasn't. Someone's making a killing and it ain't us, but we've helped them do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
As long as it makes you feel better to believe that the facts are lies --- carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontH8Me
You twist and torque reality to fit your very limited vision. So long as people like you are the ones arguing against abortion, we've got it made in the shade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
How did I twist the facts you brought to the argument --- ? work on that I'll wait. And just to be clear --- I'm against misleading people for other's malicious intent. That's just wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontH8Me
You stated:
Quote:
So once again distorting facts to make your argument stick, doesn't work.
The quote of mine you referenced, I did nothing more than copy verbatim a passage in a cited article. You accused me of distorting facts. Either you have your own definition of what distorting means, or you're just an outright liar.
Cannot take you seriously because you don't understand the basics of a debate. You are out of your depth, and fully unaware how out of your depth you are. Bless your heart.
Well at least I'm not the one trying to claim that an unborn (fetus) child is a parasite. Bless your heart. Then to add insult to your injury, you brought what you thought were facts to back up your case, which in the end they did not. Sorry Charlie --- you're the one that it is tough to take serious, you know that right?
Well at least I'm not the one trying to claim that an unborn (fetus) child is a parasite. Bless your heart. Then to add insult to your injury, you brought what you thought were facts to back up your case, which in the end they did not. Sorry Charlie --- you're the one that it is tough to take serious, you know that right?
Tell yourself whatever you need to soothe your soul. It matters not one lick to me.
here the deal, mississippian are not asking to turn it over, couple lawyers in mississippi that represent nobody, want to make a name for themselves asking. The typical mississippian dont give a ****
The right to have an abortion applies to millions of women who might one day want or need to have one not just the number of women who annually have one.
Not ridiculous at all. The 2nd Amendment applies to 334 million, and states restrict those rights. Some heavily, others not so much. Abortion is no different. Some states might restrict it heavily, others not so much.
Quote:
I know exactly zero women who would equate the right to own a gun with the right to control their own body. You are living in some strange fantasy world where you think most normal people agree with your convoluted positions. It's just not so lol.
You're completely missing the point. The issue is: Can states restrict Constitutional Rights? And as we can clearly see with each respective state's varying degrees of gun control laws, yes they can.
There's a list on this site of states that have an abortion ban in place already(pre-Roe bans never rescinded, just not enforced), or have a law that triggers an abortion ban if Roe is overturned https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2...h-ones-and-why
None of them ban abortion completely. They have varying levels of restrictions. That's exactly the same as how states currently have varying levels of restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights.
The SC knows their decision already. We must wait 6 months to hear it.
I have little doubt the right to decide will become local again, just as it should be.
That may happen temporarily.
If you think women will let that stand, you are seriously deluded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
