Is birth control next?

Absolutely. An acorn is not an oak tree, it can become one but it is not one.

 

No one ever kills a zygote...

 

An acorn is a future oak tree in the same way that an ovum is a future baby.

 

Conservatives are adamantly against condoms here, especially if they are handed out for free or to teenagers.

 

Yep, BUT IT IS NOT ONE.

 

Wrong. Every ovum is a baby. Whenever someone is charged with murdering a woman they should also be charged with murdering a million babies.

Don’t you love babies? They are so cute.



Adorable.

 

So, if you have balut, you are commiting murder then because you are taking a life at conception?

However, if you want to argue that animals and humans do not have the same rights, then you are not asking the right question. The right question is when does human life begin? And that is more philosophical than biological with not every religion agreeing on when life begins. In the Jewish faith, traditionally, life begins when the child is born out of the mother's womb and in the Jewish faith, abortion is allowed under certain circumstances. For Muslims, it depends on which Sect is in control, Shia, Sunni, Wahhabism, and which hadiths are being used.

 

Except that is not the case in every homicide. It really depends on how pregnant the woman is and how far along the ovum is.

the problem with your artgument is how can you tell when a miscarriage is done, or should the mother be charged. Or should a doctor be charged with homicide because he has to perform an ectopic abortion? Or what about frozen embryons that are no longer viable to be delivered? Should those facilities be charged with homicide or accessory to the fact?

 

Murder is murder. Checkmate, lib.

 

LOL, so if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and then dies, then I can arrest you for two homicides with the DP being the ultimate penalty for your crime? Or are you agreeing that KR is guilty of homicide because he murdered his felling human being based on your argument "murder is murder?"

 

The states didn't need the court to overturn Roe to do what you farcically claim they want to do with birth control.

Just another example of how the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Here's a proposal for you:

You quit coming after our children with drag queens, sexuality, and gender affirming care for minors.

We permit birth control not involving abortion (morning after pill is acceptable).

Do you sign on the dotted line?

 

Not really. It is more about how the media and your upbringing has trained you to think. Most young people learn about sex from their friends who omit the part about pregnancy because they are too young to think that far ahead.

 

Guns. You forgot the guns.

 

Actually they did. Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned, any law that would have placed limits or bans on abortions would have been struck down by Scotus. That is why the Dobbs decision is so important. It got rid of the federal Supreme Court decision and left it up to the states. And they usually suspected states go in with their bans in with heavy restrictions. Now those same states are trying to limit birth control and other access to woman's health all in the name of anti-abortion stance.

 

And where do you think the kids get that information? Social media, media, movies, TV shows, books, etc. But then again, proper sex education in HS should be taught, should it not?

 

Oh, bullshit.

No mind, no brain, it is not life in any meaningful way. Yes, it will eventually become life, but the same is true of every male ejaculation in the history of humanity... Under the right circumstances, that little spritz of cum can become a person, but... It ain't one until it is, and for me, just as brain death is death even if the body can remain "alive" with the assistance of machines and the like. I have left explicit instructions that if I am braindead, I will not only not be resuscitated, there is to be no life extending actions whatsoever, including a feeding tube. Why, you might ask? Because when my mind is gone, so am I, even if my personal experience has demonstrated conclusively that mind continues in some other form in some other realm. Though it's not the one that manmade religions have described, and the Source of all that is doesn't care if it's sub-parts (us) bend the knee in adulation.

It naturally follows that life before a mind is present is simple mechanic biology, not anything conscious.

The problem with my position, of course, is that so many partisans on both sides are not interested in any sort of compromise, for them it's all or nothing. When I propose a limit of 22ish weeks (because that is when brainwaves turn on in most cases), for the pro-life forces that's 22 weeks too late, and for the pro-choice forces, it's about 17 weeks too early. When the two sides are that far apart, and not at all flexible, there really is no place for discussion- It's a 'my way or the highway' situation, that can only be 'won' by getting sheer numbers in whatever legislative body is the one making the decisions.

All that said, I still maintain that from a strictly technical legalistic perspective, Dobbs was properly decided, though if the pro-choice forces had made 9A and/or 10A arguments, which they did not, it may have gone the other way. However, even though I think the case itself was properly decided, I do think the proper course for governing a free people is more along the lines I outlined above. I see no case to be made that there is any conscious, self-aware 'life' in a growing glob of cells that doesn't even have a non-functional (yet) brain, much less a functional one.

I was once told by a pro-life person that if he was in charge, doctors or other healthcare workers who even dispose of fertilized eggs prepared for IVF that became redundant and unnecessary after the procedure was successful should be charged with murder! That is as asinine as the idea that an egg inside a fallopian tube or even the uterus itself 5, 10 or even 60 minutes post-conception is a human life. It's simply not, and there is no reasonable case to claim otherwise.

 

Sure.
The week after basic firearm safety.

 

1: False. Under Roe, 43 states had some sort of ban on abortions - the same 43 states that have them now.
2: The issue is birth control, not abortion. Roe didn't have a thing to do with birth control.

 

I have to chuckle at the "live free or die" folks who, in practice, want to control the books you read, your sex life, a woman's pregnancy, what kind of history is taught in schools, and who gets to vote.

 

The extreme right, including extreme Catholics, has been pushing no birth control for many years. It will never fly.

 

Yes. Heterosexual education should be addressed, but porking should be discouraged based on this truism:
Baby mommas = single mothers = poverty.
I knew two guys who married their girlfriends or cohabited in high school. One went to prison later, one died in Vietnam.

 

Since that's not happening then no problem.

 

Actually it is one in an early developmental stage. Is a tadpole a frog? I would say yes, you would not.

 

Yes.