Abortion

[Hal9000_]

There are women that bring children into this world everyday that are born with out limbs, attached twins, have Down syndrome, mental issues, premature, addicted to substances without being legally forced to do so. Most don’t regret their decision and love the child no matter what.

And if fetus has a heartbeat but no functioning brain...too bad?

 

[badbabysitter]

You are quite the anti-federalist for a Canadian chick married to the only black wittol in your province.

Are there any issues you feel the Feds should not intervene in state sovereignty? Weed? Gay marriage? Sanctuary cities?

Oh, racism, charming. Starting with bigotry is a classy move

I'm talking about a medical procedure whose opponents are basing their arguments in religon and feelings and not the actual reality

A fetus is not a person. That is not my belief on the subject, its a fact

If a woman wants to terminate it, so be it

Wants to bring it to term, so be it


The state should have no right to impose its morality on a person that is doing no harm to themselves or another

 

[badbabysitter]

She left the chat, Que.

I have a life outside here, just saying

 

[badbabysitter]

Enabling? Let’s take your blinders off since you shot yourself in the foot on this statement - Anyone?
Really? Okay. I live in Georgia, not Alabama. We’ve passed the heartbeat bill. If you don’t want to enable or support people like me, that’s fine. Coca Cola, Delta, and tons of other companies are located here in Georgia where I live. We just passed the heartbeat bill. Companies like Disney and Amazon do business here. I invite you to boycott all those said companies here or that operate in Alabama. Because that’s guilty by association. Any company that does business here is an indirect enabler, condoning the laws the State passed and others are passing.
Would you like to continue on with the topic of enabling?
I doubt it. Right now, you’re probably thinking how you can get around supporting our laws directly or indirectly. Even if you could, the catch 22 is countries that support their own extreme Abortion Laws. I also challenge you to stop buying Chinese shit, top. China’s has some pretty shitty laws overall and if the child isn’t a boy, they’ve been known to terminate it. So keep that in mind when you are standing in the retail line buying something.

Badbabysitter has left chat.

That is some weak sauce dude

I will oppose anyone that publicly supports this draconian law

If Coca Cola comes out in support of it, I will be one of the many that tell them off

Canada is the US number one trading partner, and your number one source of oil. Up her, we have some of the loosest abortion laws in the world with one of the great stipulations is that a fetus is not a person

So if you really think that fetus is sacred, stop buying gasoline

See how weak sauce that argument is?

 

[Kantarii]

That is some weak sauce dude

I will oppose anyone that publicly supports this draconian law

If Coca Cola comes out in support of it, I will be one of the many that tell them off

Canada is the US number one trading partner, and your number one source of oil. Up her, we have some of the loosest abortion laws in the world with one of the great stipulations is that a fetus is not a person

So if you really think that fetus is sacred, stop buying gasoline

See how weak sauce that argument is?

Let’s clear up your misinformation first. I hate to break it to you, but Canada isn’t the USA’s largest trading partner. Not unless it does 500 Billion (+) in trade with America.

Canada isn’t the even the largest supplier of oil to the US either. I would say we are Canada’s largest export market for it’s oil. That would be believable. But here’s a link if you wanna fact check that.
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and...MI6uu_qsmp4gIVAT0MCh3c_g1sEAAYASAAEgJyG_D_BwE


Weak sauce, huh? You might need a stiffer drink. You said, “I wont enable anyone who doesn't see abortion as the medical issue.”

That’s a bold statement. Let me dumb it down a bit on indirect support.

Alabama’s new Abortion Law is so restrictive that being a medical issue isn’t even a factor. Companies operating in Alabama have workers, those workers are voters who elect office holders who then, in turn, voted on the Abortion law. No no no, that’s too complex for you to understand because workers are separate from the company which itself is going to adhere to the new Abortion law guidelines.

Anyway, it all boils down to the fact you only oppose that sort of thing if it’s in your face - that it’s okay so long as you aren’t aware of it. Out of sight, out of mind. But you said “anyone”. Now you’re making it a case by case basis for your support. Gotcha.

 

[Kantarii]

Up her, we have some of the loosest abortion laws in the world with one of the great stipulations is that a fetus is not a person

This is all well and fine for you if you live in Canada. But the extreme Abortion Law in Alabama doesn’t apply to you in Canada not does Canada’s Abortion laws apply here. Alabama’s Law might upset you based on your Canadian views, but keep in mind Alabamans voted on the law. A woman governor signed it into law. No one twisted her arm either.

Just because Canada views a fetus as not a person doesn’t mean some of us in America don’t. Thankfully. I don’t live in Alabama or Canada. At least Georgia’s heartbeat bill was drawn up with more mercy than Alabama’s extreme law.

 

[KimGordon67]

Let’s clear up your misinformation first. I hate to break it to you, but Canada isn’t the USA’s largest trading partner. Not unless it does 500 Billion (+) in trade with America.

Canada isn’t the even the largest supplier of oil to the US either. I would say we are Canada’s largest export market for it’s oil. That would be believable.

Weak sauce, huh? You might need a stiffer drink. You said, “I wont enable anyone who doesn't see abortion as the medical issue.”

That’s a bold statement. Let me dumb it down a bit on indirect support.

Alabama’s new Abortion Law is so restrictive that being a medical issue isn’t even a factor. Companies operating in Alabama have workers, those workers are voters who elect office holders who then, in turn, voted on the Abortion law. No no no, that’s too complex for you to understand because workers are separate from the company which itself is going to adhere to the new Abortion law guidelines.

Anyway, it all boils down to the fact you only oppose that sort of thing if it’s in your face - that it’s okay so long as you aren’t aware of it. Out of sight, out of mind. But you said “anyone”. Now you’re making it a case by case basis for your support. Gotcha.

Um ... yeah, workers are separate from the company. Companies are legal entities entirely separate from the people they employ ... that's why the companies 'employ' the workers. (And really, you have no idea who those employees voted for, so it's a rampantly specious argument on all counts.) Companies can't get pregnant, so they can't 'adhere' to the abortion laws in any real sense.
You really needed to think that through a bit more before you committed it to writing.

 

[Kantarii]

Um ... yeah, workers are separate from the company. Companies are legal entities entirely separate from the people they employ ... that's why the companies 'employ' the workers. (And really, you have no idea who those employees voted for, so it's a rampantly specious argument on all counts.) Companies can't get pregnant, so they can't 'adhere' to the abortion laws in any real sense.
You really needed to think that through a bit more before you committed it to writing.

We were talking about enablers and indirect support. Not direct support.
Large companies also lobby the government.

 

[KimGordon67]

We were talking about enablers and indirect support. Not direct support.
Large companies also lobby the government.

It doesn't really make any difference if you're talking about direct or indirect support - your argument is still illogical.

 

[Kantarii]

Companies can't get pregnant, so they can't 'adhere' to the abortion laws in any real sense.

Again, this is about enablers and indirect support of Alabama’s extreme Abortion Law.
Really? In any real sense? So a company’s insurance provider an employee uses through the company may not want to cover the costs of an abortion that is now suddenly illegal in Alabama. That suddenly changes things. Doesn’t really sound like indirect support? It’s sounding like it’s more than just that.

 

[Kantarii]

It doesn't really make any difference if you're talking about direct or indirect support - your argument is still illogical.

You might wanna go back and read over the conversation. Badbabysitter said she wouldn’t support “anyone” who didn’t see abortion as a medical issue. That sounds pretty inclusive to me person or company.

 

[KimGordon67]

Again, this is about enablers and indirect support of Alabama’s extreme Abortion Law.
Really? In any real sense? So a company’s insurance provider an employee uses through the company may not want to cover the costs of an abortion that is now suddenly illegal in Alabama. That suddenly changes things. Doesn’t really sound like indirect support? It’s sounding like it’s more than just that.

Oh - right. I forget about your dumbarse health provision process, which I haven't been able to understand in spite of years of trying. So I'll give you that ... because I don't have the knowledge to argue it.

But your suggestion that workers 'are' the company, and hence if the workers voted in legislators, that means somehow the company is responsible for the resultant legislation is one of the longest bows I've ever seen drawn.

 

[Kantarii]

Oh - right. I forget about your dumbarse health provision process, which I haven't been able to understand in spite of years of trying. So I'll give you that ... because I don't have the knowledge to argue it.

But your suggestion that workers 'are' the company, and hence if the workers voted in legislators, that means somehow the company is responsible for the resultant legislation is one of the longest bows I've ever seen drawn.

I’m discussing, not arguing with you. In a sense, workers are the company. No company exists without someone turning the screws at some point. Those same works are voters. They elected the office holders that, in turn, voted on the extreme Abortion Law Alabama passed. What I’m saying is there’s indirect support for that law being passed. I was merely expanding on Badbabysitter saying she would not support anyone who didn’t see abortion as a medical issue. She’s trying to view Alabama Laws through Canadian eyes and how Canada views a fetus not being a person.

She also judged me and assumed that because I’m pro-life, I can’t see or support some of her side’s arguements. Alabama’s Abortion Law is extreme more so than Georgia’s. In the cases of rape, incest, and a danger to either the mother or unborn child I can see viable reasons for abortion. I also feel that the unborn child should be entitled to some protective rights since it can’t speak up for them on its own. That’s being reasonable to a degree.

 

[KimGordon67]

I’m discussing, not arguing with you. In a sense, workers are the company. No company exists without someone turning the screws at some point. Those same works are voters. They elected the office holders that, in turn, voted on the extreme Abortion Law Alabama passed. What I’m saying is there’s indirect support for that law being passed. I was merely expanding on Badbabysitter saying she would not support anyone who didn’t see abortion as a medical issue. She’s trying to view Alabama Laws through Canadian eyes and how Canada views a fetus not being a person.

Actually, because companies are independent legal entities, plenty of them exist without anyone 'turning screws'. Workers do not, by and large, represent the political interests of a company, any more than a company represents the political interests of the workers - the two things are often diametrically opposed. Depending on the industry, and the level of unionisation, it's highly likely the workers would vote for someone entirely different from those running the company (who aren't 'the company' either, but they're a lot closer to being 'the company' than anyone employed on the shop floor).
I'm not going to bother explaining how boycotting Coke isn't actually a strike against the workers at Coke - in the neoliberal universe you seem to occupy, they just get a job elsewhere because they aren't the company.

 

[Kantarii]

Actually, because companies are independent legal entities, plenty of them exist without anyone 'turning screws'. Workers do not, by and large, represent the political interests of a company, any more than a company represents the political interests of the workers - the two things are often diametrically opposed. Depending on the industry, and the level of unionisation, it's highly likely the workers would vote for someone entirely different from those running the company (who aren't 'the company' either, but they're a lot closer to being 'the company' than anyone employed on the shop floor).
I'm not going to bother explaining how boycotting Coke isn't actually a strike against the workers at Coke - in the neoliberal universe you seem to occupy, they just get a job elsewhere because they aren't the company.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, even Facebook are examples of what I’m talking about - all large companies where their workers are opinionated and don’t want the company they work for helping the government with military contracts. But that’s stretching the bow string towards the military. I would imagine it applies to all sorts of other political stuff including abortion (indirectly) as well.

I’m off to bed. Nice chatting with you. A rather respectful chatKant

 

[badbabysitter]

This is all well and fine for you if you live in Canada. But the extreme Abortion Law in Alabama doesn’t apply to you in Canada not does Canada’s Abortion laws apply here. Alabama’s Law might upset you based on your Canadian views, but keep in mind Alabamans voted on the law. A woman governor signed it into law. No one twisted her arm either.

Just because Canada views a fetus as not a person doesn’t mean some of us in America don’t. Thankfully. I don’t live in Alabama or Canada. At least Georgia’s heartbeat bill was drawn up with more mercy than Alabama’s extreme law.

So because I live in another country I cant be outraged how women are treated elsewhere?

And lots of women fuck over other women, we are not a hive mind. Phylis Schafly spent her lifeusing the voice other women fought to give her to try keeping them in the kitchen

 

[badbabysitter]

You might wanna go back and read over the conversation. Badbabysitter said she wouldn’t support “anyone” who didn’t see abortion as a medical issue. That sounds pretty inclusive to me person or company.

And its still true, I personally don't believe corporations are people

 

[Kantarii]

And its still true, I personally don't believe corporations are people

I didn’t say that. The company is more or less the people that work for it. And we were talking about indirect support in regards to abortion, remember. Not the BS corporations are people like you are implying.

I also didn’t say you aren’t entitled to being outrage. By all mean, be outraged. Hell, I am too. All I can say is that I’m glad Georgia’s heartbeat bill isntvas extreme as Alabama’s Abortion Law.

Do you still believe Canada is America’s largest trading partner or that Canada is America’s largest oil supplier like you said?

 

[badbabysitter]

I didn’t say that. The company is more or less the people that work for it

I also didn’t say you aren’t entitled to being outrage. By all mean, be outraged. He’ll, I am too. All I can say is that I’m glad Georgia’s heartbeat bill isntvas extreme as Alabama’s Abortion Law.

No, its really not.

If you have kids are you a information technician for Google or a father?

People are not corporations

I work for some really conservative bible thumpers, I am far from a conservative bible thumper

 

[Kantarii]

No, its really not.

If you have kids are you a information technician for Google or a father?

People are not corporations

I work for some really conservative bible thumpers, I am far from a conservative bible thumper

I had a respectful conversation with Kim on the subject. Somehow, I don’t think I wanna push my luck and talk about the subject with you. I’m off to bed. Have a good night.

As you said, I have a life outside this place.

 

[God_Above]

The Doctors are doing my work. They shall not be hindered by demons in Legislatures. Those interfering between Doctor and patient shall be damned.

 

[icanhelp1]

I had a respectful conversation with Kim on the subject. Somehow, I don’t think I wanna push my luck and talk about the subject with you. I’m off to bed. Have a good night.

As you said, I have a life outside this place.

Oh! wrong thread; I thought I was in the abortion thread!

 

[nowisthetime]

I have a life outside here, just saying

Yet again, they confuse quantity with quality. They think this is a game and the last one who responds is a winner.

They spend all of their waking hours on here, clicking refresh every five minutes.

They harp on you for being Canadian, but they suck up to the alt-right Canadian tards on here. At least you are more informed on the issue.

 

[icanhelp1]

More logic lapses ... why is the 'baby' of less value if it's the result of rape or incest? If you going to argue from the standpoint that all 'babies' are sacred, it seems a bit odd to suddenly create a hierarchy based on the means of conception.

That is a very valid point. The rape victim could be under such a traumatic experience that carrying that baby is probably not in the best health interest of the mother but doesn't take away from the sanctity of that fetus. Doctor/patient consultation. Incest or inbreeding may or may not have chromosome damage to the fetus or could lead to a perfectly healthy baby.. Both situations need to be medically and criminally investigated and bringing them to full term is still a viable option. Please don't confuse the issue with every incestual relationship. We're talking hypothetical.

 

[Airka4real]

More logic lapses ... why is the 'baby' of less value if it's the result of rape or incest? If you going to argue from the standpoint that all 'babies' are sacred, it seems a bit odd to suddenly create a hierarchy based on the means of conception.

So.

I am single, fresh out of college, deep in student loans, but starting a great new job in my chosen career. I may be dirt poor, but the future is bright.

I'm walking my dog one night, and a man jumps out, hits me repeatedly until I can no longer defend myself, rapes me, leaving me unconscious.

I become pregnant.

YOU tell me I am forced to have the baby.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?