SD wants to endrun Roe v Wade by legalizing murder of docs

[Nulono]

When did I say it killed the person who took it?


Because if there are three things we've learned here, they're that repetition makes claims true, that claims are made true through repetition, and that if you repeat a claim often enough it becomes true.

embryos arent people.

not even to you.

Huh?

[Ashmoria]

embryos arent people.

not even to you.

Huh?

put "bob the janitor" into the NS search and take the test.

[Bottle]

When did I say it killed the person who took it?


Because if there are three things we've learned here, they're that repetition makes claims true, that claims are made true through repetition, and that if you repeat a claim often enough it becomes true.

embryos arent people.

not even to you.

Seems that embryos are better than people, since even a thread about terrorism being used against human beings (women and doctors) can't possibly be allowed to discuss THOSE human lives, but rather must focus on the "unborn." Makes me wish I'd never had the misfortune to be pushed out of the birth canal, 'cause if I stayed in then my life would mean something to the "pro-life" folks.

[Ashmoria]

embryos arent people.

not even to you.

Seems that embryos are better than people, since even a thread about terrorism being used against human beings (women and doctors) can't possibly be allowed to discuss THOSE human lives, but rather must focus on the "unborn." Makes me wish I'd never had the misfortune to be pushed out of the birth canal, 'cause if I stayed in then my life would mean something to the "pro-life" folks.

yeah

so fucking "pro life" that they would cut programs that FEED BABIES.

[Nulono]

Huh?

put "bob the janitor" into the NS search and take the test.

I've taken that test already. If you search, you can find my response.

embryos arent people.

not even to you.

Seems that embryos are better than people, since even a thread about terrorism being used against human beings (women and doctors) can't possibly be allowed to discuss THOSE human lives, but rather must focus on the "unborn." Makes me wish I'd never had the misfortune to be pushed out of the birth canal, 'cause if I stayed in then my life would mean something to the "pro-life" folks.

I think you're misinterpreting the legislation's intent.

Seems that embryos are better than people, since even a thread about terrorism being used against human beings (women and doctors) can't possibly be allowed to discuss THOSE human lives, but rather must focus on the "unborn." Makes me wish I'd never had the misfortune to be pushed out of the birth canal, 'cause if I stayed in then my life would mean something to the "pro-life" folks.

yeah

so fucking "pro life" that they would cut programs that FEED BABIES.

When did I suggest anything of the sort? Such programs need to be expanded, not cut. If we need to cut something, we could save money by legalizing recreational drugs and cutting our bloated military budget.

[Ashmoria]

put "bob the janitor" into the NS search and take the test.

I've taken that test already.

then you already know that you dont think that embryos are people.

yeah

so fucking "pro life" that they would cut programs that FEED BABIES.

When did I suggest anything of the sort? Such programs need to be expanded, not cut.

sometimes a reply isnt actually about you.

[Nulono]

I've taken that test already.

then you already know that you dont think that embryos are people.

Huh? What are you talking about?

When did I suggest anything of the sort? Such programs need to be expanded, not cut.

sometimes a reply isnt actually about you.

What's the point anyway? What does it prove?

[Ashmoria]

then you already know that you dont think that embryos are people.

Huh? What are you talking about?

sometimes a reply isnt actually about you.

What's the point anyway? What does it prove?

im talking about not regarding the life of embryos no matter how many as the same as the life of one born person.

and the point is that the big boys of "pro life" are fucking hypocrits who arent interested in supporting actual living babies.

[Nulono]

Huh? What are you talking about?


What's the point anyway? What does it prove?

im talking about not regarding the life of embryos no matter how many as the same as the life of one born person.

Did you even read my fucking response? If the number of embryos exceeds 2.857142..., I would save the embryos.

and the point is that the big boys of "pro life" are fucking hypocrits who arent interested in supporting actual living babies.

That's one of the reasons I hate Republicans, that they only seem to care about the actual living babies that are in utero. There're pro-life Democrats that are better.

[Nulono]

Now, how about you stop with the ad hominems and actually present an argument?

[Ashmoria]

im talking about not regarding the life of embryos no matter how many as the same as the life of one born person.

Did you even read my fucking response? If the number of embryos exceeds 2.857142..., I would save the embryos.

and the point is that the big boys of "pro life" are fucking hypocrits who arent interested in supporting actual living babies.

That's one of the reasons I hate Republicans, that they only seem to care about the actual living babies that are in utero. There're pro-life Democrats that are better.

oh i didnt realize that you gave an answer

and

i dont believe you for one moment.

[Ashmoria]

Now, how about you stop with the ad hominems and actually present an argument?

an argument about what?

i find it very scary that the various republican state legislatures are taking up this crazy idea for a new law.

[Nulono]

Did you even read my fucking response? If the number of embryos exceeds 2.857142..., I would save the embryos.


That's one of the reasons I hate Republicans, that they only seem to care about the actual living babies that are in utero. There're pro-life Democrats that are better.

oh i didnt realize that you gave an answer

and

i dont believe you for one moment.

Well, that's your prerogative. But, and this may shock you, not everyone agrees with you. Some people see embryos as people. If they didn't, get this, we wouldn't be debating this in the first place.

[Ashmoria]

oh i didnt realize that you gave an answer

and

i dont believe you for one moment.

Well, that's your prerogative. But, and this may shock you, not everyone agrees with you. Some people see embryos as people. If they didn't, get this, we wouldn't be debating this in the first place.

uhhhuh

if it were a real belief why arent all those pro-life activists trying to shut down infertility clinics that freeze the "extra" embryos? embryos that are created on purpose but will never be given the chance to live.

[Nulono]

Now, how about you stop with the ad hominems and actually present an argument?

an argument about what?

i find it very scary that the various republican state legislatures are taking up this crazy idea for a new law.

1. An argument that the unborn aren't people.
2. If you think the way it's written could allow it to be abused, I suggest you take that up with the authors, because I highly doubt that's the intent.

Well, that's your prerogative. But, and this may shock you, not everyone agrees with you. Some people see embryos as people. If they didn't, get this, we wouldn't be debating this in the first place.

uhhhuh

if it were a real belief why arent all those pro-life activists trying to shut down infertility clinics that freeze the "extra" embryos? embryos that are created on purpose but will never be given the chance to live.

There are some that are doing such. However, most pro-lifers realize that's not going to be a battle we'll win any time soon, so we focus on other areas where we can win, instead of wasting our resources.

[Ashmoria]

an argument about what?

i find it very scary that the various republican state legislatures are taking up this crazy idea for a new law.

1. An argument that the unborn aren't people.
2. If you think the way it's written could allow it to be abused, I suggest you take that up with the authors, because I highly doubt that's the intent.

uhhhuh

if it were a real belief why arent all those pro-life activists trying to shut down infertility clinics that freeze the "extra" embryos? embryos that are created on purpose but will never be given the chance to live.

There are some that are doing such. However, most pro-lifers realize that's not going to be a battle we'll win any time soon, so we focus on other areas where we can win, instead of wasting our resources.

the intent is obvious. even if they arent expecting to legalize the murder of abortion providers they are telling those who would do so that they are on their side.

oh come on. if you cant stop the freezing of embryos then you arent trying.

which you (generic you) arent.

[Nulono]

1. An argument that the unborn aren't people.
2. If you think the way it's written could allow it to be abused, I suggest you take that up with the authors, because I highly doubt that's the intent.


There are some that are doing such. However, most pro-lifers realize that's not going to be a battle we'll win any time soon, so we focus on other areas where we can win, instead of wasting our resources.

the intent is obvious. even if they arent expecting to legalize the murder of abortion providers they are telling those who would do so that they are on their side.

oh come on. if you cant stop the freezing of embryos then you arent trying.

which you (generic you) arent.

1. Its intent is to make fetal homicide laws and defense laws consistent.
2. Well, not everyone agrees with you there. Some people see it as unlikely.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say that out of 6.7 billion people, not 1 believes embryos are persons. What have you proven? Nothing! Your ad hominem tu quoque turns into an ad populum.

Also, are you saying that you would save Bob over TEN BILLION embryos?

Just some friendly advice, when debating someone it's generally not a good idea to assume that your opponent already agrees with you.

[The Black Forrest]

the intent is obvious. even if they arent expecting to legalize the murder of abortion providers they are telling those who would do so that they are on their side.

oh come on. if you cant stop the freezing of embryos then you arent trying.

which you (generic you) arent.

1. Its intent is to make fetal homicide laws and defense laws consistent.

Yeah right. You can't change RvW so you "peace" loving "Christians" are trying to scare doctors willing to provide this service.

2. Well, not everyone agrees with you there. Some people see it as unlikely.

People who designed this crap did it for it's intent. To scare doctors.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say that out of 6.7 billion people, not 1 believes embryos are persons. What have you proven? Nothing! Your ad hominem tu quoque turns into an ad populum.

Also, are you saying that you would save Bob over TEN BILLION embryos? I have a hard time believing that.

There is a point in there somewhere. Isn't there?

[Nulono]

1. Its intent is to make fetal homicide laws and defense laws consistent.

Yeah right. You can't change RvW so you "peace" loving "Christians" are trying to scare doctors willing to provide this service.

And when did I claim to be a Christian? I'm not.

2. Well, not everyone agrees with you there. Some people see it as unlikely.

People who designed this crap did it for it's intent. To scare doctors.

Even the executive director of NARAL SD doesn't think that's the intent. The intent is to allow a pregnant woman and her family to defend their unborn children.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say that out of 6.7 billion people, not 1 believes embryos are persons. What have you proven? Nothing! Your ad hominem tu quoque turns into an ad populum.

Also, are you saying that you would save Bob over TEN BILLION embryos? I have a hard time believing that.

There is a point in there somewhere. Isn't there?

I didn't have a point; I was asking for yours.

[Farnhamia]

1. Its intent is to make fetal homicide laws and defense laws consistent.

Yeah right. You can't change RvW so you "peace" loving "Christians" are trying to scare doctors willing to provide this service.

2. Well, not everyone agrees with you there. Some people see it as unlikely.

People who designed this crap did it for it's intent. To scare doctors.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say that out of 6.7 billion people, not 1 believes embryos are persons. What have you proven? Nothing! Your ad hominem tu quoque turns into an ad populum.

Also, are you saying that you would save Bob over TEN BILLION embryos? I have a hard time believing that.

There is a point in there somewhere. Isn't there?

This law seems like kicking someone when they're down, at least in South Dakota. There are no doctors practicing in the state now who do abortions. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out of state once a week to one of their clinics, and women in need of an abortion may have to travel hundreds of miles to avail themselves of that service.

[Nulono]

If there aren't even any abortionists in SD, this OBVIOUSLY isn't directed at them.

[Farnhamia]

If there aren't even any abortionists in SD, this OBVIOUSLY isn't directed at them.

I see it as a message saying, "And don't let the sun set on you in this state, boy."

[Nulono]

The intent is to allow a pregnant woman and her family to defend their unborn children. That's why it's limited to a pregnant woman and her family.

[Farnhamia]

The intent is to allow a pregnant woman and her family to defend their unborn children. That's why it's limited to a pregnant woman and her family.

Yes, because there are "abortionists" roaming the country dragging pregnant women off to clinics and hospitals and forcing them to have abortions. Uh huh.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yeah right. You can't change RvW so you "peace" loving "Christians" are trying to scare doctors willing to provide this service.

And when did I claim to be a Christian? I'm not.

People who designed this crap did it for it's intent. To scare doctors.

Even the executive director of NARAL SD doesn't think that's the intent. The intent is to allow a pregnant woman and her family to defend their unborn children.

There is a point in there somewhere. Isn't there?

I didn't have a point; I was asking for yours.

Let's check what the actual source the pro-life blog you posted linked to says about the law and NARAL SD's opinion (emphasis added):

. . . Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-choice group that has been tracking state abortion laws since the early 1970s, said, the proposed law was the first of its kind.

"We have not seen anything like this before," Nash said. "It's really chilling."

Jensen insisted the bill "has nothing to do with abortion" and would merely bar prosecutors from pressing charges against a family member who kills an assailant attacking a pregnant relative.

"Let's say an ex-boyfriend finds out his ex-girlfriend is pregnant with his baby and decides to beat on her abdomen to kill the unborn child," Jensen said. "This is an illegal act and the purpose of this bill is to bring continuity to South Dakota code as it relates to the unborn child."

But Alisha Sedor, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, a group that supports a woman's right to abortion, said she was worried the legislation could trigger attacks on abortion providers if it was not amended.

"I don't believe the intent is malicious," Sedor said. "But the potential legal implications of the bill are what make it dangerous. If it passes without an amendment exempting attacks on providers, it could incite violence from individuals who believe their actions will be found justifiable in court."

South Dakota has been at the center of some of the most bitter recent fights between supporters and opponents of abortion, which was legalized in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

In both 2006 and 2008, state legislators passed laws banning most abortions unless they were necessary to save a woman's life. In both cases, the laws were subsequently overturned by the state's voters at the polls.

So Ms. Sedor is (at least in that one quote) saying (like I have) the intent may not be malicious, but the law itself is.

I've already explained how the law couldn't possibly be merely about making fetal homicide laws consistent and that the intent didn't matter because it is the LETTER OF THE LAW that is inane and will actually have an effect.

Your only reply was to call those arguments (along with a quote from your own pro-life blog source about how these pro-life efforts are "ridiculous") ad hominems.