Voicing opinions

Mike I am glad someone from the Jorgidian cult has joined the conversation. Jorge, said that if a woman is killed / murdered with a fetus intact, the perpetrator SHOULD SHOULD be charged with double murder. Thus by admission, Jorge admits the fetus is alive, because no one can kill / murder someone, who is not alive.

Jorge, in other words, you have lost the debate, and you know you’re only going to dig an even a bigger hole So you’ve decided to put your tail between your legs and give up.. By the way, you were the one who brought it up.

Hello, Michael O

I'm just settling in after spending the afternoon and early evening down on the Farm watching Stanford beat Cal Poly 41-7.

When it comes to DJ readers, I think they can move the needle on this issue and find some of the common ground mentioned in your LTE last month if everyone clearly defines their terms. My sense of it is that most of the folks on the right side of the aisle do not oppose abortion during the first trimester. Oh, I'm sure there might be some "Abortion Never!" absolutists out there, but they are keeping their heads down. Where the other folks (non-absolutists) on the right side of the aisle draw the line where abortions should be restricted depends on where they feel legal abortions should be limited... that seems to be somewhere in that middle ground described in my earlier post.

I hope I'm correct in assuming that most of the folks on the left side of the aisle do not align themselves with the extreme position that advocates for abortion upon demand at any time during a pregnancy. Are those readers on the left side of the aisle somewhere near that middle ground? IDK

I have asked some left leaning readers if they support the extreme position of abortion upon demand at any time during a pregnancy... they did not respond. They did not define their terms. Might they feel like they "lost" the debate if they confirm their position is somewhere in that middle ground? IDK Might they feel they would be painted with the broad brush used by Bill Maher to describe pro-choice advocates... and they don't want to be associated with an extreme position on the issue? IDK

Maybe the needle can be moved on this issue if the persons on the extreme right side AND extreme left side of the debate can be drawn toward that middle ground.

But Jorge, then why can someone be charged with a double murder, which YOU, YOU, YOU, stated if a fetus is only a part of a woman's body? Do you remember your own words or do you have Joe Biden dementia? In this game of chess and reality, you blew it. Your own words show and prove that the fetus is a separate person.

Jorge said, verbatim "Of course, someone who kills both a woman and the fetus inside her, should be charged with double murder, - and why not?" Great point Jorge, killing a fetus is MURDER, no matter who does it.

Not So Common and LittleFoot – ten gallon hat tips to you both for the tag team trap (intended or not). After reading this thread, I almost fell off my chair, ROFL. I envision Jorg triggering a giant mousetrap and now being pinned with arms and legs flailing while at the same time thinking why he didn’t cop out and write, “I have already written enough about this issue. Nothing else to elaborate on, nor has abortion ever been a personal issue.” That would have been the better move but we all know Jorg relies more on emotion and misplaced pride than logic, as you’ve both shown. BTW, Not So Common, I love the apt “Jorgidian cult” descriptor. I hope it’s okay if I borrow it every now and then.

LOL you are an absolute lunatic brother. So riddle me this - when exactly is the singular point that a "fetus" becomes a child? And you flip flop between saying "inside" and "part of her body" - it cant be both. Maybe you dont even remember what you type anymore - who even cares what you think. I really dont take any joy in putting morons in their place - but Jorg you should realistically never speak again after this.

So, what about a heart, or liver, LittleFoot? Inside someone's body, or a part of the body? Can't be both, at least according to Trumpian logic?

Good afternoon, Jorg

You know... there is a state considering abortion upon demand up to 18 weeks with provisions to obtain an abortion up to week 22 in cases of severe medical risk. However, abortions beyond that point for viable fetuses would not be permitted.

I would be OK with abortion upon demand up to 18 weeks plus exceptions up to the 22-week mark. Would you?

Oh, yeah... where is this place considering such an abortion policy?

Norway.

When there are 2 hearts inside of one body - what does that mean Jorg? Thats a rhetorical question btw - and I genuinely do not want a response from you. Your last comment demonstrated how far gone you are. RIP Jorg.

Westy, your faux outrage is affecting your writing. What is an “incubater fro”? Regardless, why are you trying to force your narrow opinion of women on others? That may be how you feel about yourself and other women to try to make your argument valid but trust me, your argument still doesn’t make sense. Slow down and please try again.

My dear Terence, I am quoting you. In another thread you said explicitly that women and girls are baby making machines. Machines are things. When you enslave people, i.e. by taking from them their bodily autonomy and forcing them to carry pregnancies, you are, de facto, declaring them as things.

My dear Westy, I’m honored (flattered actually) that you pay such close attention to my comments. What you’ve conveniently forgotten is that I was responding to your hysterical screeching while also reminding you that men don’t give birth. Your argument remains flawed because it is still based upon you forcing your beliefs on others. Please try again. And to follow Ray Fowler’s lead, one more time…So what is an “incubater fro”?

And thank you for making the point that you would like to force your narrow religious views on others. Other religions prioritize the choices, health, future ability to reproduce, and potential for death of the pregnant person. You priorize incubating a fetus which may or may not even be viable.

Good morning, Westy

Fair enough. It was a lot of words, but it took a lot of words to refute a false claim about my position on a topic where we do find a lot of words being said.

So, I'll reduce to it all to a lot fewer words... Are you outside the middle ground? Are you advocating for abortion upon request at any time during a pregnancy? Should there be a limitation on aborting a human being that is viable outside the womb?

Ray, the term "abortion on demand" means that a woman or girl does not need the permission of the government, her husband, or her father to get an abortion.

People do not carry pregnancies into the third trimester and then lightly ask for an abortion--that scenario may occur on rare occasion but mostly is just a right-wing propaganda lie to gin up emotion.

Late stage abortions are almost always done for very good reasons, and you can't actually parse those reasons into legislation in order to decide for her if her life or health are enough at risk or if the fetal damage passes a certain threshold of viability. It is a very personal and difficult decision and should remain with the pregnant person, with her doctors freely able to give their best advice and care without risking prison time.

One more time... Are you advocating for abortion upon request at any time during a pregnancy? Should there be a limitation on aborting a human being that is viable outside the womb?