Jump to content
IGNORED

Arkansas Fetal Heartbeat Bill - Be afraid!


Buzzard

Recommended Posts

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

Who the fuck are you to impose your views on women? If women want to get an abortion, they will, whether it's illegal or not. What are you gonna do to women who have miscarriages, periods, abortionists, and such? Will you punish them personally? Will you force them to show you their medical info to see if they were deserving enough to get an abortion in your eyes when you're not the 1 getting an abortion? What about the other sperm that 1 sperm killed when he collided with the egg?

How will you save those babies? Or do they not count as babies? If not, then why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

The foster care system is already overburdened.

Many children age out of system, without ever being adopted. These fundies whine about cost of welfare, yet they want more unwanted babies to be born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

Its one option. But so is abortion. But tell me why a potential human has the rights over a woman's body, when an actual human does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the fuckwits who want this legislation enacted will have a rebuttal for every point made.

Unmarried but pregnant? Well, you shouldn't be having sex in the first place outside of the sanctity of marriage. SLUT!

Married but pregnant as the result of a birth control failure? What are you doing using birth control? It's against god's will and KILLS BABIES! Women are born to breed, even if it kills them.

Married and pregnant but financially unable to support a child? God will provide.

The life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy? Women are born to breed even if it kills them.

Something is catastrophically wrong with the embryo/fetus and it's certain to die at birth or survive in great pain? It's god's will and he never hands you anything you can't handle.

Logic will never prevail given the fundie mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

Its one option. But so is abortion. But tell me why a potential human has the rights over a woman's body, when an actual human does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Smuggar would snap an Instagram pic of J'Chelle's casket in the grave, and caption it, "We just buried my mother." The next shot would be Smuggs celebrating with a big juicy burger.

In keeping with his Jubilee post, it would be more like "Just buried my mom!! So sad!!!!"

Fundie women really do need to start throwing off their chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a friend on facebook:

Makes me want to bang my head into the wall.

I just... :? These people cannot possibly understand the ramifications of this sort of legislation :evil: Either that or they're truly evil woman-hating monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it all boils down to the fact that no man a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just... :? These people cannot possibly understand the ramifications of this sort of legislation :evil: Either that or they're truly evil woman-hating monsters.

But it's not about the wimmenz it's about the babeeezzz. :roll: I agree they can only see what they want to see, which is not in the best interest of anyone except them.

Cross-posted with NovemberRain - I second that! But want to add, no woman has the right to tell another woman what to do with her own body!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

I respect your right to that opinion, but I just can't respect an opinion I feel is wrong. You can't make decisions for my body.

edit And I contacted everyone I could on the list given earlier to make sure of that. Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What these idiots don't get is that it boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy. A human does not have to give up a part of his/her body for the life of another.

I like to use the following example:

Let's say my son has a bone marrow disease and I am the only match in the whole wide world. My son will die if he doesn't get a bone marrow transplant. There is no law saying that I must donate my bone marrow to him. Even if it is certain he's going to die. I get to choose what to do with my body. (This is just an example and I would surely donate to my son if this were the case).

It's the same with abortion. I don't have to give up my uterus, be sick, take time off work, pay expensive medical bills, etc. for another human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a friend on facebook:

Makes me want to bang my head into the wall.

I have said this previously on another thread: not only can ectopic pregnancies that cannot safely go to term have heartbeats (as someone else here has already pointed out), so do heart cells in a petri dish. It is fascinating to watch those heart cells beating. Those cells will not, however, form into an embryo, let alone a viable fetus, and anyone who thinks they will knows nothing about science. The existence of a heartbeat does not indicate the presence of a baby.

:angry-steamingears:

(You should have seen the unredacted version.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What these idiots don't get is that it boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy. A human does not have to give up a part of his/her body for the life of another.

I like to use the following example:

Let's say my son has a bone marrow disease and I am the only match in the whole wide world. My son will die if he doesn't get a bone marrow transplant. There is no law saying that I must donate my bone marrow to him. Even if it is certain he's going to die. I get to choose what to do with my body. (This is just an example and I would surely donate to my son if this were the case).

It's the same with abortion. I don't have to give up my uterus, be sick, take time off work, pay expensive medical bills, etc. for another human.

It is messed up that we believe in bodily autonomy enough not to harvest people's organs after they're dead and don't need them anymore, unless they've indicated ahead of time that they want to donate them, yet SOME OF US believe that a woman's uterus can be commandeered at any time, whether she wants to loan it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is messed up that we believe in bodily autonomy enough not to harvest people's organs after they're dead and don't need them anymore, unless they've indicated ahead of time that they want to donate them, yet SOME OF US believe that a woman's uterus can be commandeered at any time, whether she wants to loan it or not.

I was reading on some personhood site about the bone marrow example and bodily autonomy. Their argument was that, in that instance, a right to bodily autonomy was fine because the person needing the bone marrow transplant would die of natural causes.

Hey idiots...guess what happens when you take the mother away from an embryo/fetus?

It dies of natural causes!!! It cannot survive without the mother just like the leukemia patient can't survive without a donor. It is the same effing thing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this seriously angers me. I have actually worked for the Dept. of Children Services in a very conservative state. Our budgets were always the first to be cut under republican leadership. When doing so, they put children at greater risk. Let's be honest here. These same idiots that claim they want to save the unborn babies do not give a flying damn about the actual children within their communities. If they did, why do they always cut back on things that help living children, like healthcare, education, housing, and food, etc.?

I could go on and on about the massive amount of bull shit these types of politicians did to our department and children. All I got was an earful about how it was not the government's responsibilty to care for people's children. Hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this seriously angers me. I have actually worked for the Dept. of Children Services in a very conservative state. Our budgets were always the first to be cut under republican leadership. When doing so, they put children at greater risk. Let's be honest here. These same idiots that claim they want to save the unborn babies do not give a flying damn about the actual children within their communities. If they did, why do they always cut back on things that help living children, like healthcare, education, housing, and food, etc.?

I could go on and on about the massive amount of bull shit these types of politicians did to our department and children. All I got was an earful about how it was not the government's responsibilty to care for people's children. Hypocrites.

You mean like this fine, upstanding example of a judge?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4490&start=40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an abortion when I was 5ish weeks pregnant. No regrets. I've never thought about the embryo as my possible child. To me, it was an expensive missed period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was "Just buried my little sister. God is good!!"

I think this pic was what started the mega threads of "josh duggar's instagram" The original pic is here:

http://instagram.com/p/ZIl0S/

Just buried my lil sis! She was only 19 weeks old...Not an easy one! God is good!

The thread:

http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewto ... &start=240

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just... :? These people cannot possibly understand the ramifications of this sort of legislation :evil: Either that or they're truly evil woman-hating monsters.

I think they just genuinely don't understand. They live in a fantasy world where unplanned pregnancies don't happen, God always answers prayers, and everyone is always very very happy. They just don't see how any of these issues could ever be relevant to their world. Josh is being an ass, but he honestly has no idea what he's doing here. He's only been taught to think about abortion one way, and everyone he's every talked to has agreed with him. He's never been exposed to other viewpoints. Ugh. The sheltered man-child is almost as exasperating as this assault on women and the pocketbook of Arkansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just... :? These people cannot possibly understand the ramifications of this sort of legislation :evil: Either that or they're truly evil woman-hating monsters.

I think they just genuinely don't understand. They live in a fantasy world where unplanned pregnancies don't happen, God always answers prayers, and everyone is always very very happy. They just don't see how any of these issues could ever be relevant to their world. Josh is being an ass, but he honestly has no idea what he's doing here. He's only been taught to think about abortion one way, and everyone he's every talked to has agreed with him. He's never been exposed to other viewpoints. Ugh. The sheltered man-child is almost as exasperating as this assault on women and the pocketbook of Arkansas.

Josh is being exposed to other viewpoints via his Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook accounts. I'm sure he also gets gets well reasoned emails from folks via his JA20 website. He also now has access to news papers and the media. Josh chooses NOT to avail himself of these opportunities to consider a point of view contrary to his narrow minded, poorly educated upbringing. It will take something HUGE to get his attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

Many conservatives believe that if a woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted child that she will give the child up for adoption. Yet, we read many news stories of children who were tortured to death by their own parents. Why didn't these parents give the child up for adoption? Because parents-even if they are crappy individuals-don't always do what is best for their offspring.

I've been pregnant five times. There is no way, I'd force another woman to give birth to an unwanted child. First, she might resent her pregnancy and not to do things like give up alcohol and smoking. She might not take care of herself or eat properly. Second, pregnancy takes a toll on a woman's body. What right do I have to tell another woman that she will sacrifice months of her life when she doesn't want to do so? Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is bad for both the mother and the future child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every once and a while, someone asks me about whether or not I'd ever consider moving to the South, and why not, and I can't tell them why not because it would involve an hour-long rage-filled rant full of shit like this. It's not even the unofficially outlawing abortion thing that bugs me so much, but the general nonsensicalness of it all. Do they not think of the consequences of this? Are they not capable of it? Are they just stupid? Or do they just simply not care that they're creating problems rather than solving them? Do they think that people are just going to stop having sex, or that women are all suddenly going to become all gung-ho about motherhood when they don't have a viable alternative? I have a really, really hard time wrapping my head around what they expect the consequences of such things to be.

It's not even the bodily autonomy aspect so much for me. That's part of it, yes, but more so it's the whole bringing a dependent human being into the world who you will have to care for for 20 odd years, whose health and future you can make or break. That's a tremendous amount of responsibility and power over someone vulnerable to take on, and it should not be forced on someone involuntarily. Ever. I would hate to see what a generation of children who were raised by mothers who didn't want them and couldn't adequately take care of them would look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.