#66041 by MARIAM RUSSELL on 4/24 at 2:10 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“Those same male jerks who want control over your medical care also want to limit or deny you good and reliable birth control, but also mandate thru these religions that they, men, husbands, have the ¨right¨ of access to your body.”

Correct.  I think that’s the result of them not having had mothers.  Had they such, they likely would have learned some basic differences between male and female, and respect for those differences, and their implications.  Simplest being that men, not being able to become pregnant, have no need for abortion.  That pretty much renders it none of their business, except in “shotgun” situations.

“If that is a situation you can live with, go to it. If not, just say no. Opt out. Go to school. Go to the local sex shop and learn to take care of your own needs. Why should you be in danger of a horrible death for the pleasure and convenience of some man, any man who will not even admit your right to your own life?”

Many—and not only men—believe, consciously or unconsciously, that marraige is an opportune _slavery_—only the other being the slave, of course.  The Jewish book of history stolen by those who had none, then called “bible,” was written by men who claimed an unevidenced authority—that the unevidenced speculation “God” talked to them—as self-serving power grab by excuse of which to impose their will on everyone else.

The irony is that “God” talks to me—and He swore to me, on His honor, within the last five minutes, that He didn’t talk to them, and doesn’t talk to anyone who disagrees with me.

“If you act like herd animals, then, you cannot complain when you are bred as herd animals.”

These are the people who defend “individual rights” when the “individual rights” they mean were not, even in the “bible,” attributed to the fetus?  Even the Old Testament religioterrorists—“‘God’ will hate you if you don’t obey _me_!”—were more compassionate on the point than these pre-Christian totalitarians.

#66117 by Daniel Miller on 4/24 at 8:04 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“So, you have found one example where a mother’s life was saved by performing a partial birth abortion, congrats! But what about the mega-number of these procedures where the “doctor” had to push the child back into the woman’s womb so that he/she could kill the child legally, who’s life was saved the many times that happened?”

Cite one documented example of that having happened.

We knew you couldn’t.

The Commandment—not “Request”—is, Thou shlat not lie.”  Do you even know the difference between lying, and telling the truth?

The procedure is not termed “partial birth abortion” by those who have the facts.  For one, the procedure is extremely, extremely, extremely, extrmely rare.  For another, it is not performed by professionals except when it is the only viable option by means of which to save the health/life of the mother, because it too is subject to serious risks.

“What about the children that were totally viable but were inconvenient to the mother, not a real threat physically, but perhaps to her lifestyle. Did these children deserve to die just because the mother didn’t want them??”

Cite one documented case to which your uninformed anti-intellectual emotionalism applies—even outside this procedure.

We knew you couldn’t.

Since it is a christian philosophy that life begins at conception and that men are above women is this really a surprise.  Christian men really do believe they are above women and have not only the god-given right to make this decision but the responsiblity also.  For them, there isn’t any “reasoning” on the issue and the facts will never supercede bible teachings.

The first step to remedy this is to announce to the world that America is NOT a christian nation and does not makes its laws to coincide with biblical beliefs.

A terric, tender article.  Properly apprehdning and respecting the risk a human female takes every time she gets pregnant.  There are no words sufficient to honor the enormous faith women have in attempting to contribute to the future.

As for holding these “justices” responsible: for one, being co-equal, Congress can overturn the SC’s decisons.  And it isn’t all that rare that they’ve done so.

For another: having stolen the election/been unconstitutionally appointed by a branch of gov’t that usurped the exclusive power of another, separate branch, Bush, et al., is illegitimate.  As a principle of law, everything which flows from an unconstitutionality is null-and-void.  A proper impeachment will reverse each and every of Bush, et al., actions, up to and including appointment of SC justices.

Americans are going to pay with their lives with this decision. All it will take is one death for the sh*t to hit the fan.

We should be able to hold these justices responsible.

What hypocrits.