The womb Nazis are at it again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
...no law has ever been passed and no law will ever be passed and no law will ever be proposed to be passed which would prohibit the use of contraceptives......
Click to expand...

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[SUP] [/SUP]was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm self employed.....what's your excuse....
Click to expand...

You're self-employed but you had to turn signatures off so you could "read the boards at work". People who are their own boss do still refer to being in the office as being at work, I myself do. But I've never had to turn off the signatures or anything else in order to read the board here...
 
Darla said:
You're self-employed but you had to turn signatures off so you could "read the boards at work". People who are their own boss do still refer to being in the office as being at work, I myself do. But I've never had to turn off the signatures or anything else in order to read the board here...
Click to expand...

Another PiMP lie?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah do I still have a signature?......I turned those off over a year ago, so I could read the boards at work.....I assumed that deleted mine....and no, I'm laughing at you for thinking that something that happened in the 1800s meant your posts weren't stupid......I suppose one could also argue the left is bringing back slavery, because they did it in the 1800s........
Click to expand...

Just another reminder it has nothing to do with bringing anything back. It has to do with you claiming "no law has ever been passed" which was shown to be untrue. Rather than admit you made an error you attempted to put a time limit on "ever". Your error then progressed to a lie as you were aware of your error but continued to defend it.

Obviously you're aware of what a child is capable of understanding so that makes you a liar. As for laughing about it that is the reaction of an idiot.
 
Darla said:
You're self-employed but you had to turn signatures off so you could "read the boards at work". People who are their own boss do still refer to being in the office as being at work, I myself do. But I've never had to turn off the signatures or anything else in order to read the board here...
Click to expand...

I'm sure he will offer some reason/excuse. Give him a bit of time to think of one. :rolleyes:
 
Darla said:
You're self-employed but you had to turn signatures off so you could "read the boards at work". People who are their own boss do still refer to being in the office as being at work, I myself do. But I've never had to turn off the signatures or anything else in order to read the board here...
Click to expand...

yes dear......the way my office is situated, clients entering can see my monitor.....I didn't feel like explaining to my clients why there were pictures of women in swimsuits on my monitor.......now, if there's nothing else, please fuck off.....
 
apple0154 said:
Just another reminder it has nothing to do with bringing anything back. It has to do with you claiming "no law has ever been passed" which was shown to be untrue. Rather than admit you made an error you attempted to put a time limit on "ever". Your error then progressed to a lie as you were aware of your error but continued to defend it.
Click to expand...

no dumbfuck.....it has to do with you claiming someone was trying to make contraception illegal....a stupid claim when you made it and a stupid claim now.......yet for some reason you only are willing to talk about the 1800s instead of defending your stupid claim.......
 
Haiku said:
I have to ask what you consider birth control.
Click to expand...


Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages.

Thats what birth control is in the generic sense....

Of course we all KNOW preventing fertilization and interrupting pregnancy(abortion) is two different things...
 
bravo said:
Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages.

Thats what birth control is in the generic sense....

Of course we all KNOW preventing fertilization and interrupting pregnancy(abortion) is two different things...
Click to expand...
Well it seems that you're incorrect. Given the fertilized egg as person laws the entire definition would be changed...in which case what birth control would still be available in your view.

I don't know why it's so hard for you guys to understand your own point of view and talking points...*sigh*

Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives “abortive pills.” And two former Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have made similar statements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

The fact that they're making such a noise about this means that they are after birth control....
 
Last edited:
Haiku said:
The fact that they're making such a noise about this means that they are after birth control....
Click to expand...

an obviously false claim since no birth control methods (the majority of methods) that didn't involve killing a living being would be effected....all you would lose is abortion and one of the two types of morning after pill......

and, if the law stated "conception" instead of "fertilization" you wouldn't lose the morning after pill either......
 
I can hardly believe how uninformed you are but you're a man on a mission...LMAO

Reproductive Rights Historical Highlights
FORWARD PROGRESS:

1965 — Griswold v. Connecticut
The Supreme Court nullified a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of birth control by married persons, arguing that the right to marital privacy protects the access of married couples to contraceptives.

1972 — Eisenstadt v. Baird
The Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of birth control to unmarried adults.

1973 — Roe v. Wade
By a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life, extending the fundamental right to privacy to a woman's decision to choose abortion.

1976 — Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
The Court ruled against a Missouri statute that would force a married woman to obtain her husband's approval before getting an abortion and ruled against a written parental consent requirement for minors.

THE BACKLASH & THE RESPONSE:

1977 — Maher v. Roe
The Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut ban on public funding for abortions, with the exception of abortions that were "medically necessary."

1980 — Harris v. McRae
The Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal Medicaid funding of abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life.

1989 — Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
The court upheld a Missouri law prohibiting the use of public employees and public facilities for the purpose of performing abortions that were not medically necessary.

1992 — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
The Supreme Court, while refusing to overturn Roe, nevertheless upheld a laundry list of abortion restrictions (parental consent, anti-abortion counseling, and a waiting period) only invalidating spousal notification.

1994 — Congress enacts the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

1994 — NOW v. Scheidler
The Supreme Court affirmed NOW's right to use federal anti-racketeering laws against anti-abortion terrorists who organize others to use fear, force and violence to shut down women's health clinics where abortions are performed. The Court is now reviewing the nationwide injunction we won in 1999, which was upheld by the 4th Circuit.

2000 — The FDA approves mifepristone (RU-486), following a 16-year struggle by reproductive rights activists to have the safe and effective abortion drug approved. Opponents made repeated efforts to prevent approval and distribution of mifepristone and are continuing efforts through a petition to the FDA to have the drug withdrawn.

2001 — The Bush administration reinstates the global "gag" rule that was first adopted in 1984 by the Reagan administration and later lifted when President Clinton came into office. The "gag" rule is an anti-free speech and anti-democratic policy which has caused 430 organizations in 50 countries to stop performing abortions or speaking about abortion laws in order to qualify for U.S. funding. Over 80,000 women around the world die each year from unsafe and illegal abortions and hundreds of thousands suffer complications from unsafe abortions.

2002 — The Bush administration tries to install a right wing, religious ideologue, who has led efforts to get the FDA to reverse approval of mifepristone, as head of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

2003 — Congress passes and Bush signs the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban—the first federal ban on an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Bush signs the bill, which does not include an exception to preserve a woman's health, while surrounded by a group of smiling men.

2004 — The House of Representatives passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, which would for the first time establish in federal law a fetus as a legal "person," with individual rights separate from those of the pregnant woman.

Compiled from: Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, NARAL Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Reproductive Rights, NOW Archives, Planned Parenthood Roe v. Wade Timeline
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not at all.....no birth control that prevented fertilization (which is all birth control other than abortificants) would be affected at all........
Click to expand...

You are parsing and you know it. Yet you maintain there is no effort to end birth control...what a joke. I'm still waiting for a list of approved birth control methods from you.

You're a shining example of why the radical religious right has such a bad rep. You're dishonest.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
an obviously false claim since no birth control methods (the majority of methods) that didn't involve killing a living being would be effected....all you would lose is abortion and one of the two types of morning after pill......

and, if the law stated "conception" instead of "fertilization" you wouldn't lose the morning after pill either......
Click to expand...

Another false claim by you.
 
Haiku said:
You are parsing and you know it. Yet you maintain there is no effort to end birth control...what a joke. I'm still waiting for a list of approved birth control methods from you.

You're a shining example of why the radical religious right has such a bad rep. You're dishonest.
Click to expand...

why are you waiting for a list from me....I gave it to you last night......I am parsing nothing.....basically only abortion would be prevented, except for possibly a morning after pill......if you weren't stupid enough to think that abortion was a method of birth control, the concept of limiting birth control wouldn't even be on the menu......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top