Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "New Law Could Make Abortion Punishable By Death" video.

It is you caps lock smedly who has no argument. You literally have the same potion as morally bankrupt Saudi's and it means you are going the wrong way.
3
Should be allowed anyway .. forced birth is not necessary or even desirable and is this s a power play alone.
3
There is no debate with you clowns because you are all feelings over facts and have already decided that punishing woman for having sex is perfectly ok but letting them die after because they can not afford health care is their own fault. The anti choice movement is the fake one, it has been made an identity politics wedge issue so that you vote against your own interests economically so your leaders can press the repressive anti freedom bullshit cons always crave and always have. PS: It is literally not a child until it is viable, before then is at best a fetus and is named something else for a reason. You clowns hate facts, hate them.
2
Vote some of those monsters out already .. WTF.
1
They do not care .. they are not and never have been fiscally responsible.
1
Chuck Fern Running a court case costs money, a lot of money and extra costs for the judges etc for these actions costs tax payer a great deal and does not allow these people to do the work they were hired for instead focusing on making 18% of the population happy with regressive laws to make them turn out and vote for economic cancer your party represents. They do not care about the money they waste because it is ours not theirs and as long as they play their games you and yours will vote for this cancer.
1
This is brutal republican logic that ignores the fact we are actually principled and believe in freedom, cons do not and never have. They want a government so big it is in every woman's vagina.
1
How .. what is fake? You look stupid as you type this.
1
Nice .. might as well. I bet will not see the pile of old guys voting these laws in passing that.
1
Not really, the laws you refer to just have not been challenged. They were put in place specifically to try to create the ambiguity you speak of. As of now they have not been tested and that is why they are in place. The fact is the roe vs wade was about woman's health care and the ruling on the practice of getting an abortion is settled, they can not outlaw it again under the existing precedent and that is why they are trying fancy end runs like these to slowly chip away at it.
1
@thefreestofspeech6951 Your assertion it has nothing to do with woman's health care is ridiculous. Roe v wade was not about woman dying because of abortion but it was about setting a standard that half the population could not have their health choices determined by the government. Laws against abortion laws are targeted only on woman and are by their very nature innately discriminatory and that is the root of the judgment. Our very conservative abortion laws were an attempt to balance concerns of the fetus to mitigate suffering against the innate right of the woman to control her body. The fact is there is not even any religious basis for banning abortion at all as the only place the bible talks about abortion it explains when it was sanctioned and how to do it. This bullshit is a stupid repressive anti freedom wedge issue sold by the right to trick people into voting against their own interests by supporting overt corporate sellouts. Your imagined standard is a actually pretty new phenomena in it's current form and is not historical in any sense. The "pro life" asserted concern for life is contrary to the rest of the policy anti choice voters consistently support. The same people supposedly outraged about the "loss of life" due to abortions support capital punishment, signature drone strikes that kill arbitrarily, unending offensive wars that kill hundreds of thousands of non combatants and the right of our cops or those who feel threatened to shoot other citizens without question. Even if the idea of banning abortion was historical, Slavery was traditional, beatings for woman who talk back was traditional, imprisonment or death for religious unbelief was standard. Because we did stupid things in the past is no reason to do them now Mr. Free speech. Please note your free speech love was not valued by the societies of the past and had to be won against people exactly like you who appeal to tradition to write law.
1
@thefreestofspeech6951 The idea that anything traditional is what we should be doing because it was tradition is empty, laws change and the courts are not in a peculiar position at all. The laws as they are stand are very clear cut and if one can not make a distinction between an assault and a medical procedure you are trying really hard to be confused. They have no role in acknowledging a double stranded because you have to squint real hard and ignore supreme court rulings to do so. The assertion of pro choice people is not the a fetus is nothing, it is that it is the woman's choice to carry it to term or not. Assaulting a woman, hurting her and taking away that choice warrants extra punishment to those who would so. Both male and females who are anti choice represent a minority, in that group woman only slightly outnumber men. The key determining factor is not their sex but their religious and political affiliation and it is inconsequential to what their sex is as I never made the argument men can not discuss this issue. Almost all anti choice single issue votes are deeply religious and a it is a religious spin that drives the movement. The woman in that group will never have to get an abortion if they don't want one and the men in that group should h ave nothing to say about how woman manage their health. You treasure free speech but stand beside assholes who would step on it the second they could, the moment you said anything the disliked. It has been the left that has fought and won our free speech rights from the right who has never valued anything but the establishment spin. The right has lost every single fight to restrict our speech and the only reason we have the freedom we do today is because we (the left) fought and won it. Loser kids on campus are acting like right wingers as they foolishly try to silence speech they dislike and we call them regressive because they are acting like cons. The left has fought for the free speech and it is a fundamental liberal principle while the right only ever stands for free speech for those they agree with. Your spin is myopic and ignores history.
1
@thefreestofspeech6951 Ya the laws you refer to are all associated with assault. Pretending a medical procedure is the same thing is purposely obtuse and criminalizes potentially a life saving procedure as an attack when it is not. A forced abortion would qualify, an elective one not. I have not decided anything, the laws you refer to are directly associated with prosecuting an assault. Ignoring that fact does not change it. Giving someone an allergen that hurts them is illegal if they are pregnant or not. Again these rules prosecute assault and not health care no matter how badly you want to extend it to a legal procedure. You are part of no majority and in fact your view point is a tiny minority in spite of your ignorant assertions. Woman only represent]t a marginally larger percentage of anti choice activists than men and to assert there are lots of woman who agree with you does not make your argument any better as the vast majority of woman (and men) are pro choice. These laws are nothing but a political trick to end run the supreme court ruling which is not actually compromised by them as it deals with health care not punishment for assault.
1
@thefreestofspeech6951 Yep and attempting to conflate them with legal medical procedures is not remotely valid as they are prosecuting assault. I do accept they exist but I do not acknowledge that an abortion qualifies in he same way getting a wart cut off at the hospital is not the same as when 4 guys holding you down and cutting it off against your will. They are attempting to extend the laws to overrun supreme court precedent but so far it is nothing more than an untested attempt to end run the existing interpretation of the ruling. The distinction I am making still exists despite your claims and has not been addressed by this lame regressive change. I have not been told abortion is a right, I am simply telling you what the established law already is and why it was ruled on the way it was. No one is defending anything but their own feelings as they attempt to extend these laws to valid legal medical procedures. This is not a principled position and is a naked attempt for the religious to assert their views on the vast majority of Americans who do not agree with them. They may get their way but I expect they will pay for it dearly in a backlash as theses fringe religious leaders spit in the faces of the american voters and go directly against public opinion instead of dealing with real issues people care about. . Americans dearly want change, if this is the lame regressive change is forced on them by this radical minority I expect the GOP will pay for it baldly at ballot box.
1
Is a wedge issue they can trick a large bock of voters with to support them against their own interest, it is trick to get the religious/stupid vote.
1
Murder is murder but your president gives religious psychos a hard pass on that because they have oil .. .
1
Agree .. that being said Hillary lost that election by spitting on half her base because she expected to get their support against a monster anyway. We should not be focusing our ire on progressives who can not support a leader that lied to their face and treated them like garbage, we need to put it where it belongs and that is on her and her campaign that did not even visit the rust belt that lost her the election.
1