Abortion Basically Illegal In Texas Now

[SectionC3]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Hoax.

You could, you know, show us the science.  Especially since so many people still die as a result of this virus. Your miracle cure could save lives.  Might even get you a prize.  You could be the 2022 winner of the Nobel for physiology or medicine.  The world demands no less, “Doc.”

[Niagara Bill]

8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

My point has more than a little validity. Jesus Christ is not quoted as having said anything about abortion.  Abortion is a Human Rights issue.  It's yet another "inconvenient truth" that the Left conveniently chooses to ignore.

Again you are wrong, it always pains me to have to tell you.

"Thou shalt not kill", very basic religion based. Written by Jesus father as told by Moses.

The Human Rights thing comes from that. 

 

[SectionC3]

26 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Again you are wrong, it always pains me to have to tell you.

"Thou shalt not kill", very basic religion based. Written by Jesus father as told by Moses.

The Human Rights thing comes from that. 

 

 

Isn't the translation thou shall not murder?  I suppose it doesn't make a difference in the abortion context, but the semantical distinction is interesting in other areas.  I suppose it might justify the (utterly obtuse and hypocritical) view that any form of abortion is wrong, but executing pursuant to the death penalty is morally acceptable. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by SectionC3

[SoCal Deek]

47 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Again you are wrong, it always pains me to have to tell you.

"Thou shalt not kill", very basic religion based. Written by Jesus father as told by Moses.

The Human Rights thing comes from that. 

 

Wait a minute….your last post said murder isn't a religious issue, but more of a universally accepted morality matter. Which one is it? 

[Backintheday544]

This law infringes on religious liberties. An exemption needs to be made for anyone that says they’re part of the Satanic Temple:

 

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/satanic-temple-challenges-texas-abortion-law/285-edf8b1f8-8605-4e6d-9331-afeefe1e5352
 

“The Satanic Temple stands ready to assist any member that shares its deeply-held religious convictions regarding the right to reproductive freedom,” wrote the group on its website. “Accordingly, we encourage any member who resides in Texas and wishes to undergo the Satanic Abortion Ritual within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy to contact The Satanic Temple so we may help them fight this law directly.”

 

One of the seven beliefs on the Satanic Temple’s website reads, “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”

 

Another says, “Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.”   

 

 

—— 

I’m sure our right wing friends fully support this because Freedom.

[SoCal Deek]

47 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

This law infringes on religious liberties. An exemption needs to be made for anyone that says they’re part of the Satanic Temple:

 

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/satanic-temple-challenges-texas-abortion-law/285-edf8b1f8-8605-4e6d-9331-afeefe1e5352
 

“The Satanic Temple stands ready to assist any member that shares its deeply-held religious convictions regarding the right to reproductive freedom,” wrote the group on its website. “Accordingly, we encourage any member who resides in Texas and wishes to undergo the Satanic Abortion Ritual within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy to contact The Satanic Temple so we may help them fight this law directly.”

 

One of the seven beliefs on the Satanic Temple’s website reads, “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”

 

Another says, “Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.”   

 

 

—— 

I’m sure our right wing friends fully support this because Freedom.

Huh?

Nice try

[Backintheday544]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Huh?

Nice try

So you’re going to stop a religion from its rituals because…….? Seems like tyranny to me.

[Niagara Bill]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wait a minute….your last post said murder isn't a religious issue, but more of a universally accepted morality matter. Which one is it? 

You do not have to be religious to know murdering your neighbor is wrong, or Hitler was wrong, or genocide is wrong.

 

Both for abortion too. Those who fight it based it on religion,  others it is a moral issue. Hard to define.

Just to make it clear.

I am a fiscal conservative and pro choice. My wife would be pro choice but could never imagine making the choice to having an abortion. 

 

I can be friends with anti folks, just not those who preach their flippin religious bs and suggest I am the devil for being pro choice. 

 

Always find it strange that many anti are freedom thinkers when it comes to guns, masks, death penalty and vaccines

 

Have a good day dude. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

43 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You do not have to be religious to know murdering your neighbor is wrong, or Hitler was wrong, or genocide is wrong.

 

Both for abortion too. Those who fight it based it on religion,  others it is a moral issue. Hard to define.

Just to make it clear.

I am a fiscal conservative and pro choice. My wife would be pro choice but could never imagine making the choice to having an abortion. 

 

I can be friends with anti folks, just not those who preach their flippin religious bs and suggest I am the devil for being pro choice. 

 

Always find it strange that many anti are freedom thinkers when it comes to guns, masks, death penalty and vaccines

 

Have a good day dude. 

Why is it strange?  It seems perfectly logical to me—life is complicated and people complex. 
 

I’m not pro-choice, but I am pro-reasonable.  I think the suite of abortive offerings of Virginia and NY are barbaric.  I think abortion up to 3 months is pretty awful generally but I can understand why it makes sense to some people.  
 

I’m a male, I think I have a right to an opinion, and recognize that if I was talking to the young Lenny he would think differently, though not markedly so.  
 

I think some medical professionals offer abortions because there is good money in it, some because they believe in choice and there is good money in it, and some likely would donate their services to needy people. 
 

What I’ve always thought sorta strange is that given the pro-choice standards employed by liberal minded folks, why they would think the sperm provider has any obligation to the woman carrying the child.  
 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

52 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You do not have to be religious to know murdering your neighbor is wrong, or Hitler was wrong, or genocide is wrong.

 

Both for abortion too. Those who fight it based it on religion,  others it is a moral issue. Hard to define.

Just to make it clear.

I am a fiscal conservative and pro choice. My wife would be pro choice but could never imagine making the choice to having an abortion. 

 

I can be friends with anti folks, just not those who preach their flippin religious bs and suggest I am the devil for being pro choice. 

 

Always find it strange that many anti are freedom thinkers when it comes to guns, masks, death penalty and vaccines

 

Have a good day dude. 

I wish you the best as well.  You seem to draw some self defined magic line between religion and morality.  Going to Church on Sunday, or temple on Saturday, abstaining from meat on Friday, or not eating shellfish are religious matters.  Murder on the other hand is a generally accepted moral principle.  I'd put it to you that those who oppose abortion oppose it as a moral concept, not because of some religious tenant, as you seem ready to suggest.

[Doc]

5 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

You could, you know, show us the science.  Especially since so many people still die as a result of this virus. Your miracle cure could save lives.  Might even get you a prize.  You could be the 2022 winner of the Nobel for physiology or medicine.  The world demands no less, “Doc.”

 

Do me a favor and take a look at the "The Next Pandemic" thread.  Specifically the (as of right now) penultimate post by Big Blitz.  Now what about that?

 

Besides that kill shot, the (finally properly-done) study is out there Gibbons.  If you can't accept it, and you obviously have every reason not to, that's on you, not me.  You've lost.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Doc

[Niagara Bill]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Why is it strange?  It seems perfectly logical to me—life is complicated and people complex. 
 

I’m not pro-choice, but I am pro-reasonable.  I think the suite of abortive offerings of Virginia and NY are barbaric.  I think abortion up to 3 months is pretty awful generally but I can understand why it makes sense to some people.  
 

I’m a male, I think I have a right to an opinion, and recognize that if I was talking to the young Lenny he would think differently, though not markedly so.  
 

I think some medical professionals offer abortions because there is good money in it, some because they believe in choice and there is good money in it, and some likely would donate their services to needy people. 
 

What I’ve always thought sorta strange is that given the pro-choice standards employed by liberal minded folks, why they would think the sperm provider has any obligation to the woman carrying the child.  
 

 

 

Well thought out. Pro reasonable is a reasoned position. I think I fit that mold. 

 

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Do me a favor and take a look at the "The Next Pandemic" thread.  Specifically the (as of right now) penultimate post by Big Blitz.  Now what about that?

 

Besides that kill shot, the (finally properly-done) study is out there Gibbons.  If you can't accept it, and you obviously have every reason not to, that's on you, not me.  You've lost.

 

“Properly-done study is out there.”  But not here.  Any time you want to prove it exists, instead of cryptically pretending that it exists, let us know.  Until then, don’t dust off space on the mantle for the 2022 Nobel.  Or get yourself busy saving lives with HCQ and horse dewormer.  Dealer’s choice.  

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

“Properly-done study is out there.”  But not here.  Any time you want to prove it exists, instead of cryptically pretending that it exists, let us know.  Until then, don’t dust off space on the mantle for the 2022 Nobel.  Or get yourself busy saving lives with HCQ and horse dewormer.  Dealer’s choice.  

 

I'm not here to do your homework for you Gibbons.  Although with that Hopkins blunder, maybe I should...

But in any case, Tony told you all you need to know about HCQ and Wuhan virus.  And he's the man, right?

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm not here to do your homework for you Gibbons.  Although with that Hopkins blunder, maybe I should...

But in any case, Tony told you all you need to know about HCQ and Wuhan virus.  And he's the man, right?

Big Blitz at least gave us a study from 2005 about use of the subject drug in animals that (obviously) couldn’t consider the virus in question.  (That’s the penultimate post to which you referred.). You’ve given us nothing recent about the efficacy of HCQ in humans with respect to COVID-19.  

 

So, you can repeat your Q platitudes and insults. and pretend you have science to support your garbage position about the garbage treatments that you promote.  Or, you could give us the science that supports your view that HCQ and Ivermectin are effective treatments for COVID-19.  Dealer’s choice, “Doc.”  

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Big Blitz at least gave us a study from 2005 about use of the subject drug in animals that (obviously) couldn’t consider the virus in question.  (That’s the penultimate post to which you referred.). You’ve given us nothing recent about the efficacy of HCQ in humans with respect to COVID-19.  

 

So, you can repeat your Q platitudes and insults. and pretend you have science to support your garbage position about the garbage treatments that you promote.  Or, you could give us the science that supports your view that HCQ and Ivermectin are effective treatments for COVID-19.  Dealer’s choice, “Doc.”  

 

Hoax.  Tony is the first person to tout HCQ, not Trump.  And it's safe unlike what your masters told you.  Man that's got to be such a gut punch to you libs!

 

You lost Gibbons.  Keep making a further fool of yourself if you wish. 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Hoax.  Tony is the first person to tout HCQ, not Trump.  And it's safe unlike what your masters told you.  Man that's got to be such a gut punch to you libs!

 

You lost Gibbons.  Keep making a further fool of yourself if you wish. 

 

 

One thing our official clown car scientific community, or the slow-witted media and other self-proclaimed experts, can't explain is how the early and aggressive outpatient treatment of households and family units with Ivermectin in India coincided with a 97% reduction in cases in Delhi over a 28 day period this past May.  Other States using the protocol also showed improvement and conversely those that did not saw cases rise.  Could something else be responsible?  Perhaps, but to this point there is no reasonable or "scientific" explanation to suggest anything other factor drove down Delta cases.  The country went from the worst outbreak to being out of the conversation today.  This is a country with very low vaccine rates.  Even after all these cases and deaths piled up the US still has more cases and more deaths even with the benefit of our expensive and bloated healthcare system.    

 

But here in the U.S., cheap and readily available solutions not producing Big Pharma revenues and profits just don't reside in the DNA of America's decision makers.  Their flippant arrogance to dismiss anything outside of the box they reside in is a pathetic substitute for the science they claim to follow.  The only thing worse is the close minded idiots who continue to defend it.      

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

One thing our official clown car scientific community, or the slow-witted media and other self-proclaimed experts, can't explain is how the early and aggressive outpatient treatment of households and family units with Ivermectin in India coincided with a 97% reduction in cases in Delhi over a 28 day period this past May.  Other States using the protocol also showed improvement and conversely those that did not saw cases rise.  Could something else be responsible?  Perhaps, but to this point there is no reasonable or "scientific" explanation to suggest anything other factor drove down Delta cases.  The country went from the worst outbreak to being out of the conversation today.  This is a country with very low vaccine rates.  Even after all these cases and deaths piled up the US still has more cases and more deaths even with the benefit of our expensive and bloated healthcare system.    

 

But here in the U.S., cheap and readily available solutions not producing Big Pharma revenues and profits just don't reside in the DNA of America's decision makers.  Their flippant arrogance to dismiss anything outside of the box they reside in is a pathetic substitute for the science they claim to follow.  The only thing worse is the close minded idiots who continue to defend it.      

 

The libs, likely with orders/payments from Big Pharma, spearheaded the HCQ smear campaign (and the ivermectin smear campaign is an off-shoot of that because, if ivermectin can work...) to not only get the vaccines approved (obvious) but cause disease and death to get Trump out (notice neither Pfizer nor Moderna revealed they had a vaccine ready to go by the end of the year until after the election?).  I mean, all they talked about was how Trump looked at his portfolio and randomly picked out a dangerous drug that had no science behind it at all, when all along it was their hero Fauci who first recommended and didn't mention it was too dangerous to use (not that most of us who were familiar with the drug didn't already know that). 

 

The saddest part is the quite a few in the medical community went along with this criminality.  I can only SMH.

[SectionC3]

47 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Hoax.  Tony is the first person to tout HCQ, not Trump.  And it's safe unlike what your masters told you.  Man that's got to be such a gut punch to you libs!

 

You lost Gibbons.  Keep making a further fool of yourself if you wish. 

 

 

Hoax.  Fauci never touted anything.  The agency that he led simply published a study about HCQ 15 years before COVID-19.  And, as noted and as still is unaddressed by “Doc,” that study did not involve human trials.  

 

So, we continue to await the “science” that supports your garbage opinions about your garbage treatments, “Doc.”  Feel free to stop changing the subject and show your cards any time you wish.  

36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

One thing our official clown car scientific community, or the slow-witted media and other self-proclaimed experts, can't explain is how the early and aggressive outpatient treatment of households and family units with Ivermectin in India coincided with a 97% reduction in cases in Delhi over a 28 day period this past May.  Other States using the protocol also showed improvement and conversely those that did not saw cases rise.  Could something else be responsible?  Perhaps, but to this point there is no reasonable or "scientific" explanation to suggest anything other factor drove down Delta cases.  The country went from the worst outbreak to being out of the conversation today.  This is a country with very low vaccine rates.  Even after all these cases and deaths piled up the US still has more cases and more deaths even with the benefit of our expensive and bloated healthcare system.    

 

But here in the U.S., cheap and readily available solutions not producing Big Pharma revenues and profits just don't reside in the DNA of America's decision makers.  Their flippant arrogance to dismiss anything outside of the box they reside in is a pathetic substitute for the science they claim to follow.  The only thing worse is the close minded idiots who continue to defend it.      

Got a study?  Or are you referring to the one that wasn’t published because of concerns about flawed data? 

[Doc]

GUT...PUNCH.

 

If you want the abuse to continue, take it to the other thread.  This is for abortions.  Not that the left's smear campaign against HCQ couldn't be considered one.