BTW Kick, are you a DI by
any chance?

Rephrase the question, please. :)

**Correction**

Trump, arriving at the White House after he sent the MOB, wanted to be alone with his cell phone for the entire first hour after..

CW I showed you mine lemme see you show yours. Hope I didn't just step on you as we say in the Trash Rock 'n Roll Devil worship music business.

Season 1 Episode 6

Today's one and only witness was a Special Assistant to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, a certain Cassidy Hutchinson.

She gave compelling testimony about events in the WH right before and on January 6th.

Mixing her testimony in with video testimony both collected from her and from other Republican officials, today we found out that

Trump wanted to either walk or ride to the capital to personally lead the insurrection and he got violently angry when denied this by his own security staff, at one point grabbing for the steering wheel of his Presidential Vehicle.

On other occasions when Trump got very angry he threw dishes and pool tablecloths out from tables to express his displeasure. Bill Barr giving Trump the DoJ finding of "no fraud" over dinner Dec. 1st was an example.

Trump, arriving at the White House after he sent the Nov, wanted to be alone with his cell phone for the entire first hour after getting back to the White House. Various communications from Hannity and others begging Trump to call off the mob were in vain, Meadows reported "he doesn't want to do anything" and think the mob isn't doing anything wrong. Oh, and Trump said
"Mike deserves it" when told about certain, er, chanting.

On Jan. 7th a group including Javanka, Meadows, Cippaloni, Hershman and Kelly Mac tried to convince Trump to condemn the violence. But Trump wanted to Pardon the whole crew! At length Trump issued a watered down statement in part to give Trump cover from the 25th Amendment. Which was definitely being discussed in the Cabinet.

No J6C hearing would be complete without a preview of coming attraction(s) and Liz said that there was Witness Tampering along the way!

I sure hope I don't have to wait until July for the next hearing.

Kick, I see what you're doing here. Since Rubes...I mean Repugs respond to LIES told over and over, maybe some of them will respond to TRUTH likewise told over and over. Clever:)

Awww Kick.. Yer so cute when you beg... :D

I'm always cute when I do anything; obviously, I already know this.

I have never posted comments promoting violence..

Yes, you definitely have; the forum is archived. You can lie about it all you want; it won't change the facts.

But, by all means.. Continue to beg.. I enjoy seeing it.. :D

If somebody asking you nicely to stop your repetitive promoting of violence on another man's website is "begging," then Bashi has pegged you perfectly: Don Harris 2.0.

So I'll stop asking nicely and reiterate: Stop the promoting of violence on this website.

But I figured I would be nice to ya.. :D

No, please keep going. Showing your ignorance, real or feigned, is quite funny...

I would wager most of us were watching Cassidy Hutchinson testify.

I gave a preview of some of her testimony 18 days ago:

Upcoming testimony not to be missed: Cassidy Hutchinson, Executive Assistant to Mark Meadows and eyewitness to lots of things. She (reportedly) told the January 6th Committee that she was eyewitness to Mark Meadows incinerating documents after he met with Rep. Scott Perry after the 2020 election. As you may remember, the House committee released testimony in April that Hutchinson named Perry, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert as the members of Congress "who were raising the idea of the vice president doing anything other than just counting electoral votes on January the 6th." She also testified that Perry had vocally supported the idea of urging Trump's supporters on a march toward the Capitol. She also testified about another meeting wherein she witnessed Republicans discussing delaying the joint session of Congress (illegal). She testified that that meeting was attended by Jordan and Greene as well as at least nine other Republican lawmakers.

On May 25, Politico reported that the Jan. 6 select committee heard testimony indicating that Meadows heard Trump say something supportive about those who were chanting "hang Mike Pence" during the riot. A witness told the committee that Meadows had been in the dining room off the Oval Office when Trump made the comment and that Meadows told people nearby "that Trump had signaled a positive view of the prospect of hanging the vice president."

Friday, June 10th, 2022 at 19:06

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/06/10/the-house-january-6th-select-committee-hearings-episode-1/#comment-194326

*
Poor Donald is now making excuses that sound like a 4-year-old child. It's comical to watch. :)

Please post a link that proves it was a "America hating Democrats".

I get it.. You don't have ANY facts to support your claims..

We finished JOE PICKETT last night.. A pretty decent series... I highly recommend it.. Looking forward to SEASON 2...

We're starting BOSCH LEGACY tonight.. A continuation of the BOSCH series...

VERY good show... Again.. Highly recommend..

See ya'all bright and early in the AM where ya'all can whine and cry and stamp your feet some more that Democrats lost the right to kill babies..

I am sure it will be a hoot.. :D

Awww Kick.. Yer so cute when you beg... :D

I have never posted comments promoting violence..

But, by all means.. Continue to beg.. I enjoy seeing it.. :D

BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.. :D

Oh please please PLEASE Democrats.. Run Hillary again in 2024....

Who knew the number 27 is a promote violence number..

Anybody who read your comment at [27] that promotes violence. #SSDD

Please stop posting repetitive comments on this forum that continue to promote violence.

Actually, no it wasn't..

But I figured I would be nice to ya.. :D

Who??

Never heard of 'em...

Nice try though.. :D

Always glad ta know I still have that space in your head..

:D

Which is not relevant to the FACT that it was a Catholic Church that was a Historical Site..

And it was burned down by America hating Democrats..

I get it.. You don't have ANY facts to support your claims..

Could be worse, at least it's not Marjorie three names, Boebert and Gaetz...

That could describe the entire Democrat Party, eh?? :D

Sounds like Rudy and Arizona republicans actually...

As always, I appreciate the name-checks..

Responding to repetitive bullshit is called "fact check"... not "name-checks."

But I am not going to respond to all your personal attacks and such...

Lucky for everyone; I speak troll and will now translate your bullshit:

Translation: I am writing this response to inform you that I'm not responding. Your words which you quoted from me are personal attacks when you copy them but fine and dandy when I type them.

~ Michale

But I appreciate the fact that you are still thinking of me... :D

Keep up the name-checks.. Let's everyone know yer thinking of me.. :D

Translation: I got nothing left in the tank except "yer thinking of me." If I did have anything left, I wouldn't have posted the EXACT same thing in two sentences -- I mean paragraphs -- because today is "ludicrous to the point of ignorance" day in Trollville.

~ Michale

:D

'nuff said...

Jealous that someone backed up their post?

That had been abandoned an no longer had services.

So, you think the 2nd Amendment allows people to assassinate government officials.. You're stupider than I thought....

And I thought you could read. He never made an attempt but called himself in, but according to Alito just carrying a gun on a public street is perfectly legal. Until he turned himself in what crime did he commit?

You have no moral, legal or ethical leg to stand on, Bashi..

That's because I was born with two. I have moral, legal and ethical legs to stand on. Still, big talk from Don 2.0 who can't back up their smack talk...

(busting a gut laughing)
:D

dsws wrote:

I don't think there's anything at all that's particularly unclear about the issue.

Sir or Madam, this is an excellent post. I take exception to very little in what you've written and I really appreciate you boiling down things to the bottom ?ine. It's hard to say a lot with only a few words. Takes me forever. Jolly good show!

Occasional Cortex is the face of the Democrat Party...

That's why there is going to be an Uber Nuclear Biblical Shellacking of the Democrat Party in November...

Real Patriotic Americans are not buying what Occasional Cortex/Democrats are selling...

It's really THAT simple... :D

Yea, do it, Democrats.. I double dog DARE ya!!! :D

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the comments after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on Friday

"Sounds Like A Toddler"...

That could describe the entire Democrat Party, eh?? :D

Democrats lost... The pushed and they pushed and they got pushed BACK...

And here we are... :D

Isn't it time to lick the wounds and move on???

I'm just sayin'... :D

Yesterday's science fiction is TODAY's scientific FACT..

"Doi..."
-Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

Ergo, it's imminently rational and logical to postulate that TODAY's science fiction is tomorrow's scientific fact..

At least for those who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together, eh?? :D

But thanx for playing... :D Always nice ta have ya.. :D

Washington Post....

'nuff said...

RBG was against Roe v Wade.. This is documented FACT..

You lost.. Get over it..

It was a historical church..

and not only did your would be assassin turn himself in according to Alito he was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights.

So, you think the 2nd Amendment allows people to assassinate government officials.. You're stupider than I thought....

And THAT says something.. :D

The simple FACT is, the scumbag has been charged with attempted murder..

YOU think he should get off scot free because he turned himself in..

"Whatta marrooon.."
-Bugs Bunny

:D

You have no moral, legal or ethical leg to stand on, Bashi..

You know it.. I know it..

Everyone else here knows it..

After six minutes taking a pie crust out of the oven may reveal all the ingredients of a pie, but it's still not a pie. People might call it a pie, but it doesn't taste like one.

If the pie crust and/or filling contains eggs (used as a leavening agent), you're a sentient chicken killer.

But seriously, all this talk about "fetal heartbeat," which scientifically does not exist at 6 weeks. At 6 weeks of development, there is an embryo (not a fetus) with no "heart" that beats. Using ultrasound, there is sometimes (not always) detectable activity within a 4 mm thickening located next to a yolk sac of the embryo. This 4 mm thickening can be heard on ultrasound of the embryo (not fetus) as early as (not always) 6 weeks. The flutter can be detected with fetal Doppler (now actually in the fetal stage) as early as (not always) 12 weeks. When can you hear the fetal heartbeat via stethoscope? Usually between the 18th and 20th week.

People actually believe there is a "fetal heartbeat" at 6 weeks when scientifically there is definitely not and the "clump of cells" (not my crude term) is still an embryo (not a fetus). The use of the term "fetal heartbeat" is used by anti-abortionist activists and right-wing politicians (by design) in order to fool the gullible masses into believing that an embryo is a person when it still isn't even a fetus at 6 weeks and won't be until multiple weeks thereafter.

I can't stop laughing at the commenter on the board who actually suggested that a "baby" at 6 weeks might become viable with future technology. Crack a book! It's an embryo that takes many multiple months before it becomes viable and could never be viable at 6 weeks at the embryonic stage. Only in science fiction... certainly never in scientific fact.

But you can definitely see how easily the disingenuous use of the term "fetal heartbeat" can fool people who have a political agenda not based on science... and definitely words designed to fool them.

So, to recap: The "fetal heartbeat" is neither "fetal" nor a "heartbeat." It's an embryonic flutter detectable via ultrasound which is a 4 mm thickening located next to a yolk sac of the embryo (not fetus).

Those are the facts. :)

You really mean democrats problem is going to be republican exaggeration? Abandoned church and not only did your would be assassin turn himself in according to Alito he was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights. But you forgot about all the broken windows on the Arizona state house that weren't actually broken or old Rudy who's slap on the back sent him back two steps (how is that even possible) when the video clear shows otherwise...

Of course the real violence is from the right and their various colors of jack booted thugs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/what-ruth-bader-ginsburg-really-said-about-roe-v-wade/

It's going to be increasingly and exceedingly difficult for the 6JC to maintain ANY kind of semblance of moral high ground when Democrats are burning historical catholic churches to the ground and trying to assassinate SCOTUS Justices and police officers...

Once again... Democrats are their own worst enemies...

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life: that ending human life in the womb should be legal for any reason up until the moment the baby is being born.

The signature legislation nearly all of them voted for weeks ago would have forbidden state-level protections for babies with Down syndrome or other disabilities, overturned informed consent laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court, prohibited state restrictions blocking abortion when the unborn child can feel pain, and completely removed conscientious protections for health-care employees who oppose abortion. This is an extremely radical set of positions. For instance, 75 percent of Americans support protecting the conscience rights of health-care employees. And seven out of ten Americans oppose aborting children because they have Down syndrome.

The FACTS and the American people are against Democrats when it comes to baby killing AKA abortion..

This is simply the reality of the here and now...

Ya'all would do well to just learn to accept it and move on...

I'm just sayin'....

{{tap, tap}} Is this thing on???

:D

Dem nominee Cheri Beasley has made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the central argument of her campaign.

Beasley wants federal legislation to codify abortion on demand up until the moment of birth...

These are ALL Democrat candidates who want to codify into federal the right for a woman to kill her baby right up to the second before birth...

Again, I have to ask..

Which this kind of viewpoint... Do ya'all HONESTLY believe these Dem candidates can prevail????

The Democrat nominee John Fetterman already publicly announced his support for the barbaric and abhorrent baby-killing-until-birth legislation that Senator Masto of Nevada voted for.

The legislation — which had bipartisan opposition but still had 48 senators and 218 congressmen voting for it — explicitly states the right to abortion on demand shall not be limited or otherwise infringed.

Democrats are ALL IN FAVOR of unlimited abortion until the moment of birth..

Something even EVERY WEIGANTIAN (except for possible MC) has stated they are against..

How do ya'all expect Democrats to do OK in November with this kind of abhorrent and heinous baby killing agenda that the vast majority of Americans oppose???

Hmmmmmmm????

Democrat Senator Masto, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election, voted in May for a bill that would legalize abortion to the moment of birth, forbid states from enacting protections for unborn life, and expand taxpayer funding.

That's the kind of radical Democrat baby killing agenda that every day Americans are against..

The majority of Americans support restricting abortions to before 15 weeks...

Democrats are simply going to lose and lose big in November...

No doubt about it..

As soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling finally overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision that had so roiled the nation for nearly 50 years, Democrats and their allies who control corporate media began asserting it would be a political boon for their party.

“Democrats see abortion as a big base motivator and a potential winning issue with independents,” claimed Politico.

Democrats could certainly use some help. The party controls all of Washington, D.C. Voters have indicated they’re prepared to deliver large Republican gains in November in response to a series of Democrat policy failures leading to a looming recession, labor problems, supply chain disruptions, high gas prices, rising crime, another foreign war without a strategy for victory, and a completely out of control border.

But there are several problems for Democrats hoping to stem the losses, including that the general Democrat position of abortion on demand until the moment of birth is far too radical to gain politically in most areas of the country. Even CBS polling found that only 17 percent of Americans agree with such an extreme stance.

The American people are so far away from the Democrat agenda as is possible to be and be in the same galaxy...

American people = Milky Way galaxy

Democrat Party = Pegasus galaxy....

That's about how that plays out....

Does ANYONE here (besides MC of course) believe that Democrats are going to do OK in November???

Anyone???

{{ccchhhiiiirrrrpppp}}{{cccchhhiiirrrrppppp}}

Yea... That's what I figgered...

:D

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life.

And therein lies the problem for Democrats..

Their ENTIRE agenda is Build Back Broke/Green New Deal/Unlimited Baby Killing Right Up To Birth...

And normal sane everyday Americans simply are NOT interested in the bullshit that Democrats are trying to sell...

Which is exactly why there is a Nuclear Uber Biblical Shellacking coming for Democrats in November... :D

I mean, imagine the comments come 9 Nov 2022!!! :D

It's gonna be a hoedown!!! :D

:D

But I am not going to respond to all your personal attacks and such...

But I appreciate the fact that you are still thinking of me... :D

Keep up the name-checks.. Let's everyone know yer thinking of me.. :D

Please stop promoting violence on this archived forum.

Democrats already tried that.. It was a bill that allowed elective baby killing right up to the point of birth..

That is (of course) a lie... and you believed it and regurgitated it here.

You should stop believing your right-wing handlers unless you enjoy the appearance of being "ludicrous to the point of ignorance." :)

It was shot down by a Democrat...

It passed in the House and was shot down by a shit ton of Republicans in the Senate too.

It's already been tried.. It failed.. Just like everything else that was Anti-American has failed..

I agree you are "Anti-American." :)

There is still no precedent as there never was a constitutional right to baby killing AKA abortion..

You should actually crack a book and read the decision in Roe which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion; that way, you'd stop posting this type ridiculous bullshit that is "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."

To claim that baby killing AKA abortion is on par with the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous to the point of ignorance..

You're putting words in Chris's mouth that constitute a straw man argument of your own making, which is even more "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."

Irregardless of that fact, the precedent that you are ACTUALLY talking about HAS happened before...

Irregardless isn't a word. Oh, where is your false equivalency?

In Plessy v Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled that Democrats had the Constitutional right to the "Separate But Equal" doctrine.. That was in 1896 and was a "Constitutional Right" for 58 years.. Longer than Roe V Wade...

There's your false equivalency.

According to Democrats love of Stare Decisis Democrats obviously believe that PvF should still be the law of the land to this day.. :eyeroll:

Straw man fallacy. You should definitely keep rolling your eyes looking for a brain back there if these repetitive straw man fallacies and false equivalencies that are "ludicrous to the point of ignorance" are all you have to offer to Chris's valid points.

You should probably read the text of the cases you're spewing repetitively in order to avoid your perpetual state of appearing "ludicrous to the point of ignorance."

Just was baby killing AKA abortion was never really a constitutional right...

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged this...

So much love and caring for RBG, but (of course) you keep putting your own bullshit words in her mouth that she never said, i.e., like Russ explained so well yesterday: "A good way to know if you are defending the wrong side is if doing so requires you to rely on lies to make your point!" Love you, Russ.

It is essential to woman's equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.

~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg

*
Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right, but she had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection under the constitution (14th Amendment) rather than the right to privacy, which was the basis of Roe.

Your right-wing handlers are feeding you lies which you regurgitate here on a repetitive basis. It's comical to watch you fall for it and spew the lying bullshit over and over... stuck on stupid.

Reading is fundamental in order to avoid the repetitive appearance of being "ludicrous to the point of ignorance." Thanks for the projection in your descriptive assist; it definitely suits you. :)

Dood looks like a lady...

Kinda contrived, but hell.. I am a sucker for a happy ending.. :D

Damn!!!

I feel EXACTLY the same way!!

While I wouldn't mind revisiting the daughter later and see what she's been up to, I agree..

That story line was very weak.....

see what i did there?

"Did you hear what you just said!!??"
"I wasn't listening!!"
-THREES COMPANY

:D

Why are we still even arguing the point??

It's a done deal.. Democrats pushed and pushed and pushed and then they got smacked down..

"Game over man!!"
-Private Hudson, ALIENS

Oh please... please... PLEASE Democrats..

Run Hillary again.. I double dog dare you!!!

you can't possibly be that obtuse.

see what i did there?

What ya think???

Agreed..

The problem is pro-baby killing Democrats are not willing to acknowledge the gray areas as I am..

They go on an on about WOMEN'S rights..

What about the rights of the baby??

Once the GOP has control of Congress, we'll see legislation that acknowledges the rights of the baby...

And once President Trump is back in the Oval Office, he will sign that legislation...

And THEN we will finally have settlement on the issue..

Your and Dan's argument on the supposed personhood of a fetus is an either-or fallacy. There is a lot of grey area between the two competing concepts of abortion as either murdering a person or disposing of a parasite.

And, if we were talking about 6 minutes and an awful dessert, you would have a point..

But we're talking about 6 weeks and a sentient life form with a heartbeat, so you don't..

WWJTKD???

After six minutes taking a pie crust out of the oven may reveal all the ingredients of a pie, but it's still not a pie. People might call it a pie, but it doesn't taste like one.

Murder is a crime of intent. If you kill someone while believing that you're just target shooting, because you have no idea that anyone is standing behind the target, that's not murder.

And if you kill a sentient being with a heartbeat and your INTENT is to kill a sentient being with a heartbeat, then it is murder..

but still, it's far more likely than Democrats getting our act together.

THAT's for damn sure... :D

The big one is voter suppression. Any policy can change if voters can vote (Texas is NOT a red state; Texas is a non-voting state (lowest in the nation)).

^^^ This ^^^

Russia delenda est

Responding again to add: Henry Wade was a Democrat, which I would wager was not lost on the five Republican SCOTUS justices out of 7 that found in favor of Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Roe, a poor white prostitute from the South. McCorvey made a living selling herself, first by selling her body to men (although she unequivocally loved women and had a female partner for near three decades) and later prostituting herself to the anti-abortion activists who paid her and gave her scripts telling her what to say (although she was most assuredly a proponent of choice).

I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money, and they put me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say...

If a woman wants to have an abortion, it's no skin off my ass.

~ Norma McCorvey a.k.a Roe

Murder is a crime of intent. If you kill someone while believing that you're just target shooting, because you have no idea that anyone is standing behind the target, that's not murder.

No one actually believes that a zygote is a person.

Everyone knows on some level, however much they try to obfuscate the issue and convince themselves otherwise, that women are people. Everyone also knows that there are complications to pregnancy that sometimes lead to the death of the woman, where it's possible to save the woman without saving the fetus. And they know that and that denying access to such medical procedures will kill a bunch of women. That's part of the outcome that they intend, and it's absolutely going to happen.

Abortion is never murder. Anti-abortion activism is always murder.

Pluralities of Americans in enough states and districts explicitly vote, in every election, that they're just fine with murdering a bunch of women by interfering with medical care. That hasn't changed, and it's not going to. Substantial majorities always vote, in every election, that whatever the rest of us pick is ok with them. (I.e. they don't vote, even though they could: voter suppression happens too, but there are enough voluntary non-voters to get to a majority.) That hasn't changed either, and it's not going to.

It doesn't matter what people will tell a pollster when asked. It matters how they actually vote.

A few Democrats will make a half-hearted attempt to rebuild party infrastructure in slightly-reddish purple states where the state-level politics is deep blood red because Democrats only do presidential and blue-state elections. But it won't go anywhere, because Democrats are still Democrats.

It was decided on November 8, 2016 that no state can have a homicide statute unless it includes zygoticide as first-degree "murder". This is only the first step toward implementing that decision. Nothing except the untimely deaths of at least two of the judges of the Supreme Court (as the Constitution calls them) could possibly stop it. They're relatively young by Supreme Court standards. But that still has them in an age range where the probability of cancer or heart attack is merely low, not unimaginably remote. Two would be an extraordinary coincidence, but still, it's far more likely than Democrats getting our act together.

Already passed the House 218-211 on September 24, 2021, in response to the Supreme Court allowing the Texas law to remain in effect without full briefing and holding any oral arguments... the "shadow docket."

As I said, Dems have already tried that..

They couldn't convince one of their own to vote for it..

Very good point.

This is already happening in Texas due the SCOTUS stripping the constitutional rights of Texans via the shadow docket in 2021. In response, the District Attorneys in multiple cities have stated they will not criminally prosecute under the statute, including the DA who now holds the job that Wade held... as in Roe v. Wade.

Would Dems be wise to draft a national abortion rights bill along the lines that specifically legalizes abortion with restrictions - before viability or when the life of the mother is threatened etc., etc. - and hold the vote some short time after Labour Day ... get everyone in the House and Senate on record before the midterms?

Already passed the House 218-211 on September 24, 2021, in response to the Supreme Court allowing the Texas law to remain in effect without full briefing and holding any oral arguments... the "shadow docket."

Like Roe, the bill set limitations to abortion prior to fetal viability but had exceptions if in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.

Maybe they'll do a repeat in 2022 and the Republicans can again lie to their gullible regurgitating rubes claiming that the bill allows abortion on demand until the day of birth, which is a lie.

Lying repeatedly is the only policy the Trump cult seems to have these days, which has unfortunately caused problems for their MAGAt followers.

So, to recap: Ignorance is bliss... until it causes your arrest/indictment and lands your gullible ass in Court and/or prison. :)

Factual but not relevant...

As for the number of weeks linked to viability, I am not insistent on any number. And, I don't really wish to get into a debate about when an abortion should be legal and when it crosses the line into illegality.

That's what the whole discussion is about..

I don't think abortion should be a legal issue at all.

That's like saying you don't think murder should be a legal issue at all..

They both are legal issues because of the rights of the person being killed..

So, you see now how very little we actaully agree upon.

Yea, well I am a cup is half full kinda guy..

So I like to concentrate on the parts we DO agree on..

Like the FACT we BOTH agree that there should be restrictions on baby killing, AKA abortion.. :D

We don't even agree on what you call abortion.

As for the number of weeks linked to viability, I am not insistent on any number. And, I don't really wish to get into a debate about when an abortion should be legal and when it crosses the line into illegality.

I don't think abortion should be a legal issue at all. I see this choice as being essentially between a woman and her doctor with all of the pertinent and inherent 'restrictions' based solely on medical advice.

So, you see now how very little we actaully agree upon.

After 6 weeks, abortion stops a beating heart..

This is documented fact...

"They've finally selected the guy we want!!"
-CHOAS Agent, GET SMART

:D

I love it!!! :D

But it's not really a person yet, just a clump of cells..

For me, personally, I believe that person-hood is established once a heartbeat can be detected..

While I understand your position of viability, you must concede that it's a nebulous and changing line..

In the here and now, viability is approx 22 weeks.. A hundred years ago, viability was considerably longer..

It's illogical NOT to assume that, in a hundred years from now, viability could be at 6 weeks..

So, since we agree that baby killing AKA abortion SHOULD have restrictions, and if you insist on the viability line, the onus is on you to compromise that viability in the future could be sooner than 22 weeks..

If you refuse that compromise, then I would hold firm at the 6 week line...

But irregardless of any (or no) compromise, the simple fact is... You and I (and JL) agree that unrestricted baby killing AKA abortion up to the moment of birth is no bueno and should NOT be allowed..

Agreed???

Spanberger rival Yesli Vega doubts pregnancy after rape

Yesli Vega, the Republican nominee running against Democrat Abigail Spanberger for Congress, downplayed the possibility of becoming pregnant as a result of rape when asked about her stance on abortion at a campaign stop last month, according to audio obtained by Axios.

What's happening: At an event in Stafford County, Vega, a Prince William County supervisor and sheriff's deputy, was asked what she thinks Congress should do if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

After expressing support for new state-level restrictions, she said, "The left will say, 'Well what about in cases of rape or incest?' I'm a law enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I've worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant."

*

File this one under several headings:

(1) Idiot Republicans

(2) Another Idiot Republican Who Doubts Rape Can Cause Pregnancy

(3) Todd Akin 2.0: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

(4) Idiot Republican Who Doubts That Incest Can Cause Pregnancy

(5) Another Moron LEO Assclown Who Believes Their Limited Personal Anecdotal Evidence Equals Facts

It's 2022 and there is seriously still no limit to the depths of the GOP uneducated ignorance regarding the scientific facts of reproduction. #Pathetic

Please point to the time I *EVER* said that..

You can't because it just ain't true..

Matter of fact I specifically stated I DON'T believe that..

Yeah, you believe they should kick in at conception and that nothing should prevent conception.

That ain't on the same page, any which way you slice it. It's not even the same chapter let alone the same book.

Careful there..

According to Democrats that's a sign of white supremacy... :D

I know... Crazy, right??? :eyeroll:

As has been stated and has been agreed upon..

We are both on the same page as far as restrictions on baby killing, AKA abortion...

We BOTH agree that there SHOULD be restrictions in place..

Why are you trying to create conflict where none exists???

The *ONLY* difference in our positions is that we disagree on WHEN those restrictions should kick in..

That's it.. And that difference can easily be achieved thru compromise..

For example.. I may be able to agree to your viability line as long as you concede that, with the advent of technology, that line will get shorter and shorter as viability is likely to be earlier and earlier in a baby's gestational period..

The art of compromise...

Try it.. You'll like it. :D

Not factually accurate.. Weren't you the one who was so upset with me allegedly putting words in your mouth??

That's the kind of man who is afraid of losing his power and control over women and will do and say anything to prevent that from happening, no matter his asinine substitue for reasoning.

Then I guess it's a good thing I am not that kind of man, eh?? :D

That's the kind of man who is afraid of losing his power and control over women and will do and say anything to prevent that from happening, no matter his asinine substitue for reasoning.

I hope the owner of the car isn't white..

They will be charged with a heat crime...

Ba da dum....

I am already that man, as I believe that the life begins when a heartbeat is detected...

So, if we postulate the scenario where technology makes a baby "viable" at 6 weeks....

Are you the kind of woman who would be OK with killing that 'viable' baby???

No.

Are you the kind of man who would?

EVERY ONE...

So, again the question is begged..

Where's the beef???

Of course.. As I said, we are on the same side.

We BOTH support restrictions on baby killing AKA abortion..

I am at the heartbeat line and you are at the viability line...

We BOTH support the restrictions.. We only differ on WHEN those restrictions kick in..

But, consider this.. 'Viability' is a nebulous and fluid line..

Put it another way..

Suppose technology is invented that can support a support and preserve a baby at 6 weeks gestation, when a heartbeat is detected for transfer to a surrogate mother.. In other words, the baby is "viable" at 6 weeks gestation...

Would you support moving the 'restrictions' line to 6 weeks??

As I said.. We are on the same page.. We BOTH agree that there should be restrictions on abortion..

We only differ on when those restrictions should kick in..

That's a compromise we can work with, no??

And if Democrats were willing to accept a restriction on abortion, then Roe v Wade would still be the law of the land..

But Democrats wanted to CELEBRATE their baby killing.. SHOUT OUT there abortions..

And here we are...

They tried what you are suggesting.. Codifying Roe V Wade into law..

But as usual, Democrats overreached so far and so bad that they couldn't even convince one of their own to support it.. Democrats couldn't even convince their own GOP baby killing allies to support it..

So, yes.. They tried what you suggested..

They just, as usual did it very VERY badly...

Democrats tried for the quick and easy fix..

"{They} chose.... poorly.."
Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

You say Dems have already tried what I am suggesting but that they have never actually tried what I am suggesting.

Do you see what I mean?

Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming.. It's a feature.

Democrats want to abolish the US Constitution...

Insurrection?? You betcha...

Democrats LOVE insurrection.. When it suits their agenda...

:eyeroll:

Good.. That's how it SHOULD be...

Not factually accurate.. Not at all..

First off, the SCOTUS did not ban abortions period.. Safe or otherwise..

The ruling just turned the matter over to states..

So the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments of those states can make their own determinations..

AGAIN.. It's called DEMOCRACY people.. Why are ya'all against DEMOCRACY??

No one has been able to answer that simple question..