Is Dovey Pregnant?

[Kirk]

blandscape threads suck cock

 

[Blandscape]

admin sucks cock

You were admin on dat there site you robbed from Flea... I agree, you do suck cock.

 

[Blandscape]

blandscape threads suck cock

While you finger my prostate via every post I make.

 

[Kirk]

 

[Blandscape]

Left a bit proxy!!! Yeah right there.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

blandscape threads suck cock

blandscape's mom should've sucked cock

or at the very least had access to free coat hangers

 

[Blandscape]

Wow is dat us now being forced to deep dive into your spank bank?

 

[Blandscape]

blandscape threads suck cock

blandscape's mom should've sucked cock

or at the very least had access to free coat hangers

Well that's whit the overturning of Roe V's Wade now means for 50% + of Americans.

 

[Blandscape]

Keep up boy.

 

[Blandscape]

Has SCOTUS ever overturned a 50 year old human right in its history?

 

[Blandscape]

Just to get back on fucking track.

 

[Kirk]

You nasty motherfucker

 

[Biggie Smiles]

what kind of verbiage in this ruling would make soytards like admong, seaparasite, holidork and blandfucktard feel more at ease?

Should they say something like "the right to suck cock shall not be infringed"?

 

[Blandscape]

And while we are at it, why isn't Biden codifying RW via the congress and senate?

 

[Blandscape]

what kind of verbiage in this ruling would make soytards like admong, seaparasite, holidork and blandfucktard feel more at ease?

Should they say something like "the right to suck cock shall not be infringed"?

You dae realise JooDug, that changing names for effect has no effect on yer argument, it's so 2004.

 

[Blandscape]

I call Proxy Proxy for example because that is whit he is, not to try and gain influence over the followers of a fashion that died out years ago.

 

[Blandscape]

You will always be JooDug to me.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

blandsnot isn't quite as boring when he's on ignore

lolz

 

[Blandscape]

Sorry JooDog.

 

[Blandscape]

blandsnot isn't quite as boring when he's on ignore

lolz

You shid take yer Biggie Smiles where you never earned them JooDog.

 

[Blandscape]

Has SCOTUS ever overturned a 50 year old human right in its history?

 

[Blandscape]

And why have Brett, Amy and Neil not asked to impeach themselves?

 

[Joe]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too.

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

There is no such scripture anywhere in the Bible. And if you understand anything about context you’d know that the story of Onan does not apply

 

[Blandscape]

We all have eyes and ears, all of them lied to a Congressional hearing, it isn't a debate!!!

 

[Blandscape]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too.

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

There is no such scripture anywhere in the Bible. And if you understand anything about context you’d know that the story of Onan does not apply

Scripture, why are you saying that as factual evidence of a deity that even the Roman Empire never recorded?

 

[Blandscape]

And by the way, that's like saying the Germans wid not record how many Jews they murdered JooDog.

 

[Blandscape]

They did.

 

[Kirk]

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Ever notice how all the unstable fucktards around here just so happen to be libs?