Jim Harbaugh
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
- Status
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
False. There is not a single state that outlaws abortions from ectopic pregnancies. Its a lie.
I already agreed on 15 weeks as a reasonable cutoff, except for extreme circumstances.
Unlike certain folks, I don't believe that "muh rightz" are beyond any and all regulation.
What percentages are due to actual health risk to the woman? Oh wait … the birther parent sorry. Most abortions are needed due to the no condom, did not pull out, I was messed up last night , “hey Jane , I can’t be a father syndrome .” The no responsibility group. Small infinitesimal number as a threat to the mom. More a case of personal shame.
"See if you actually felt it wasn't important then why respond at all."
Exactly the same response given to you in the Liddel injury thread.
The Liddel injury does not impact you , me or the hole in the wall. This particular subject has , does and will continue to impact millions. So yes it is valid and pertinent to a conversation on the board. Opinions are important and all all should have that right. Guys like Jim Harbaugh especially."See if you actually felt it wasn't important then why respond at all."
Exactly the same response given to you in the Liddel injury thread.
I tend to agree with you and think health reasons should allow for a fetus to be aborted .
As for birth control, only before the embryo turns into a fetus and I believe after 10 weeks
of pregnancy that happens.
After 10 weeks then abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the woman .
Other medical reasons also can be considered , along with if after birth it is expected the newborn will be not able to live a painless life because of a medical condition it will have..
Cases of rape , incest along with a minor being pregnate , abortion allowed any time.
In case of a dispute over a minor having an abortion, the courts hear both sides (quickly) and the judge has final say.
Never said the subject has no impact.
While the subject itself may have impact, that's not the origin of the thread.
The point of the thread was quoting Jim Harbaugh.
Jim Harbaugh's opinion on anything, even college football, have no impact on me and likely you or anyone else on this board.
His opinion on actual college football would have negligible impact on Rutgers itself.
Which was the entire point of your Liddel thread complaints - a thread that doesn't concern Rutgers itself of it's fans.
Same as just about any Harbaugh quote or opinion.
It’s not that easy though. There are only exceptions where it’s life threatening. What if it’s borderline life threatening? Good luck defining that. No exceptions for rape and incest? Yeah um not many people are on-board with that.
I don't understand what you mean by this statement , I think you might mean European Religious Organizations
Because most EU Nations allow abortions ( according to this):
European Abortion Laws
A Comparative Overview
>For more than sixty years
Europe has led the continuing
global trend towards the
liberalization of abortion
laws and the legalization of
women’s access to safe and
legal abortion.
Today almost all European countries
allow abortion on request or on
broad social grounds and only a
very small minority maintain highly
restrictive laws prohibiting abortion
in almost all circumstances. The
standard practice is to legalize
abortion on request or broad
social grounds, at least in the first
trimester of pregnancy. Almost all
countries also ensure that abortion
is legal throughout pregnancy when
necessary to protect a pregnant
woman’s health or life.<
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-c...uropean-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf
Except that the current is to also stop women and young girls who were impregnated by rape/incest/etc...hell, even if both participants are just young lovers in HS...they are denied the right to make decisions on their own for everything else but now will have to be forced into teenage parenthood because of dumb stupid child choices.Hey buddy I never miss a thing . It’s a brave ( Harbaugh) stance and does count especially with the anti groups with dark money backings. There are more people who feel the same as Jim Harbaugh. People would be happy had he not broached the topic on abortion but guess what? …he did and now some are horrified. Staying quiet like a church mouseis what many on here and in the media would like. Time is running out as polls show and it will not be a pretty scene as the original SC decision proved there are some very disturbed haters of life. There are many different types of pregnancy proofing helpers on the market. People could prevent much of this by just being responsible for their actions both men and women.They always seem to have an excuse . Taught in the system of our educational process.
Heck- someone under the age of 18 can get away with murder, drug dealing, and many other things because they are considered children. But make a mistake out of pleasure or what they think is love and they are treated as adults???
Because they had not been allowed to do so- it now has been on the agenda in many states and we hear it all the time from the pro life. I don't think there are states under roe vs wade that allowed end of term abortions without exceptions that included ectopic
Life of the mother is a very difficult measure. Some woman would be willing to take a chance to go full term even if the chance of potential health consequences were 95%. Other women say someone with several children would not be willing to risk severe health consequences or death at a much lower percentage because they want to be around for their children
Who cares of the percentage? The point is there should be an exception for legit health reasons to the mother or child.
You sure are passionate about other people’s babies. You must volunteer at foster homes all the time. You should think about fostering and adopting.
No one should be expected to stay quiet on matters of interest to them.Hey buddy I never miss a thing . It’s a brave ( Harbaugh) stance and does count especially with the anti groups with dark money backings. There are more people who feel the same as Jim Harbaugh. People would be happy had he not broached the topic on abortion but guess what? …he did and now some are horrified. Staying quiet like a church mouse
But disagreeing with someone's POV shouldn't be condemned either.
Also when asked about a statement made, in the course of friendly discussion what one said in a reply should be explained if asked about it .
""Could not wait and it took you less than 10 minutes." was the statement in question and if not about bravery why question the timeline because at the end of my statement I did show a reason for Harbaugh to be considered brave, because of how our current society acts, for supporting the ant-abortion point of view when he spoke in front of an anti abortion crowd at an anti abortion event.
No matter how many times you deny missing the end of one of my replies to you, it seems like you might have because you never addressed the 10 minute question I have asked a couple of times now.
People being responsible for their actions is something that goes without saying.
But people should be allowed to make their own choice in the way they react to a unplanned condition their actions caused
Another person's religious beliefs shouldn't be forced on them when they decide how they will handle the situation they are in and religion shouldn't play a part in their legal right to handle it the way they see fit.
We must strive not to have our country's laws look like a Christian version of (Muslim) Shina Law. and deny rights based on a religious beliefs.
I believe a women's choice should be allowed, but after an embryo turns into a fetus then the state can decide if the woman can choose on her own.
Cases of incest and rape abortions are allowed without question.
Medical conditions as well make for a good reason along with minors impregnated being allowed to end the pregnancy and if a question of permission involved, brought to courts quickly and judge decides based on laws of the land, not religious beleif.
You claim it's an exception but the problem is that there is a ton of gray area here where a doctor has to make a quick and life altering decision about whether to abort to save a woman or not. And these rules in red states make it difficult for doctors to do their jobs.
You are absolutely going to see situations where doctors are going to be scared to make a call in a situation where the woman's life might be in danger because they are afraid of running afoul of a state law that could get them prosecuted if they perform an abortion........ but then also open themselves to a lawsuit for wrongful death if they don't and the mother dies.
I read an op-ed from a medical expert who said there will likely be unintend consequences here, one of the biggest being a decline in the quality of OBGYN services in states that have strict(er) abortion laws now. For one, you may see the migration of quality OBGYNs moving out of the state due to the uncertainty of the laws or the fact that medical malpractice insurance could ratchet up even more. Fresh OBGYNs might just opt to continue their medical careers in states that gives them more power to make decisions without the draconian abortion laws hanging over their heads.
It's going to be fascinating to look at OBGYN care 5 years from now in some of these states.
What is the percentage? Now that is a very telling stat. Nothing wrong with adoption at all . Foster homes can be both good and bad. There is always an alternative. Here’s a second time suggestion abstain or teach proper sexual protections . The only time you don’t have to worry is same sex intimacy which very common I hear.
Never questioned anyone’s right to state an opposite opinion. Doesn’t mean I or anyone else should be acceptive of someone’s carefree taking the life of a living human being. Some believe upon conception, some when the heartbeat is detected.
Abstinence, now there’s a good idea! I bet that magic book you cling to taught you that.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Overwhelming majority agree with exceptions for rape and incest. More democrats believe no questions abortion til month 9 even if perfectly healthy than republicans believe force rape victims to have kids if they want an abortion
Actually I was asking you to explain what you meant in a part of your reply to Tom that I was unsure of what you meant.
Guess I shouldn't have asked you that if being asked to clarify something you posted gets you upset and must add you never explained what you meant when I asked about your 10 minutes to reply remark.
But all good, you have the choice to answer questions about what you post or choose to ignore the question . Just like I feel a woman should have a right to choose ,your choices on how you answer or ignore questions shouldn't be restricted as well.
Last edited:
From a recent discussion with a friend:
Friend: No man should tell a woman what to do with her body
Me: What about very late-term abortion.. just prior to the moment of birth..
Friend: Well, obviously, no, that shouldn't be allowed..
Me: So.. aren't you the one now telling a woman what she can do with her body?
(exasperated look follows)
Bottom line: This is a very complex issue.
I am happy to allow for some kind of Congress of US Women to decide the issue along the lines of the Senate and House and then allow the President to sign or veto the measure... ie.. make it a law. Otherwise, if the pro-abortion-rights folks want to have real Constitutional weight behind abortion.. which they routinely and falsely claim exists.. then do the work and get an Amendment passed. Make the right compromises and then convince the states to sign the best law/rights you can get.
And even if they won't do that, they have the option to battle it out on local levels all over the states. Get states to permit whatever it is they want. Unless those state-given rights trample on the US Constitution then the SCOTUS they excoriate will have nothing to say about it.
Friend: No man should tell a woman what to do with her body
Me: What about very late-term abortion.. just prior to the moment of birth..
Friend: Well, obviously, no, that shouldn't be allowed..
Me: So.. aren't you the one now telling a woman what she can do with her body?
(exasperated look follows)
Bottom line: This is a very complex issue.
I am happy to allow for some kind of Congress of US Women to decide the issue along the lines of the Senate and House and then allow the President to sign or veto the measure... ie.. make it a law. Otherwise, if the pro-abortion-rights folks want to have real Constitutional weight behind abortion.. which they routinely and falsely claim exists.. then do the work and get an Amendment passed. Make the right compromises and then convince the states to sign the best law/rights you can get.
And even if they won't do that, they have the option to battle it out on local levels all over the states. Get states to permit whatever it is they want. Unless those state-given rights trample on the US Constitution then the SCOTUS they excoriate will have nothing to say about it.
Of course Harbaugh has the right to speak his mind, and others have a right to react to his comments. As demonstrated in this thread, some will agree with his views, and others will disagree. Any employment matter is between him and UM, and I doubt UM would take action (unless such conduct was expressly prohibited under his employment contract, which in and of itself would be challenged).
The larger societal problem we now face is a judicially activist Supreme Court. Look no further than John Roberts, who did not join Alito’s opinion overturning Roe because you didn’t need to overturn Roe to decide Dobbs (as Roberts wrote in his separate opinion). Roberts’ incremental approach is one of a conservative jurist. Compare that to Thomas openly calling for cases to be filed challenging gay marriage and contraception. He wrote that in his opinion. That’s activist. That‘s not calling balls and strikes. Nor was overturning Roe. Didn’t need to do so to decide Dobbs.
We also have decisions which have a decidedly religious bent. The Maine case allowing state funds to pay for parochial school education. Or the case of the praying football coach where Gorsuch literally got the facts wrong. Personally, I can see some justification for the Maine decision but fear it will be used to justify other jurisdictions allowing state funds to pay for parochial schools. The case of the football coach, though, was outrageous. When an opinion is justified by assertions clearly not supported by facts, it’s easy for people to question the true motive of the justices. Church (or synagogue, or mosque) and state must be separate to ensure we all have the right to practice any religion (including none at all) that we want. We are not a nation founded upon religion, and most certainly not a Christian nation as some politicians are inclined to say these days.
This Court has substituted its judgement for the cumulative judgement of their predecessors, deciding to do away with precedent when it suits their personal views. And the mother of all cases is yet to come. The Moore case could literally end democratically decided federal elections. Based upon this Court’s rulings to date, we should all be concerned about the outcome.
The larger societal problem we now face is a judicially activist Supreme Court. Look no further than John Roberts, who did not join Alito’s opinion overturning Roe because you didn’t need to overturn Roe to decide Dobbs (as Roberts wrote in his separate opinion). Roberts’ incremental approach is one of a conservative jurist. Compare that to Thomas openly calling for cases to be filed challenging gay marriage and contraception. He wrote that in his opinion. That’s activist. That‘s not calling balls and strikes. Nor was overturning Roe. Didn’t need to do so to decide Dobbs.
We also have decisions which have a decidedly religious bent. The Maine case allowing state funds to pay for parochial school education. Or the case of the praying football coach where Gorsuch literally got the facts wrong. Personally, I can see some justification for the Maine decision but fear it will be used to justify other jurisdictions allowing state funds to pay for parochial schools. The case of the football coach, though, was outrageous. When an opinion is justified by assertions clearly not supported by facts, it’s easy for people to question the true motive of the justices. Church (or synagogue, or mosque) and state must be separate to ensure we all have the right to practice any religion (including none at all) that we want. We are not a nation founded upon religion, and most certainly not a Christian nation as some politicians are inclined to say these days.
This Court has substituted its judgement for the cumulative judgement of their predecessors, deciding to do away with precedent when it suits their personal views. And the mother of all cases is yet to come. The Moore case could literally end democratically decided federal elections. Based upon this Court’s rulings to date, we should all be concerned about the outcome.
The Maine case would only apply where the area does not have a local public school alternative. I'd say the judicial activism in that case was the lower court ruling that got it to the Supreme Court. And yes, Thomas can be defined as activist. Just as William O. Douglas and many liberal justices since (RBG?) can also be described as activist.
Religion is the root of more evil and stupidity than any other single factor.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
It’s been a hoot watching/listening to lefty/Marxist’s lose their mind over some dudes personal opinion!
so satisfying!
so satisfying!
This is not how apostrophes work.Marxist’s lose their mind over some dudes personal opinion!
so satisfying!
It’s been a hoot watching/listening to righty/Jesus freaks lose their mind over some dude’s personal opinion!It’s been a hoot watching/listening to lefty/Marxist’s lose their mind over some dudes personal opinion!
so satisfying!
so satisfying!
Thanks for the (incorrect) vocabulary lesson professor.
"Objectively" what the whole discussion boils down to is should one person be able to "choose" to kill another person who has no say in the matter. I agree women should make that choice for themselves (and hope they choose not to). Just face the fact you are killing a human being. All the "clump of cells" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Take all of the extenuating circumstances discussed here(ectopic, rape, incest, danger to life of woman,etc). Agree to include them in any legislation. Then ask the protesters if it would be acceptable. I guarantee you not one will say yes. It's all bull$h!t.
They don't care because most of those killed are poor, black, brown or some combination. Millions every year. They purposely build the facilities in those areas. Then have the balls to call pro life folks racist for interfereing with "reproductive healthcare" for minorities and poor
. I'd say erasing millions of poor black and brown folks is racist AF. But what do I know. I can't even figure out what objective means.He has a right to his beliefs, doesn’t matter if people agree or not.
This is actually one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.Thanks for the (incorrect) vocabulary lesson professor.
"Objectively" what the whole discussion boils down to is should one person be able to "choose" to kill another person who has no say in the matter. I agree women should make that choice for themselves (and hope they choose not to). Just face the fact you are killing a human being. All the "clump of cells" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Take all of the extenuating circumstances discussed here(ectopic, rape, incest, danger to life of woman,etc). Agree to include them in any legislation. Then ask the protesters if it would be acceptable. I guarantee you not one will say yes. It's all bull$h!t.
They don't care because most of those killed are poor, black, brown or some combination. Millions every year. They purposely build the facilities in those areas. Then have the balls to call pro life folks racist for interfereing with "reproductive healthcare" for minorities and poor
Thanks for the (incorrect) vocabulary lesson professor.
"Objectively" what the whole discussion boils down to is should one person be able to "choose" to kill another person who has no say in the matter. I agree women should make that choice for themselves (and hope they choose not to). Just face the fact you are killing a human being. All the "clump of cells" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Take all of the extenuating circumstances discussed here(ectopic, rape, incest, danger to life of woman,etc). Agree to include them in any legislation. Then ask the protesters if it would be acceptable. I guarantee you not one will say yes. It's all bull$h!t.
They don't care because most of those killed are poor, black, brown or some combination. Millions every year. They purposely build the facilities in those areas. Then have the balls to call pro life folks racist for interfereing with "reproductive healthcare" for minorities and poor
Clearly you don't know much. You go off the rails pretty easily, though.
That was an impressively ignorant rant, the Texas of rants, even.
Logic won't work in the conversation you are trying to have.
Just post a picture of obama and you'll get a like.
- Status