# God I hope the GOP Supreme Court overturns Roe



## bendog

Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
		


It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.

Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.

But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.


----------



## alang1216

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


----------



## g5000

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.

I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.

But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.

However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.

But it should be overturned regardless.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I don't think SCOTUS will overturn it.  If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down ObamaCare, which was blatantly unconstitutional on its face, I doubt he is going to rule in the affirmative on striking down Roe which will be even more controversial.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Most dumbasses do not even understand what ROE V WADE is.

Interesting that ROE claimed she REGRETTED murdering her baby and REGRETTED being the poster girl for the extreme left.


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


It all depends on how your frame the issue.  Americans are split pretty much 50-50 on whether they call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice".  However, when you ask them if they are okay with abortions after the first trimester, a vast majority of Americans are opposed.  Something like 67 percent.

Roe v. Wade allows abortions through the second trimester, with third trimester abortions left to the states.

So a lot of people who call themselves "pro-choice" are actually in opposition to Roe v. Wade and don't know it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.



I'm pro-choice, but I agree strictly from a Constitutional standpoint it should be overturned.  The Burger Court invented a right to privacy out of thin air to push their own agenda.  It was THE textbook case of judicial activism.  Even RBG said it was a poorly framed decision.

Nonetheless, I don't think the court will do it.


----------



## Meister

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


Over turning Roe vs Wade would be a worthy cause, you could ask any child that would have been aborted in 15 years, they would tell you.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.



That's what I think.  I don't think it will have a huge impact either but as long as the federal govt doesn't condone killing of innocent life I'm fine with that.


----------



## night_son

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.



These pro-abortion nutcases *ARE *demon possessed. They wail and lament, rage and howl and scream as if loss of their ability to MURDER unborn children is a crime against humanity. These pro-child murder people are the enemy of ALL mankind. We should deal with them accordingly.


----------



## 1srelluc

I've rather the 15 week thing be allowed within the bounds of RvW, it's a reasonable/common sense type of thing.....I mean it really does not matter to me if the dems have to wait a bit longer in MS to commit genocide on their future base. 

That said if the 15 week thing means that RvW has to be tossed that's OK too as abortions will still be allowed by most states and the end result will be near the same.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.



There is no majority either way. It's about 48-48.


----------



## g5000

_The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, *65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.









						AP-NORC poll: Most say restrict abortion after 1st trimester
					

NEW YORK (AP) — A solid majority of Americans believe most abortions  should be legal in the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy, but most say the procedure should usually be illegal in the second and third trimesters, according to a new poll.




					apnews.com
				



*_



Six in 10 U.S. adults think abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy.* However, support drops by about half, to 28%, for abortions conducted in the second three months, and by half again, to 13%, in the final three months.*

[snip]

_As Gallup reported earlier this week, the vast majority of Americans want abortion to be legally available in all or certain circumstances, even while, in answer to a separate question, *they are evenly divided at 48% each in identifying their overall position as "pro-choice" or "pro-life."*_









						Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views
					

Americans' support for abortion continues to vary sharply by trimester and by the reason for the procedure.




					news.gallup.com


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Meister said:


> Over turning Roe vs Wade would be a worthy cause, you could ask any child that would have been aborted in 15 years, they would tell you.



Overturning this may well result in the Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in next year's midterms.  I guarantee you behind closed doors most of the elected Republicans throughout Congress and state and local level offices are hoping Roe gets upheld, but most of them won't admit it out loud.


----------



## BluesLegend

Dems are desperate for any issue to run on given what a disaster Biden has been. Even ripping babies limbs off the sick bastards.


----------



## g5000

_The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” *During the second trimester*, the state could regulate *(but not outlaw)* abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.









						Roe v. Wade (1973)
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_


----------



## bodecea

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.


How do you get that?


----------



## g5000

Because Roe v. Wade does not permit the outlawing of first or second trimester abortions, to uphold the Texas and Mississippi laws would require the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

This will be a very interesting decision to read.

The Texas case has already been argued.  The Mississippi case is being argued tomorrow, December 1.


----------



## Lisa558

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


How would it be eliminated? it would just go back to the states. All but a handful of Bible Belt states would still allow it.


----------



## g5000

Lisa558 said:


> How would it be eliminated? it would just go back to the states. All but a handful of Bible Belt states would still allow it.


The backlash could be great enough for a lot of state legislatures to be turned from red to blue.

The ripple effects of that would be enormous.

Redistricting, for example, is determined by the legislature.  Think about what that would mean.


----------



## flacaltenn

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



Dont buy the narrative about this being OVERTURNING Roe v Wade.  That's a dem manufactured mantra and threats that go with it.  MUCH more likely, that ruling will be refined and tweaked to add some room for individual states to set limited restrictions. LIMITED IN BOTH DIRECTIONS in fact. Leaving a wide window of options up to personal choice in the respective states.


----------



## g5000

flacaltenn said:


> Dont buy the narrative about this being OVERTURNING Roe v Wade.  That's a dem manufactured mantra and threats that go with it.  MUCH more likely, that ruling will be refined and tweaked to add some room for individual states to set limited restrictions. LIMITED IN BOTH DIRECTIONS in fact. Leaving a wide window of options up to personal choice in the respective states.


The Texas and Mississippi cases do not limit abortions.  They make no exceptions.

And to legalize abortion in the first and second trimesters, with or without restrictions, IS an overturning of Roe v. Wade.  It would make Roe v. Wade null and void.


----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.


Well I'm trained as a lawyer so I don't really have morals to speak of.  (-:

But to me the issue is that since I learned to question, I've thought Roe was wrongly decided because it "vaccinated" people from having to fight to have a choice.  I think we need a base or bottom beneath which we won't let people fall ... economically, morally, legally, etc.  But the less people have to struggle, the weaker they become.  

We've had abortion since men and women have had sex.  The only question has been safety.  And it wasn't really illegal in the US for our first 100-150 years.  And the little morality I have is to .... try and leave others alone so they can follow their own choices to better their lives.  I don't have any inkling of how other people should live their lives.  So I simply disagree there's a moral issue.   I believe we'd be better off living in a society where no child went hungry or was sold for sex, and no weaker person was tortured and raped for fun and profit.  But I'm not holding my breath.  

I suspect the dems (or whatever party is for "choice") would benefit from Roe being overturned.  But I wouldn't expect Miss or Ala to be swing states.  What I would expect, if the Supreme Court does what the religious right paid money and elected them to do, is that more people will go to states where they are allowed choice because they demand it of politicians.  Those states will do better than states without choice.  I think the nation was founded to allow people to demand choice and benefit from their actions.


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> It all depends on how your frame the issue.  Americans are split pretty much 50-50 on whether they call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice".  However, when you ask them if they are okay with abortions after the first trimester, a vast majority of Americans are opposed.  Something like 67 percent.
> 
> Roe v. Wade allows abortions through the second trimester, with third trimester abortions left to the states.
> 
> So a lot of people who call themselves "pro-choice" are actually in opposition to Roe v. Wade and don't know it.


I think it is safe to say that the majority of Americans think abortion within limits is OK.  I bet the vast majority approve of the morning after pill.


----------



## bendog

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


I don't believe the supermaj of women who support choice also support progressive issues like free money for having kids.


----------



## Resnic

Have to pick your battles. Do you want Republicans to win next go around? If they won this you can be guaranteed democrats will spend the next couple years dragging them through the mud on it to get people to vote against them. Every lefty news outlets in the nation will tear Republicans apart to swing votes in their favor.


----------



## Lisa558

g5000 said:


> The backlash could be great enough for a lot of state legislatures to be turned from red to blue.
> 
> The ripple effects of that would be enormous.
> 
> Redistricting, for example, is determined by the legislature.  Think about what that would mean.


So then you should be hoping for the overturn, no?

I personally am pro-choice (in the first trimester unless the mother’s life is at risk), but I can see how requiring all states to legalize it WAS indeed an unconstitutional ruling. Anything not specifically delineated as federal reverts automatically to the states.

The correct decision would be to overturn it, but I predict it will NOT happen. There might be extreme rioting and destruction from the left, even worse than the summer of 2020, and I believe the SCOTUS can factor in “impact” as well as constitutionality. Perhaps a lawyer here can weigh in on that.

Finally, for me personally, I never had an abortion. I was always very careful with birth control, and it never failed me.


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> I think it is safe to say that the majority of Americans think abortion within limits is OK.  I bet the vast majority approve of the morning after pill.


Contraception should be used before sex, not the morning after.  That's why the morning after pill is called Plan B.  

Plan A is using birth control BEFORE sex.

I think the long term solution to abortion is more contraception education.  According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all abortions are the result of no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the pregnancy.  Another fifth are due to the improper or inconsistent use of birth control.

The morning after pill is a good idea in cases of rape.  In fact, it is offered to rape victims now.


----------



## g5000

bendog said:


> Well I'm trained as a lawyer so I don't really have morals to speak of.  (-:
> 
> But to me the issue is that since I learned to question, I've thought Roe was wrongly decided because it "vaccinated" people from having to fight to have a choice.  I think we need a base or bottom beneath which we won't let people fall ... economically, morally, legally, etc.  But the less people have to struggle, the weaker they become.
> 
> We've had abortion since men and women have had sex.  The only question has been safety.  And it wasn't really illegal in the US for our first 100-150 years.  And the little morality I have is to .... try and leave others alone so they can follow their own choices to better their lives.  I don't have any inkling of how other people should live their lives.  So I simply disagree there's a moral issue.   I believe we'd be better off living in a society where no child went hungry or was sold for sex, and no weaker person was tortured and raped for fun and profit.  But I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> I suspect the dems (or whatever party is for "choice") would benefit from Roe being overturned.  But I wouldn't expect Miss or Ala to be swing states.  What I would expect, if the Supreme Court does what the religious right paid money and elected them to do, is that more people will go to states where they are allowed choice because they demand it of politicians.  Those states will do better than states without choice.  I think the nation was founded to allow people to demand choice and benefit from their actions.


I appreciate your legal reasoning, but I detect some moral fiber in your post, too.  

It would be great if the human race was immune to the seven deadly sins.

For me, abortion is the killing of a human being.  It's as simple as that.  We don't have a "choice" when it comes to killing people on the street, and we shouldn't have one when it comes to people in the womb.


----------



## bendog

What's interesting to me politically is why Tex and Miss pulled this gambit.  Obviously the politicans were pandering to a crowd for whom "overturning Roe" has been a rallying cry, and who have donated literally billions to politicians.  But the politicians have already given them what they want.  The key is to allow states to require abortion docs to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and then economically punish hospitals that don't toe the line in declining admission privledges.  

In 2020, with J. Ginsburg still alive, the Court said states can't do that.


----------



## Indeependent

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


So when a Democrat says “Revolution”, it’s good.


----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> Contraception should be used before sex, not the morning after.  That's why the morning after pill is called Plan B.
> 
> Plan A is using birth control BEFORE sex.
> 
> I think the long term solution to abortion is more contraception education.  According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all abortions are the result of no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the pregnancy.  Another fifth are due to the improper or inconsistent use of birth control.
> 
> The morning after pill is a good idea in cases of rape.  In fact, it is offered to rape victims now.


Well the same politicians are being funded and elected by voters who want to limit educating children about contraception.  At least in Miss.  

So again, I think the moral issue is more about deciding what other people should do with their lives


----------



## LordBrownTrout

bodecea said:


> How do you get that?




Very dangerous and a dogwhistle to commit violence.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court days before oral arguments in a potential landmark abortion case, claiming that a "revolution" will take place if the high court overturns existing precedent.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Observation............

Every person I know that was adopted was adopted by a conservative........................AND;

Every person I know that gave up their child for adoption is leftist.


----------



## BrokeLoser

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


Pro-choice is the majority position among the disgusting filth that inhabits disgusting Dem run shitholes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I'm pro-choice, but I agree strictly from a Constitutional standpoint it should be overturned.  The Burger Court invented a right to privacy out of thin air to push their own agenda.  It was THE textbook case of judicial activism.  Even RBG said it was a poorly framed decision.
> 
> Nonetheless, I don't think the court will do it.


RBG thought it should be framed as gender equality instead.


----------



## Lisa558

LordBrownTrout said:


> Very dangerous and a dogwhistle to commit violence.
> 
> Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court days before oral arguments in a potential landmark abortion case, claiming that a "revolution" will take place if the high court overturns existing precedent.


That sounds like a threat of violence. Is that the default position of Democrats these days? “Vote the way we demand, or there will be blood in the streets!”


----------



## Bob Blaylock

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.



  Abortion is the ultimate form of violence, perpetrated in the greatest numbers, with the least remorse, against the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

  It should never be a surprise when defenders of this savage practice threaten or resort to other, lesser forms of violence.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Lisa558 said:


> That sounds like a threat of violence. Is that the default position of Democrats these days? “Vote the way we demand, or there will be blood in the streets!”



Sounds like they're calling for blood in the streets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lisa558 said:


> That sounds like a threat of violence. Is that the default position of Democrats these days? “Vote the way we demand, or there will be blood in the streets!”


Nah, you're a bad actor. You don't think that. Just a bunch of shameless liars looking for reasons to justify your own bad behavior.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LordBrownTrout said:


> Sounds like they're calling for blood in the streets.


Another bad actor


----------



## bendog

Well susan collins will be shaken if it's overturned  (-:


----------



## The Irish Ram

When is a test tube baby considered alive?


----------



## alang1216

bendog said:


> I don't believe the supermaj of women who support choice also support progressive issues like free money for having kids.


I don't know how may voters loved Biden but I bet the number of Trump-haters was far larger.


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> Contraception should be used before sex, not the morning after.  That's why the morning after pill is called Plan B.
> 
> Plan A is using birth control BEFORE sex.
> 
> I think the long term solution to abortion is more contraception education.  According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all abortions are the result of no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the pregnancy.  Another fifth are due to the improper or inconsistent use of birth control.
> 
> The morning after pill is a good idea in cases of rape.  In fact, it is offered to rape victims now.


So maybe funding for Planned Parenthood should be increased?


----------



## bendog

__





						Gov. Reeves, pro-life leaders gather for prayer event days before Supreme Court rules on state’s abortion law
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> It all depends on how your frame the issue.


True:
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.


----------



## 22lcidw

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another bad actor


Everybody is an actor. We should all get paid for it. And we want residuals.


----------



## alang1216

LordBrownTrout said:


> There is no majority either way. It's about 48-48.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

alang1216 said:


>



Pro choice has decreased while pro life has increased over the last 25 years.


----------



## marvin martian

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.



She's an insurrectionist and should be in jail.


----------



## Lesh

bendog said:


> Well susan collins will be shaken if it's overturned  (-:


She'll be "very concerned"


----------



## g5000

WTH_Progs? said:


> Observation............
> 
> Every person I know that was adopted was adopted by a conservative........................AND;
> 
> Every person I know that gave up their child for adoption is leftist.


The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> So maybe funding for Planned Parenthood should be increased?



No. Even though the money for PP is banned from being used to fund abortions, money is fungible.

If I was addicted to cigarettes, and hungry, and only had enough for one or the other, and then you gave me money and told me I could only use it to buy food and not use it to buy cigarettes, you just enabled me to buy both.

 I've said many times that I don't understand why pro-lifers don't open women's health clinics across the street from every Planned Parenthood and perform all the same services, sans abortion, and then demand federal funding to match Planned Parenthood's federal funding.


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> I've said many times that I don't understand why pro-lifers don't open women's health clinics across the street from every Planned Parenthood and perform all the same services, sans abortion, and then demand federal funding to match Planned Parenthood's federal funding.


Simple answer...they don't actually give a shit about pregnant women


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> True:
> While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.


LIke I said, and showed you in a subsequent post, the split between those who self-identify as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is evenly split.

And a supermajority oppose abortions beyond the first trimester, which is counter to Roe v. Wade.


----------



## Circe

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


And don't suppose only Dem women support abortion rights. I am VERY conservative on most issues, but I am in favor of abortion freedom, generously interpreted. It's a feminist issue: Men of course want women to have to bring up their illicit get at our own expense for 18 years ---- 

And it's a racial issue. Black women use abortion services BY FAR more than white women, so why you Rightwing guys want lots more black males running around, I can't imagine.


----------



## Circe

g5000 said:


> The backlash could be great enough for a lot of state legislatures to be turned from red to blue.
> 
> The ripple effects of that would be enormous.
> 
> Redistricting, for example, is determined by the legislature.  Think about what that would mean.


I agree --- the right is crazy if it does this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LordBrownTrout said:


> Pro choice has decreased while pro life has increased over the last 25 years.
> 
> View attachment 570139


Neat, but wen talking about law or policy, the other poster's poll data is infinitely more relevant.


----------



## Circe

The Irish Ram said:


> When is a test tube baby considered alive?


No baby is a citizen till after it's born.


----------



## g5000

Circe said:


> No baby is a citizen till after it's born.


So you are okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lesh said:


> Simple answer...they don't actually give a shit about pregnant women


Or fetuses. They care only about themselves, and trying to punch their own tickets to the heaven party.


----------



## Circe

alang1216 said:


> I think it is safe to say that the majority of Americans think abortion within limits is OK.  I bet the vast majority approve of the morning after pill.


No one is putting THAT genie back in the bottle. It's in every drugstore now.


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> And a supermajority oppose abortions beyond the first trimester, which is counter to Roe v. Wade.


That Pew Poll doesn't say that.









						Public Opinion on Abortion
					

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.




					www.pewforum.org
				




It DOES say that the anti-abortion movement is driven mostly by MEN

And you are of course...male


----------



## Circe

g5000 said:


> So you are okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month?


Certainly, if they have hydrocephalus, the commonest reason for this. Great oversized heads, severe retardation. Cruel to all NOT to put an end to that kind of outcome.


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> So you are okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month?


Nope. One wonders why the extremists use extremes to illustrate a point?

Is it because they know how unpopular their stance is?


----------



## Lakhota

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



Remember that Republicans gave us Roe vs. Wade.

_Roe vs. Wade _was decided with a 7-2 vote, and not along partisan lines. Those who ruled in favor were as follows, with the president who nominated them and the party of that president indicated in parentheses:

Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
Those who dissented on _Roe vs. Wade:_

Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)
So five Republican-nominated justices and two Democrat-nominated justices ruled for choice, while one Republican and one Democrat-nominated justice ruled against.









						Just a reminder that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written by a lifelong Republican
					

5 of the 7 justices who ruled for choice were appointed by Republican presidents.




					www.upworthy.com


----------



## g5000

Circe said:


> Certainly, if they have hydrocephalus, the commonest reason for this. Great oversized heads, severe retardation. Cruel to all NOT to put an end to that kind of outcome.


I'm not asking about deformed fetuses.

I'm asking about abortion on demand.


----------



## g5000

Lesh said:


> Nope. One wonders why the extremists use extremes to illustrate a point?
> 
> Is it because they know how unpopular their stance is?


Circe said they are not a citizen until they are born.

So my question is a logical one.


----------



## Lesh

g5000 said:


> Circe said they are not a citizen until they are born.
> 
> So my question is a logical one.


Nope. Your question had nothing to do with citizenship

It was pure hyperbole


----------



## Circe

Lesh said:


> That Pew Poll doesn't say that.
> 
> It DOES say that the anti-abortion movement is driven mostly by MEN
> 
> And you are of course...male


OF COURSE the anti-abortion movement is driven mostly by men!! Controlling women and getting us to raise their get free is a major male wish, of all time. I say let's don't cooperate with it.


----------



## g5000

Lesh said:


> Nope. Your question had nothing to do with citizenship
> 
> It was pure hyperbole


It has everything to do with abortion.  I am not the one who brought up citizenship.  Circe did.

She used it in response to a question about test tube babies.  If citizenship is a determinant factor for abortion at the beginning of creation, then it is only logical to ask if that applies to the end of pregnancy.

She said citizenship does not apply until they are born.  

My question is more than pertinent.


----------



## g5000

Circe said:


> OF COURSE the anti-abortion movement is driven mostly by men!! Controlling women and getting us to raise their get free is a major male wish, of all time. I say let's don't cooperate with it.


Are you okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month since, according to you, they are not citizens until they are born?


----------



## g5000

Lesh said:


> That Pew Poll doesn't say that.


See post 14.


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> I've said many times that I don't understand why pro-lifers don't open women's health clinics across the street from every Planned Parenthood and perform all the same services, sans abortion, and then demand federal funding to match Planned Parenthood's federal funding.


I think if they really cared about women and their health, they would.  They're not so much pro-life as anti-abortion.


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> I think if they really cared about women and their health, they would.  They're not so much pro-life as anti-abortion.


I would be more than happy to financially support a pro-life women's clinic.  And I would support federal funding for them so long as PP is receiving federal funding.


----------



## g5000

Where did Circe go?


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> I would be more than happy to financially support a pro-life women's clinic.  And I would support federal funding for them so long as PP is receiving federal funding.


Not even on the GOP's radar so don't hold your breath.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> would be more than happy to financially support a pro-life women's clinic.


Then why don't a bunch of them exist already? Easy answer: educated people who start women's clinics and go to medical school generally believe abortion should be legal and is part of women's healthcare. So there are generally not pro choice or pro life women's clinics. Just women's clinics, period. And these only exist because the normal Healthcare system was and is so patriarchal. So we already have women's clinics that are burdened by primitive ideology. We call them Hospitals.


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> Not even on the GOP's radar so don't hold your breath.


Actually, there are such clinics here and there.  Just not as many as PP has.





__





						What is a Pregnancy Center? | Care Net Pregnancy Centers
					

A Care Net Pregnancy Center is a local, non-profit organization that provides a compassionate environment for women faced with pregnancy decisions.




					www.care-net.org
				








__





						My Choice Network - Pregnancy Options
					

We are a network of providers who can professionally answer your questions, confirm your pregnancy and ensure you have the answers you are looking for so you can make an informed decision. Visit our website today to learn more about pregnancy, adoption and parenting




					mychoicenetwork.org
				




Time to break out my checkbook!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Actually, there are such clinics here and there


True, but those are all ruse. Just a front for proselytization.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then why don't a bunch of them exist already? f


See post 81.

Fucking Google.  When I typed "Pro-life clinic near me" it gave me the location of three Planned Parenthood clinics.

Fucking assholes.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I'm pro-choice, but I agree strictly from a Constitutional standpoint it should be overturned.  The Burger Court invented a right to privacy out of thin air to push their own agenda.  It was THE textbook case of judicial activism.  Even RBG said it was a poorly framed decision.
> 
> Nonetheless, I don't think the court will do it.


I agree with every word.



I am pro-kill-your-worthless-spawn
I agree that it was a shitty decision
I hated the Burger Court
I HATE judicial activism
I believe the Court will do jack shit about it


----------



## g5000

Here's another one: Women’s Healthcare | Hope Clinic

*Our comprehensive services include:*


Pelvic and breast exam
Annual health exam
Pap (as deemed necessary by provider)
Labs
Screening and treatment for UTI, Yeast, Bacteria and other women’s health concerns
IUD removal
Oral contraceptive prescriptions/refills/referrals are available to women 18 years or older during a *required* *in-clinic consultation* with a Nurse Practitioner to see if this is an appropriate medical option for you. 


OUTSTANDING!

They should receive federal funding.


----------



## alang1216

g5000 said:


> Actually, there are such clinics here and there.  Just not as many as PP has.


Are they federally funded?  They seem to be in the suburbs and not downtown where the poor generally reside.


----------



## g5000

I just made a donation to the Hope Clinic.


----------



## g5000

alang1216 said:


> Are they federally funded?  They seem to be in the suburbs and not downtown where the poor generally reside.


If they aren't federally funded, they should be.

I looked on the Hope Clinic web site and could not find if they are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> See post 81.
> 
> Fucking Google.  When I typed "Pro-life clinic near me" it gave me the location of three Planned Parenthood clinics.
> 
> Fucking assholes.


You didn't actually find what you thought you found.

Like the snarkily named "my choice" network. They only provide pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, and proselityzation. That's it. They say so.

Not birth control. No prenatal care. No menstrual care. No STD screening. No breast cancer screening.

Women's Clinic? Give me a break. But you did go a long way toward making my point


----------



## g5000

Ah!  The Hope Clinic I donated to is actually part of a nationwide organization.  My dream has been realized!

And they do receive federal funding:

_*The Primary Care & Hope Clinic is a Federally Qualified Health Center. Health centers provide high quality preventive and primary health care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Approximately 1 in 14 people in the U.S. relies on a HRSA-funded health center for medical care.

This programs described are supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of an award totaling $1,828,411 which represents 26.92% of the total budget. 









						Accreditation/Affiliations
					

Accreditations/Recognitions The Primary Care & Hope Clinic is a Federally Qualified Health Center. Health centers provide high quality preventive and primary health care to patients regardless …




					www.hopeclnc.org
				



*_


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You didn't actually find what you thought you found.
> 
> Like the snarkily named "my choice" network. They only provide pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, and proselityzation. That's it. They say so.
> 
> Not birth control. No prenatal care. No menstrual care. New STD screening. No breast cancer screening.
> 
> Women's Clinic? Give me a break. But you did go a long way toward making my point


See posts 85 and 90.

You are quite wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> See posts 85 and 90.
> 
> You are quite wrong.


Sorry pal, quoted bright from their website. Go look at the my choice Network website. You are wrong, and I am right.


----------



## marvin martian

g5000 said:


> I'm not asking about deformed fetuses.
> 
> I'm asking about abortion on demand.



Why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive?


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry pal, quoted bright from their website. Go look at the my choice Network website. You are wrong, and I am right.


I guess you need to see it again:

Women’s Healthcare | Hope Clinic

*Our comprehensive services include:*


Pelvic and breast exam
Annual health exam
Pap (as deemed necessary by provider)
Labs
Screening and treatment for UTI, Yeast, Bacteria and other women’s health concerns
IUD removal
Oral contraceptive prescriptions/refills/referrals are available to women 18 years or older during a *required* *in-clinic consultation* with a Nurse Practitioner to see if this is an appropriate medical option for you.


----------



## g5000

marvin martian said:


> Why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive?


Really?  You don't know the difference?  Really?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> I guess you need to see it again:
> 
> Women’s Healthcare | Hope Clinic
> 
> *Our comprehensive services include:*
> 
> 
> Pelvic and breast exam
> Annual health exam
> Pap (as deemed necessary by provider)
> Labs
> Screening and treatment for UTI, Yeast, Bacteria and other women’s health concerns
> IUD removal
> Oral contraceptive prescriptions/refills/referrals are available to women 18 years or older during a *required* *in-clinic consultation* with a Nurse Practitioner to see if this is an appropriate medical option for you.


I referred to the My Choice network. Clearly, as that is the third time I have said it.

As for that hope clinic...ya found one example. Good. My point is that there are not many of these. Which is true. 

Where are the "hope clinics" all over Alabama and Mississippi and Texas, where they are now needed? Strange....


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I referred to the My Choice network. Clearly, as that is the third time I have said it.
> 
> As for that hope clinic...ya found one example. Good. My point is that there are not many of these. Which is true.
> 
> Where are the "hope clinics" all over Alabama and Mississippi and Texas, where they are now needed? Strange....


You didn't read post 90, did you.

The Hope Clinic is a nationwide organization.



Keep trying!


----------



## marvin martian

alang1216 said:


> Are they federally funded?  They seem to be in the suburbs and not downtown where the poor generally reside.



Of course not. Planned Parenthood puts their clinics where the poor black and brown people live. That was Margaret Sanger's plan, of course, to exterminate the blacks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> You didn't read post 90, did you.
> 
> The Hope Clinic is a nationwide organization.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying!


Nowhere in post 90 does it say that, except for you making that false claim. And apparently you do not open and read your own links. They have 4 locations in one State: TN


Are you just kind of making  stuff up and hoping nobody checks?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 and the more info you provide, the more you strengthen my point.

Where are these clinics in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, where they are really needed? This shows pretty clearly what their actual mission is: to lure people in to proselytize to them, in competition with clinics that provide abortion services.  Apparently they figure there is little competition in the 3 States I mentioned. So no clinics.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nowhere in post 90 does it say that, except for you making that false claim. And apparently you do not open and read your own links. They have 4 locations in one State: TN
> 
> 
> Are you just kind of making  stuff up and hoping nobody checks?


Locations - Hope Clinic | Houston Multilingual Medical Services  - Texas









						Services - Hope Clinic | Houston Multilingual Medical Services
					

HOPE Clinic’s Adult Primary Care services provide comprehensive care for both men and women ages 18 and older. Our focus is the patient’s well being by




					www.hopechc.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, provides adoption counseling and low-cost or free prenatal care.

We see which org actually is interested in women's health, and which is just a cover for proselytization.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> g5000 and the more info you provide, the more you strengthen my point.
> 
> Where are these clinics in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, where they are really needed? This shows pretty clearly what their actual mission is: to lure people in to proselytize to them, in competition with clinics that provide abortion services.  Apparently they figure there is little competition in the 3 States I mentioned. So no clinics.


Nope.

I've heard of the fake clinics which offer no health services to women.  The ones I have been showing you are clearly NOT those types of fake clinics.

They actually perform health services.  Open your damned eyes, man.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Locations - Hope Clinic | Houston Multilingual Medical Services  - Texas


Different company entirely.

5 locations in all of Texas.

And that is a primary care clinic. It's a general practice for men and women. Not a women's services clinic. Has nothing to do with our discussion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Nope.
> 
> I've heard of the fake clinics which offer no health services to women.  The ones I have been showing you are clearly NOT those types of fake clinics.
> 
> They actually perform health services.  Open your damned eyes, man.


Dude, don't try to sidestep your misrepresentations. You won't get away with it. It's all there in black and white.

So why isn't the first hope clinic where they are needed most? We both know why. I explained it in detail.


----------



## alang1216

marvin martian said:


> Of course not. Planned Parenthood puts their clinics where the poor black and brown people live. That was Margaret Sanger's plan, of course, to exterminate the blacks.


So conservatives put their clinics in wealthy, white areas because they want to help poor black and brown people.  Got it.


----------



## AZrailwhale

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.


I am pro-choice, but I think Roe should be overturned because it's bad law.  SCOTUS had to invent a right to justify upholding it.  Privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Abortion should be a state or local matter handled due to community mores.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dude, don't try to sidestep your misrepresentations. You won't get away with it. It's all there in black and white.
> 
> So why isn't the first hope clinic where they are needed most? We both know why. I explained it in detail.


Moving the goalposts now, eh?

I showed you they provide the services you claimed they don't.

I can't make you see what you refuse to see.  I give up.


----------



## g5000

_Our clinic is nestled in the heart of midtown Nashville between Church Street and the Hutton hotel._

Smack in the middle of the city.





__





						Visit Us | Hope Clinic
					






					www.hopeclinicforwomen.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

These Proselytizing frauds are trying to trick people. That's why they say they offer "abortion education". Why they don't say is that it is really just a sermon against abortion. What they don't say is that they will be surprising you with pictures of dead fetuses. Or trying to scare you into thinking abortion will make you mentally ill. Etc., etc. 

That isn't healthcare. That is cruelty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Moving the goalposts now, eh?


Yes, you certainly did.

You first link was 100% wrong.

Your second link was 4 locations in one State. You said they were national. Nope.

Your third link was a different company and was just a primary care provider. Irrelevant. Strike 3

My point is that these clinics of which you speak are far and few between. (You found only one example with 4 locations, despite several attempts and furious googling... strengthening my point).

There just are not that many women's clinics that provide all these other services and do not also perform or refer abortions. Which is to be expected in the year 2021, as most educated people understand that is part of women's Healthcare.

That's the state of affairs. Complain , love it, hate it, that's up to you.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> g5000 and the more info you provide, the more you strengthen my point.
> 
> Where are these clinics in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, where they are really needed? This shows pretty clearly what their actual mission is: to lure people in to proselytize to them, in competition with clinics that provide abortion services.  Apparently they figure there is little competition in the 3 States I mentioned. So no clinics.


Planned Parenthood has only two locations in Alabama.  Because Alabama has only three abortion mills.

Mississippi has only one PP because there is only one abortion mill in that state.

I showed you the pro-life clinic locations in Texas.


----------



## g5000

My first child was born in Mississippi.  Every doctor in the hospital was pro-life and would not refer anyone for an abortion.

The first thing we noticed about the doctor who birthed our child was that he was wearing this pin:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Parenthood has only two locations in Alabama. Because Alabama has only three abortion mills.


That's not "why". 

The "why" is because they face legal barriers in that State. And also because there are only about 1 million women in Alabama aged 15-49.


----------



## initforme

America does a poor job of promoting contraception. A young married couple that chooses not to have kids should be applauded and looked upon favorably instead of being encouraged to have kids.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> My first child was born in Mississippi. Every doctor in the hospital was pro-life and would not refer anyone for an abortion.


Stop making stuff up. As if you conducted a poll. I don't think you are capable of having honest discussion on this topic. That much is now clear. So I will leave you to it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

LordBrownTrout said:


> Very dangerous and a dogwhistle to commit violence.
> 
> Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court days before oral arguments in a potential landmark abortion case, claiming that a "revolution" will take place if the high court overturns existing precedent.


A little revolution now and again is a good thing!


----------



## The Irish Ram

Circe said:


> No baby is a citizen till after it's born.


Science considers test tube babies alive at conception.  Citizenship has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Dragonlady

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.



There is no “might” about it.  

One in every four American women will have an abortion in her lifetime. So right off the top you’ve alienated 25% of the women in America.

Any woman who had reached the age of menstruation in 1973, remembers what life was like before abortion was legal. Even those of us who have never had an abortion, can remember our friends having illegal abortions, and how terrified we were that their back street abortions would end in their hospitalization, or worse, their death. 

Furthermore, this will have no impact on women of means. Wealthy women have always just travelled to a jurisdiction where abortion with legal when they couldn’t get one at home. Sweden was a favourite destination. As was Japan. 

If Roe v Wade is overturned, there are triggering laws in many states both Democrat and Republican.  In republican states abortions will immediately be banned or severely limited, and in democrat states these triggering laws legalize abortion fully to maintain its legality.

Women of means will simply travel to a state or a country where abortion is legal. That’s already happening in Texas. Those who worry about white people being replaced, the white women will be getting abortions since most minority women cite financial reasons as their reason for getting an abortion.

Black and Hispanic women account for 2/3 of the abortions in the United States. Banning abortion will hasten the day when white will be a minority in the US. Be careful what you wish for Republicans. 

I truly do love the law of “unintended consequences”.


----------



## Dragonlady

LordBrownTrout said:


> Very dangerous and a dogwhistle to commit violence.
> 
> Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court days before oral arguments in a potential landmark abortion case, claiming that a "revolution" will take place if the high court overturns existing precedent.



From time to time the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots. I remember you clowns quoted that Jefferson quote frequently. 

There are 8 million more women voters than there are men. Especially older women voters. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the women of America will vote for a national law codifying a woman’s legal right to abortion. 

Just remember, the women’s vote is what cost you the House in 2018. The is no issue on which women are more in agreement than our right to determine our own lives.


----------



## Dragonlady

The Irish Ram said:


> Science considers test tube babies alive at conception.  Citizenship has nothing to do with it.



No they don’t. Science does not consider test tube babies to babies to be alive other than in the same way they consider mould to be alive. They kill the fertilized eggs with impunity. Don’t pay your storage bill?  They’re gone. 

If these were living beings, they be charged with murder.


----------



## Dadoalex

g5000 said:


> It all depends on how your frame the issue.  Americans are split pretty much 50-50 on whether they call themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice".  However, when you ask them if they are okay with abortions after the first trimester, a vast majority of Americans are opposed.  Something like 67 percent.
> 
> Roe v. Wade allows abortions through the second trimester, with third trimester abortions left to the states.
> 
> So a lot of people who call themselves "pro-choice" are actually in opposition to Roe v. Wade and don't know it.


So you're 100% in favor of abortion in the first Tri?

Be honest, you want to eliminate all choice and that puts you and those like you in a small minority.


----------



## martybegan

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't think SCOTUS will overturn it.  If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down ObamaCare, which was blatantly unconstitutional on its face, I doubt he is going to rule in the affirmative on striking down Roe which will be even more controversial.



I have a feeling they will set the line at the 1st Trimester, like most of Europe does.


----------



## Circe

Dragonlady said:


> One in every four American women will have an abortion in her lifetime. So right off the top you’ve alienated 25% of the women in America.


More than 25%, I'd say! I was never so unlucky as to get caught in such a situation, but I can certainly tell some seriously lurid stories I learned from others during college. It's such a catastrophe for women that if there is a way out, we have to have it available.


----------



## Circe

Dragonlady said:


> The is no issue on which women are more in agreement than our right to determine our own lives.


Well said. Agreed.


----------



## Dragonlady

martybegan said:


> I have a feeling they will set the line at the 1st Trimester, like most of Europe does.



Second trimester abortions are the most important. You can’t do amniocentesis until 20 weeks and you don’t get the results for three or four weeks. Second trimester abortions are necessary and they should be right through until birth. Abortion is a medical matter not a legal matter.

I live in a country where abortion is a matter medical matter between a woman and her doctor. There are no laws governing abortions. Our abortion rate is half the rate of yours.

The reasons why our abortion rate is so much lower than yours can be found in the fact that women have mandated maternity leave here, paid for through our employment insurance. We have job stability for companies with more than 30 employees. If I get pregnant when I return from maternity leave in one year, they have to give me my old job back or a job at a comparable rate of pay. 

We also have universal government funded healthcare available to both woman and her child. I paid nothing out of pocket for prenatal care or hospital and delivery.

With stable income throughout my program throughout my maternity leave, guaranteed job waiting for me when I returned, and no out-of-pocket costs for my medical care, confinement or delivery, there was no financial reason for me not to proceed with my pregnancy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dragonlady said:


> From time to time the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.


And sometimes with the blood of traitors. Which is what will happen if any of these dummies follow through on their nearly daily implied threats.


----------



## Circe

Dragonlady said:


> Our abortion rate is half the rate of yours.\


Blacks are known to use abortion as birth control, so that's probably the reason for the difference.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Circe said:


> Blacks are known to use abortion as birth control, so that's probably the reason for the difference.


And whites are known to do it because they fuck their cousins


----------



## g5000

Dadoalex said:


> So you're 100% in favor of abortion in the first Tri?


Nope.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not "why".
> 
> The "why" is because they face legal barriers in that State. And also because there are only about 1 million women in Alabama aged 15-49.


Oregon has a smaller population than Alabama and has 3 PP clinics.

Connecticut has an even smaller population, and has 3 PP clinics.

Vermont has about 1/8 the population of Alabama and has 3 PP clinics.

Legal barriers?  Good!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Legal barriers? Good!


Yes, I always run right to the first conservative old  man I can find, when I want a good, informed opinion on women's health.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop making stuff up. As if you conducted a poll. I don't think you are capable of having honest discussion on this topic. That much is now clear. So I will leave you to it.


I'm not making stuff up.  The doctor said their hospital does not perform abortions.  Sorry!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> The doctor said their hospital does not perform abortions.


Not what you claimed.




g5000 said:


> I'm not making stuff up


You sure are.


----------



## g5000

Dragonlady said:


> Any woman who had reached the age of menstruation in 1973, remembers what life was like before abortion was legal. Even those of us who have never had an abortion, can remember our friends having illegal abortions, and how terrified we were that their back street abortions would end in their hospitalization, or worse, their death.


Back alley abortion deaths were deliberately exaggerated by NARAL.  The actual number of deaths from illegal abortions was about 100 a year.

Most illegal abortions were performed in the comfort of a doctor's office.  Just as they would be if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The actual figure is less than 100 deaths a year from illegal abortions. That's because illegal abortions were not so much performed in the proverbial back alley, but in skilled doctors' offices.

From the book _Aborting America_ published in 1973:

_How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL [the National Abortion Rights Action League], we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.' *I confess that I knew the figures were totally false*, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible._


----------



## g5000

Dragonlady said:


> There are 8 million more women voters than there are men. Especially older women voters. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the women of America will vote for a national law codifying a woman’s legal right to abortion.
> 
> Just remember, the women’s vote is what cost you the House in 2018. The is no issue on which women are more in agreement than our right to determine our own lives.


Just as I pointed out in post 4 and post 21.


----------



## g5000

Circe said:


> Blacks are known to use abortion as birth control, so that's probably the reason for the difference.


Are you okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month, since the person in the womb isn't a citizen until they are born?  You still have not answered that question.

As for your racist comment, I had a subordinate in the military who had 7 abortions and for some reason never used contraception.

She was as white as it gets.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not what you claimed.


 Since they would not perform abortions, it is obvious they would not refer anyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Since they would not perform abortions, it is obvious they would not refer anyone.


No, sorry. That does not follow. Like, at all. The doctors don't make the rules of the hospital. Give it up.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, sorry. That does not follow. Like, at all. The doctors don't make the rules of the hospital. Give it up.


You don't know Mississippi.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> You don't know Mississippi.


And you don't know every doctor in the hospital. Moving on...


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you don't know every doctor in the hospital. Moving on...


Our doctor did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> Our doctor did.


So? Dude, seriously, this made up appeal to emotion does not help anything you arguing. Moving on...


----------



## g5000

Still waiting on Circe to answer the question.  Ninth month abortions on demand okay since the baby isn't a citizen yet?


----------



## Lakhota

Women must continue to have first priority in their reproductive health.  Period.

Roe v. Wade must continue to be the law of the land.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> Second trimester abortions are the most important. You can’t do amniocentesis until 20 weeks and you don’t get the results for three or four weeks. Second trimester abortions are necessary and they should be right through until birth. Abortion is a medical matter not a legal matter.
> 
> I live in a country where abortion is a matter medical matter between a woman and her doctor. There are no laws governing abortions. Our abortion rate is half the rate of yours.
> 
> The reasons why our abortion rate is so much lower than yours can be found in the fact that women have mandated maternity leave here, paid for through our employment insurance. We have job stability for companies with more than 30 employees. If I get pregnant when I return from maternity leave in one year, they have to give me my old job back or a job at a comparable rate of pay.
> 
> We also have universal government funded healthcare available to both woman and her child. I paid nothing out of pocket for prenatal care or hospital and delivery.
> 
> With stable income throughout my program throughout my maternity leave, guaranteed job waiting for me when I returned, and no out-of-pocket costs for my medical care, confinement or delivery, there was no financial reason for me not to proceed with my pregnancy.



Nice to see a proponent of Eugenics be honest about it.


----------



## Dadoalex

g5000 said:


> Nope.


Exactly.
Your post was just a lie.  You are nowhere near the middle, you are simply an extremist.  Welcome to the GOP.


----------



## g5000

Dadoalex said:


> Exactly.
> Your post was just a lie.  You are nowhere near the middle, you are simply an extremist.  Welcome to the GOP.


What post?

Welcome to the GOP?  BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!  I left the GOP after Trump was elected.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, I always run right to the first conservative old  man I can find, when I want a good, informed opinion on women's health.


My wife is more pro-life than I am.  And so was my mom.


----------



## Lakhota

The MAJORITY of women want Roe v. Wade to remain the law of the land.


----------



## Dragonlady

g5000 said:


> Oregon has a smaller population than Alabama and has 3 PP clinics.
> 
> Connecticut has an even smaller population, and has 3 PP clinics.
> 
> Vermont has about 1/8 the population of Alabama and has 3 PP clinics.
> 
> Legal barriers?  Good!



Why is it that men want to stop women from deciding their fate?



martybegan said:


> Nice to see a proponent of Eugenics be honest about it.



I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women. 

You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.  If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.


g5000 said:


> My wife is more pro-life than I am.  And so was my mom.



If you reject abortion, don't have one.  But you have no right to decide for other women.  I don't care if every woman in your family since the dawn of time was opposed to abortion.  I don't care what you believe.  You have no right to inflict your values, your religion or your beliefs onto the lives of others.  

I don't believe in abortion either and I have never had one.  But I have friends who made a different choice and I respect their choice because I know that this was the right thing for them, and for their circumstances.  If my amno-centsis test had had a different result, I would have had little choice in the matter.  At 24 weeks and having already named my girl, what if . . . I thank God every day I never had to face that one.


----------



## WEATHER53

If it ends I still have to go with the woman.  Not over and over and I dont know how to monitor that.  
One and done maybe


----------



## Lakhota

Dragonlady said:


> Why is it that men want to stop women from deciding their fate?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women.
> 
> You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.  If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.
> 
> 
> If you reject abortion, don't have one.  But you have no right to decide for other women.  I don't care if every woman in your family since the dawn of time was opposed to abortion.  I don't care what you believe.  You have no right to inflict your values, your religion or your beliefs onto the lives of others.
> 
> I don't believe in abortion either and I have never had one.  But I have friends who made a different choice and I respect their choice because I know that this was the right thing for them, and for their circumstances.  If my amno-centsis test had had a different result, I would have had little choice in the matter.  At 24 weeks and having already named my girl, what if . . . I thank God every day I never had to face that one.



Amen!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't think SCOTUS will overturn it.  If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down ObamaCare, which was blatantly unconstitutional on its face, I doubt he is going to rule in the affirmative on striking down Roe which will be even more controversial.


As it stands, they wouldn't need his vote. 

5-4 either way.


----------



## Dragonlady

g5000 said:


> Are you okay with abortion on demand in the ninth month, since the person in the womb isn't a citizen until they are born?  You still have not answered that question.
> 
> As for your racist comment, I had a subordinate in the military who had 7 abortions and for some reason never used contraception.
> 
> She was as white as it gets.





martybegan said:


> Nice to see a proponent of Eugenics be honest about it.



I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women.  

You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.  

If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.


----------



## Lakhota

Just a reminder that the majority opinion in *Roe v*. *Wade* was written by a lifelong Republican​


----------



## basquebromance

‘A post-Roe strategy’: The next phase of the abortion fight has already begun
					

“We’ve had a post-Roe strategy for the last 15 years,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America. “Now is when the rubber will meet the road.”




					www.politico.com
				




"Abortion rights groups are amassing millions in donations, recruiting volunteers to help people travel across state lines for the procedure, and developing a grey market to deliver abortion pills straight to patients’ doorsteps — even in states that have banned them.

Clinics in Democratic-controlled states are also staffing up, anticipating a flood of new patients from Republican-led states, which have been tightening access for years and are likely to waste little time in fully banning the procedure should Roe fall.

A dozen states have “trigger” laws that will automatically prohibit abortion should the court overturn the 50-year old precedent, while other conservative-led states are expected to move swiftly to ban abortion in the wake of such a ruling. A smaller group of progressive states have abortion rights protected in state law

But many states neither ban nor protect the procedure and a final ruling, expected to come just a few months ahead of the midterms, could shape the 2022 election, as both sides jockey for votes with the understanding that the right to an abortion may be determined by which party prevails.

“Dozens of states are likely or certain to ban abortion if Roe falls. Do people in those states know that?” asked Kristin Ford with NARAL, which is supporting candidates who back abortion rights. “How are we communicating the gravity and significance of this moment to voters and reminding them who is to blame — who confirmed these justices and how do we hold those elected officials to account?”

Texas, which has had a near-total abortion ban in place for the last three months that the Supreme Court has allowed to stand, offers a preview of what the nation could look life if Roe falls: people with means traveling across state and national borders or going outside the law to terminate a pregnancy while those unable or unwilling to do so carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

And in the five states that have just one remaining clinic, the right to an abortion may still exist on paper, but access is so limited that organizers on the ground say they’ve been readying for a “post-Roe scenario” for years

“We still have a clinic, but it’s just one, they can only do procedures a few times a week, and they have to fly all their doctors in from out of state,” said Michelle Colón, the executive director of the Mississippi-based group SHERO, which stands for Sisters Helping Every Woman Rise and Organize. “They can’t even see everyone who needs an abortion in Mississippi, let alone serve people coming in from Alabama, Louisiana and other neighboring states.”

Advocates in California are pushing for the state’s Medicaid program to more easily reimburse providers for treating patients from out of state, while groups in Michigan are looking at a ballot initiative to ensure access to abortion pills

Their prep work was put to the test in September when the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ six-week ban to take effect, and in some parts of the country, clinics’ limited resources are now nearly overwhelmed.

“Prior to Texas, our system was already taxed,” said Colleen McNicholas, the chief medical officer of one of Planned Parenthood’s Midwest affiliates, which operates a clinic on the Illinois-Missouri border and serves patients from many surrounding states. “We are now on the verge of not being able to uphold it.”

Anti-abortion groups, anticipating an increase in unwanted pregnancies, are also promoting faith-based crisis pregnancy centers, petitioning college campuses to provide better housing and services for pregnant and parenting students, and lobbying state governments to allocate funds for parenting classes, adoption services and other anticipated needs.

“We realize this will mean there will be women who need more resources and help and we want to step up and provide that,” Glenn said. “This is the kind of thinking we’re pushing all states to do.”

The two-drug regimen is far cheaper than a surgical abortion, can be ordered online and taken at home and carries a less than half-a-percent risk of major complications.

Yet the pills can only be taken during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. By the time a person realizes they are pregnant and finds out how to obtain them, it may be too late. Abortion rights groups also worry misinformation and fear will prevent people from using the pills or deter them from seeking follow-up care if needed, particularly as more states move to ban them.

“I can’t stress enough that states are criminalizing this — putting people in jail who self-manage their abortions and going after those who help them do so,” Colón said. “If Roe is overturned, I expect that will only get worse.”"


----------



## basquebromance

no matter what happens....God bless the United States and this court!


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> Still waiting on Circe to answer the question.  Ninth month abortions on demand okay since the baby isn't a citizen yet?


Well Casey did modify but not overrule Roe.  The State does have a legit interest in protecting not just viable life but also how abortion affects society as a whole.  The Miss case would overrule Casey at least to protection for women to choose an abortion, but I suppose the "timeline" is sort of open due to medical treatment improvement.

Obviously I'm prochoice.  But I don't think many women choose abortion with a happy smile.  Hopefully newer abortion drugs make it less a traumatic event, but is there really a distinction between an IUD and an abortion prior to week 9?  I don't really see one.  But it seems to me that most women seeking abortions after the first trimester have something going on in their lives that is not good and/or medical complications.


----------



## basquebromance

the liberty clause in the 14th amendment allows the right to abortion, my friends


----------



## Flash

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



The only people that are crazy about killing the children are the Feminazis and the Moon Bats that support them because they are afraid that if they don't they will get beat up by the Dykes.

The rest of America would look forward to not killing a half million children each year for the sake of convenience.


----------



## whitehall

Like it or not there is no constitutional right to hire someone to kill your unborn child.


----------



## Dragonlady

basquebromance said:


>



This argument is yet another right wing lie, as was just stated in the court.  The Heritage Foundation is saying that a gestating fetus can feel pain BEFORE it has a brain stem, which is physically impossible.  Even people who are paralyzed or brain dead, flinch physically react when poked.  

All first world countries are loosening restrictions on abortion, recognizing it is a medical procedure and should be between a woman and her caregivers.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Dragonlady said:


> This argument is yet another right wing lie, as was just stated in the court.  The Heritage Foundation is saying that a gestating fetus can feel pain BEFORE it has a brain stem, which is physically impossible.  Even people who are paralyzed or brain dead, flinch physically react when poked.
> 
> All first world countries are loosening restrictions on abortion, recognizing it is a medical procedure and should be between a woman and her caregivers.



Murdering a living human is not a medical procedure.


----------



## Dragonlady

Flash said:


> The only people that are crazy about killing the children are the Feminazis and the Moon Bats that support them because they are afraid that if they don't they will get beat up by the Dykes.
> 
> The rest of America would look forward to not killing a half million children each year for the sake of convenience.



The only people who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child, are fascist men who want to punish women who have sex.  Notice the hateful misogyny in the post above.

Being able to control when to have a child or whether to have a child is the most personal decision a woman can make, and yet the party of "individual rights" would strip this right, which is God given, and which women have had since the dawn of time, simply because they want to control women.

By the "rest of America" do you mean the 20% of people who oppose abortion because 80% of all Americans favour women having the right to choose.  You're one of the 20% of assholes who hate women, and hate the idea of women having control over their own lives.

How be we allow the government to regulate your right to decide how many children YOU have.  If you only have one child, you MUST have two more, just to help replace the white race, since white women aren't having children.  You won't mind raising more children.  If you don't want to have them yourself, you can just adopt but all families MUST have at least three children.


----------



## Dragonlady

LordBrownTrout said:


> Murdering a living human is not a medical procedure.



Abortion is terminating a gestating fetus.  It is not a living human until it draws first breath.  That's the Biblical standard of "life", straight outta Genesis.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Dragonlady said:


> The only people who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child, are fascist men who want to punish women who have sex.  Notice the hateful misogyny in the post above.
> 
> Being able to control when to have a child or whether to have a child is the most personal decision a woman can make, and yet the party of "individual rights" would strip this right, which is God given, and which women have had since the dawn of time, simply because they want to control women.
> 
> By the "rest of America" do you mean the 20% of people who oppose abortion because 80% of all Americans favour women having the right to choose.  You're one of the 20% of assholes who hate women, and hate the idea of women having control over their own lives.
> 
> How be we allow the government to regulate your right to decide how many children YOU have.  If you only have one child, you MUST have two more, just to help replace the white race, since white women aren't having children.  You won't mind raising more children.  If you don't want to have them yourself, you can just adopt but all families MUST have at least three children.



"....A God given right to murder your own child"?

Your compass is way off.


----------



## Flash

Dragonlady said:


> The only people who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child, are fascist men who want to punish women who have sex.  Notice the hateful misogyny in the post above.
> 
> Being able to control when to have a child or whether to have a child is the most personal decision a woman can make, and yet the party of "individual rights" would strip this right, which is God given, and which women have had since the dawn of time, simply because they want to control women.
> 
> By the "rest of America" do you mean the 20% of people who oppose abortion because 80% of all Americans favour women having the right to choose.  You're one of the 20% of assholes who hate women, and hate the idea of women having control over their own lives.
> 
> How be we allow the government to regulate your right to decide how many children YOU have.  If you only have one child, you MUST have two more, just to help replace the white race, since white women aren't having children.  You won't mind raising more children.  If you don't want to have them yourself, you can just adopt but all families MUST have at least three children.




You are confused Moon Bat.

The people that are punished are the kids that get killed because of the selfishness of the mother.

Killing a child for birth control is not cool, except in the demented world of stupid uneducated hateful Libtards.

If the woman doesn't want to get knocked up because a child would be an inconvenience then she should keep her panties on or insist that her boyfriend wear a condom.

A woman that is not responsible enough to use birth control sure as hell is not responsible enough to be able to order the death of a child.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Dragonlady said:


> Abortion is terminating a gestating fetus.  It is not a living human until it draws first breath.  That's the Biblical standard of "life", straight outta Genesis.



Nope, that's incorrect.  You should study your scripture. 

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”


----------



## bendog

LordBrownTrout said:


> Nope, that's incorrect.  You should study your scripture.
> 
> Jeremiah 1:5
> 
> “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
> and before you were born I set you apart
> and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”


who cares, and you misapprehend the passage.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

bendog said:


> who cares, and you misapprehend the passage.



No, thats what God said to Jeremiah.  Who cares?  That sounds like you're mad that someone is challenging people who want to murder babies.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## bendog

LordBrownTrout said:


> No, thats what God said to Jeremiah.  Who cares?  That sounds like you're mad that someone is challenging people who want to murder babies.


You fucking idiot.  Jeremiah is talking about the Messiah.  Not that it means a fuck to anyone not buying the myth


----------



## LordBrownTrout

bendog said:


> You fucking idiot.  Jeremiah is talking about the Messiah.  Not that it means a fuck to anyone not buying the myth



Your profanities aside, you're incorrect.  God was speaking to jeremiah.  Jeremiah is not talking about the messiah.  We get it.  You're very mad.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> My wife is more pro-life than I am. And so was my mom.


So? Are you saying they are also anti-choice?


----------



## bendog

LordBrownTrout said:


> Your profanities aside, you're incorrect.  God was speaking to jeremiah.  Jeremiah is not talking about the messiah.  We get it.  You're very mad.


No I'm not angry, but I am annoyed at your ignorance of the meaning of the passage - it legitimizes Jeremiah as a prophet - and arrogance of thinking your god is relevant to all.  In the Christian faith, Jeremiah is quoted in the NT as support for the new covenant brought through Christ.




			Jeremiah 1 NIV
		


The Call of Jeremiah

*4*The word of the Lord came to me, saying,

*5*“Before I formed you in the womb I knew a you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
*6*“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”

*7*But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. *8*Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.

*9*Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. *10*See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”

*11*The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?”

“I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied.

*12*The Lord said to me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching b to see that my word is fulfilled.”

*13*The word of the Lord came to me again: “What do you see?”

“I see a pot that is boiling,” I answered. “It is tilting toward us from the north.”

*14*The Lord said to me, “From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land. *15*I am about to summon all the peoples of the northern kingdoms,” declares the Lord.

“Their kings will come and set up their thrones
in the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem;
they will come against all her surrounding walls
and against all the towns of Judah.
*16*I will pronounce my judgments on my people
because of their wickedness in forsaking me,
in burning incense to other gods
and in worshiping what their hands have made.
*17*“Get yourself ready! Stand up and say to them whatever I command you. Do not be terrified by them, or I will terrify you before them. *18*Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land—against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land. *19*They will fight against you but will not overcome you, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

bendog said:


> No I'm not angry, but I am annoyed at your ignorance of the meaning of the passage - it legitimizes Jeremiah as a prophet - and arrogance of thinking your god is relevant to all.  In the Christian faith, Jeremiah is quoted in the NT as support for the new covenant brought through Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 1 NIV
> 
> 
> 
> The Call of Jeremiah
> 
> *4*The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
> 
> *5*“Before I formed you in the womb I knew a you,
> before you were born I set you apart;
> I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
> *6*“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”
> 
> *7*But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. *8*Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.
> 
> *9*Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. *10*See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”
> 
> *11*The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?”
> 
> “I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied.
> 
> *12*The Lord said to me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching b to see that my word is fulfilled.”
> 
> *13*The word of the Lord came to me again: “What do you see?”
> 
> “I see a pot that is boiling,” I answered. “It is tilting toward us from the north.”
> 
> *14*The Lord said to me, “From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land. *15*I am about to summon all the peoples of the northern kingdoms,” declares the Lord.
> 
> “Their kings will come and set up their thrones
> in the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem;
> they will come against all her surrounding walls
> and against all the towns of Judah.
> *16*I will pronounce my judgments on my people
> because of their wickedness in forsaking me,
> in burning incense to other gods
> and in worshiping what their hands have made.
> *17*“Get yourself ready! Stand up and say to them whatever I command you. Do not be terrified by them, or I will terrify you before them. *18*Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land—against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land. *19*They will fight against you but will not overcome you, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.



God was speaking to jeremiah but in essence, to all of us.  You're correct about jeremiah although he was one of a few prophets that were pointing to the new covenant.  Just curious, do you think there are many gods?


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> the liberty clause in the 14th amendment allows the right to abortion, my friends



The 14th Amendment is a guarantee that all laws passed by government are applied equally among the citizens, whether that be a ban on abortions or laws allowing them. It does not speak to abortion itself.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



Democrats are always fantasizing there are hordes of voters who aren't voting but are just waiting for Roe to be overturned to end Democracy.   Sure there are sport, they aren't voting Democrat now already.  Sure they're not ...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So? Are you saying they are also anti-choice?


"Choice"

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As far as his wife goes, she made her choice.

Deal with it. There are in fact women out there who do not espouse the ghoulish pro-abortion credo.


----------



## marvin martian

Dragonlady said:


> Abortion is terminating a gestating fetus.  It is not a living human until it draws first breath.  That's the Biblical standard of "life", straight outta Genesis.



Damn you're ignorant.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Abortion is terminating a gestating fetus.  It is not a living human until it draws first breath.  That's the Biblical standard of "life", straight outta Genesis.



Curious, no other animal in our world has the same dilemma about giving birth to its own young that we do. 

Perhaps lesser animals value the lives of their kind (born or unborn) more than people like you do?


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> The 14th Amendment is a guarantee that all laws passed by government are applied equally among the citizens, whether that be a ban on abortions or laws allowing them. It does not speak to abortion itself.



For the Federal government to pass a law either banning or legitimizing abortions, then abortions would have to be an enumerated power of the Federal government to do so.  It isn't, so abortions are a STATE power, not a Federal power.

I'm pro-choice, but I believe not following the Constitution is scarier than not following it when that is convenient like the Democrats constantly do


----------



## kaz

marvin martian said:


> Damn you're ignorant.



Think Dragonlady says that a fetus isn't a human when someone commits violence against the mother?


----------



## TemplarKormac

kaz said:


> Think Dragonlady says that a fetus isn't a human when someone commits violence against the mother?


To her, it's only human if it's planned. 

That makes me shudder.


----------



## TemplarKormac

kaz said:


> For the Federal government to pass a law either banning or legitimizing abortions, then abortions would have to be an enumerated power of the Federal government to do so.


Hence, there would need to be a constitutional basis for such a law to be passed. There are no enumerated abortion powers in the Constitution for the government to base pertinent laws on.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> For the Federal government to pass a law either banning or legitimizing abortions, then abortions would have to be an enumerated power of the Federal government to do so.  It isn't, so abortions are a STATE power, not a Federal power.
> 
> I'm pro-choice, but I believe not following the Constitution is scarier than not following it when that is convenient like the Democrats constantly do


but at the time the const was ratified there weren't laws against abortion.  So, the argument would go, what is the basis for any state or federal prohibition unless the Founders expressly provided one?

In short, this is one time when I don't think "original intent" really gets anyone anywhere, but I expect the Five to overturn Roe at least to some extent


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> Democrats are always fantasizing there are hordes of voters who aren't voting but are just waiting for Roe to be overturned to end Democracy.   Sure there are sport, they aren't voting Democrat now already.  Sure they're not ...


You really don't think that overturning Roe is going to swing suburbs away from the gop on this single issue?


----------



## BS Filter

Abortion should be up to the states.  Period.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't think SCOTUS will overturn it.  If Roberts wasn't willing to strike down ObamaCare, which was blatantly unconstitutional on its face, I doubt he is going to rule in the affirmative on striking down Roe which will be even more controversial.



I do not think so either.  Trump did not pick people that were hardcore  get rid of RvW people for the courty.  Only ACB really leans that way


----------



## Golfing Gator

bendog said:


> You really don't think that overturning Roe is going to swing suburbs away from the gop on this single issue?



Abortion has always been the biggest single voter issue.   It is part of the reason the GOP has not nominated an actual conservatives in decades.  Abortions is the only litmus test for the GOP voters.


----------



## flacaltenn

g5000 said:


> The Texas and Mississippi cases do not limit abortions.  They make no exceptions.
> 
> And to legalize abortion in the first and second trimesters, with or without restrictions, IS an overturning of Roe v. Wade.  It would make Roe v. Wade null and void.



How can you be so CONSISTENTLY wrong?  Don't even know what YOU THINK these laws do,  Because you DONT know apparently.  Post was garbage on a complicated issue.


----------



## flacaltenn

Golfing Gator said:


> Abortion has always been the biggest single voter issue.   It is part of the reason the GOP has not nominated an actual conservatives in decades.  Abortions is the only litmus test for the GOP voters.



Don't commit credibility hari-kari with gross generalizations and exaggerations.  You're too good for that.


----------



## Golfing Gator

flacaltenn said:


> Don't commit credibility hari-kari with gross generalizations and exaggerations.  You're too good for that.



I do not think it is a exaggeration.  I grew up on the right, spent the majority of my life as a very active member of churches all across this country and in a couple of other countries.    Abortion is the only "must have" that anyone on the right that I have known has ever had.  My family still feels that way.  

If you had a staunch fiscal conservative who was pro-choice going against a big spending pro-life candidate, the pro-life one will will the primary every time. 

Why do you think Trump changed his mind when he choose to run as a Repub?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Golfing Gator said:


> Abortion has always been the biggest single voter issue.   It is part of the reason the GOP has not nominated an actual conservatives in decades.  Abortions is the only litmus test for the GOP voters.


Overturn it and its not a political wedge anymore.


----------



## Golfing Gator

LordBrownTrout said:


> Overturn it and its not a political wedge anymore.



Which is why it will never be.


----------



## flacaltenn

Golfing Gator said:


> Why do you think Trump changed his mind when he choose to run as a Repub?



Well your thesis is flawed by the "lessor of 2 evils" reality with Trump. They could STAY HOME but nobody had a choice on abortion in that election. CERTAINLY, Trump is ALLOWED to be more "tolerant" than dogmatic right? Doesn't mean he would PROMOTE or even LIKE the concept of abortion. I don't. But I tolerate the rights of others to SANELY choose abortion. 

NOT like any recent Progressive that wants it ON DEMAND and until the moment of birth. That's more of what Hillary was offering, 

Right NOW most Americans are watching the time at which a fetus is VIABLE as science pushes that date lower and lower. But it's a hard sell to SET a line even on that.

With all the GLARING differences the 2 parties can exploit to trouble our lives, I seriously doubt that abortion is any more of "MUST" than borders and culture and security/trade/free speech today. 

ESPECIALLY the free speech issues with borking conservatives from academia, the media and govt REPORTING of speech they dont like to Big Tech censors. Because -- IF YOU LOSE THOSE THINGS -- you can stick a fork into political debate about most anything. 

NOW GRANTED -- The Dems are WILLINGFULLY committing slow public suicide right now. But I think Conservatives are more focused on their values and priorities to go down in flames on "abortion only"..


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> Abortion should be up to the states.  Period.


Can I get you to explain to me how it makes any sense or how you think it is possible or rational. . . . that States who are NOT free to decide each for themselves what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage" WILL somehow have the power and authority to decide when they will and will not recognize the PERSONHOOD of children in the womb?


----------



## Golfing Gator

flacaltenn said:


> Well your thesis is flawed by the "lessor of 2 evils" reality with Trump. They could STAY HOME but nobody had a choice on abortion in that election. CERTAINLY, Trump is ALLOWED to be more "tolerant" than dogmatic right? Doesn't mean he would PROMOTE or even LIKE the concept of abortion. I don't. But I tolerate the rights of others to SANELY choose abortion.



Trump supported abortion till he choose to run as a Repub.  Then he knew he had to change to have any chance of making it through the primaries.  Thus he all of a sudden was against it.


----------



## flacaltenn

LordBrownTrout said:


> Overturn it and its not a political wedge anymore.



In a way that;'s true. FEDERAL Govt oversight/interference is setting 2 opposing trains on the same track and ENSURING a disaster. Probably RECURRING disasters as the "date of viability" keeps getting sooner and sooner.  Which is what the SCt is struggling with right now.


----------



## flacaltenn

Golfing Gator said:


> Trump supported abortion till he choose to run as a Repub.  Then he knew he had to change to have any chance of making it through the primaries.  Thus he all of a sudden was against it.



He would have had to TROLL: MORE -- but wont be Jeb or anyone else up there other than MAYBE Cruz.


----------



## ColonelAngus

It should be a state issue, not federal.


----------



## rightnow909

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.


NOT true!

fake news. Most AmericANS do not believe in abortion and the ones who do say there should be limits after about 3 months.

And of those who know about abortion, meaning those who have seen the photos of dead children... I venture to say it is WAY more than 70% are pro life..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TemplarKormac said:


> "Choice"
> 
> You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
> 
> As far as his wife goes, she made her choice.
> 
> Deal with it. There are in fact women out there who do not espouse the ghoulish pro-abortion credo.


Well, you are wrong and way out in left field. Try to do a better job of keeping up. Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ColonelAngus said:


> It should be a state issue, not federal.


Code for: I want to ban abortion to make myself feel good


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightnow909 said:


> Most AmericANS do not believe in abortion


Do you mean...right to legal abortion? Because you are wrong either way. You are one of those trolls that intentionally says wrong and stupid shit to get attention.


----------



## flacaltenn

Golfing Gator said:


> Trump supported abortion till he choose to run as a Repub.  Then he knew he had to change to have any chance of making it through the primaries.  Thus he all of a sudden was against it.



You ARE Exagerrating and over-thinking this.  I do not remember ANY Rep in the primaries that ran on an ABSOLUTIST pro-life policy. They were ALL nuanced in some ways. Maybe they PERSONALLY declared this -- but NONE stated that would be the way they governed. 

*Turns out that Trump did MORE in terms of dismantling Fed involvement in abortions than ANY of these other candidates "might have".  In particular SLASHING AT the "money laundering" going on between collusion of the Dems with Planned Parenthood.  Dont ask me -- go read the NRLife summation of his achievements on abortion. *You have a very UN-nuanced narrow view on very NUANCED topic.





__





						President Trump’s Record on Life | National Right to Life
					






					www.nrlc.org
				




_*Promise to Veto Legislation that Threatens Pro-life Policy
In January of 2019, when pro-abortion Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, President Trump issued a letter stating, “I am concerned that this year, the Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change federal policies and laws on abortion, and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life. I will veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies and laws, or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any stage.”

Similar vows to sign, if passed, were issued for 1. The No-Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019 which would permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortion and 2. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during an abortion.

President Trump Attends the March for Life
On January 25th, 2020, President Trump became the first sitting president to address the annual March for Life in person.

Stopping Tax Dollars from Funding Abortion Internationally
In January 2017, President Trump reinstated the long-standing “Mexico City Policy,” and expanded it under the “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” program. The Mexico City Policy prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform abortions or lobby to change the abortion laws of host countries. Originally established by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, the Mexico City Policy ensures that “U.S. support for family planning programs is based on respect for human life, enhancement of human dignity, and strengthening of the family.”

The expanded policy prevents $9 billion in foreign aid from being used to fund the global abortion industry.

In 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo closed what had become a loophole. Foreign non-governmental organizations (NGO) are now required to confirm that they are not passing U.S. funds along to other organizations that still promote abortion.

Defunding Planned Parenthood
President Trump supports directing funding away from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In a September 2016 letter to pro-life leaders, he noted that “I am committed to…defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women.”

In 2019, President Trump’s Health and Human Services Department(HHS) issued regulations known as the Protect Life Rule. Under the rule, abortion facilities may not be in the same location where family planning services are delivered. The rule also states that Title X grantees may not refer for elective abortion. The rule does not cut funding for family planning but ensures that funding goes to health facilities that do not perform or promote abortion as family planning. In response, Planned Parenthood left the Title X program in 2019 rather than comply with the Protect Life rule.

Restoring Ability of States to Direct Title X Funds Away from Abortion Providers:*_
*In 2017 President Trump signed a resolution into law that overturned an eleventh-hour regulation by the Obama administration that prohibited states from defunding certain abortion facilities in their federally-funded family-planning programs. Further, future administrations that may be hostile to life are prohibited from issuing a regulation similar to what President Obama had done.*

DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT "supporting Trump" here. Only making the point that AMERICA in general is NOT as polarized on abortion as the fanatical extremes have gotten to be.


----------



## ConserveGuy

Oh, so the democrats get to threaten insurrections.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> Can I get you to explain to me how it makes any sense or how you think it is possible or rational. . . . that States who are NOT free to decide each for themselves what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage" WILL somehow have the power and authority to decide when they will and will not recognize the PERSONHOOD of children in the womb?


Marriage laws should be left to the states as well.  The Supreme Court overstepped their authority in both same-sex marriage AND abortion laws.


----------



## alang1216

rightnow909 said:


> NOT true!
> 
> fake news. Most AmericANS do not believe in abortion and the ones who do say there should be limits after about 3 months.
> 
> And of those who know about abortion, meaning those who have seen the photos of dead children... I venture to say it is WAY more than 70% are pro life..


----------



## Dragonlady

basquebromance said:


> the liberty clause in the 14th amendment allows the right to abortion, my friends



The "free will" clause in the Bible confirms a woman's right to choose, my friends.

Conservatives are busy trying to basically, exert control over brown and black women.  Why?  Who is benefitting from such laws?  Certainly not the women, or the children, who will be born into poverty and chaos and left to die there.

Every study done on women who tried to get an abortion and couldn't, has shown that 5 years later, they, and their children are economically and socially worse off than they were before the woman became pregnant, and virtually none of them were better off financially, nor were they and their children in stable housing.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> Marriage laws should be left to the states as well.  The Supreme Court overstepped their authority in both same-sex marriage AND abortion laws.


So, you think it would be Constitutional and in keeping with the 14th Amendment for one State to establish that a child in the womb is a person at say 8 weeks gestation but the State next to it says it's not a person until it sticks his or head out of the womb.

Is that right?


----------



## Dragonlady

BS Filter said:


> Marriage laws should be left to the states as well.  The Supreme Court overstepped their authority in both same-sex marriage AND abortion laws.



Basic rights laws, like who can get married, have to be the same throughout the country.  Otherwise you have a patchwork where gay marriages are recognized in one state but not another.  This has serious implications for married couples and their rights.

The parents of gays have a long sad history of swooping in when their child is dying, and throwing the gay partner out and making end of life decisions as "next of kin".  After the child dies, they exclude the partner from their grandchildren's lives.  The children lose both parents when the biological parent passes.  Marriage means that the gay partner is the next of kin, and their decisions matter.  The children can remain with their non-biological parent so that they're not uprooted in the aftermath.

This is one of the primary reasons why gays fought so hard for the right to marry.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> So, you think it would be Constitutional and in keeping with the 14th Amendment for one State to establish that a child in the womb is a person at say 8 weeks gestation but the State next to it says it's not a person until it sticks his or head out of the womb.
> 
> Is that right?


What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment?


----------



## BS Filter

Dragonlady said:


> Basic rights laws, like who can get married, have to be the same throughout the country.  Otherwise you have a patchwork where gay marriages are recognized in one state but not another.  This has serious implications for married couples and their rights.
> 
> The parents of gays have a long sad history of swooping in when their child is dying, and throwing the gay partner out and making end of life decisions as "next of kin".  After the child dies, they exclude the partner from their grandchildren's lives.  The children lose both parents when the biological parent passes.  Marriage means that the gay partner is the next of kin, and their decisions matter.  The children can remain with their non-biological parent so that they're not uprooted in the aftermath.
> 
> This is one of the primary reasons why gays fought so hard for the right to marry.


Too bad.  Many Americans believe marriage is a man and a woman.  They also have rights.  Let the states decide and people can live where they want.  Freedom for everyone.


----------



## basquebromance

Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So? Are you saying they are also anti-choice?


The are anti-abortion.  Very much so. They have grown several living human beings in their wombs.


----------



## sartre play

Each woman, each pregnancy is different, to many factors involved for a blanket law covering all, With men who will never be in that position making the decision? seems a little unfair.


----------



## g5000

flacaltenn said:


> How can you be so CONSISTENTLY wrong?  Don't even know what YOU THINK these laws do,  Because you DONT know apparently.  Post was garbage on a complicated issue.


I mispoke.  I meant to say to outlaw abortions, not legalize.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> The are anti-abortion.  Very much so. They have grown several living human beings in their wombs.


I asked if they were anti choice. Removing the choice for others. Being pro life or anti abortion does not mean being anti choice or being against legan abortion.

So.. are they?


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment?


According to Justice Potter Stewar in the oral arguments for Roe vs Wade. . . "If a State were to establish that a fetus (sic) is a person, the case for abortion will become near impossible to make."

That was the words of a Supreme Court Justice and he was talking specifically abouyt the 14th Amendment.

Imagine if we had 30 plus fetal HOMICIDE Laws on the books THEN as we do now.


----------



## Circe

martybegan said:


> Nice to see a proponent of Eugenics be honest about it.


Hooray for eugenics! OF COURSE we should breed better people!  I should think that's simply obvious. I guess the wokeists have taken over the idea to shame us like they do with everything sensible. I didn't actually see how that post you reference had anything to do with eugenics, but.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> According to Justice Potter Stewar in the oral arguments for Roe vs Wade. . . "If a State were to establish that a fetus (sic) is a person, the case for abortion will become near impossible to make."
> 
> That was the words of a Supreme Court Justice and he was talking specifically abouyt the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Imagine if we had 30 plus fetal HOMICIDE Laws on the books THEN as we do now.


Well let me clear up your confusion: it's the mother's choice. That's the difference.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> According to Justice Potter Stewar in the oral arguments for Roe vs Wade. . . "If a State were to establish that a fetus (sic) is a person, the case for abortion will become near impossible to make."
> 
> That was the words of a Supreme Court Justice and he was talking specifically abouyt the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Imagine if we had 30 plus fetal HOMICIDE Laws on the books THEN as we do now.


You avoided my question.  What was the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment?


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> You avoided my question.  What was the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment?


Red Herring.

Neither the Supreme Court nor I , nor anyone else is bound to abide by one narrowly defined "sole purpose" of any of the Amendments. The "spirit" of the amendment matters and Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that, when he anticipated States "could" establish that a child in the womb is a person.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> Why is it that men want to stop women from deciding their fate?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women.
> 
> You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.  If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.
> 
> 
> If you reject abortion, don't have one.  But you have no right to decide for other women.  I don't care if every woman in your family since the dawn of time was opposed to abortion.  I don't care what you believe.  You have no right to inflict your values, your religion or your beliefs onto the lives of others.
> 
> I don't believe in abortion either and I have never had one.  But I have friends who made a different choice and I respect their choice because I know that this was the right thing for them, and for their circumstances.  If my amno-centsis test had had a different result, I would have had little choice in the matter.  At 24 weeks and having already named my girl, what if . . . I thank God every day I never had to face that one.



Plenty of women are pro-choice, you can't define every woman as supporting abortion rights, so your attack on men is a red herring.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women.
> 
> You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.
> 
> If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.



First of all stop being fucking lazy and respond to individual posts.

False flag argument, you delve into the social welfare state argument. Without the welfare State we probably wouldn't see as many abortions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> so your attack on men is a red herring.


Oh no it's spot on. Take the men out of the equation and there would not even be a debate. Same for religious goobers.


----------



## martybegan

Circe said:


> Hooray for eugenics! OF COURSE we should breed better people!  I should think that's simply obvious. I guess the wokeists have taken over the idea to shame us like they do with everything sensible. I didn't actually see how that post you reference had anything to do with eugenics, but.



The prime reason for abortion after amniocenteses is to get rid of Downs Syndrome kids.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh no it's spot on. Take the men out of the equation and there would not even be a debate. Same for religious goobers.



So that means women shouldn't be able to have an opinion or vote on war because they can't get drafted?

People who aren't firefighters can't have opinions or votes on issues concerning fire departments?

All Americans have the right to an opinion, to a vote or pretty much anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> So that means women shouldn't be able to have an opinion or vote on war because they can't get drafted?


They should get drafted. But I was just making an illustration. To show why her point was spot-on.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They should get drafted. But I was just making an illustration. To show why her point was spot-on.



And I eviscerated your logic and you ignored that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> And I eviscerated your logic and you ignored that.


No, you imagined logic I never presented and argued against it, because you are lazy and excitable. I never argued men should not have a vote.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> Red Herring.
> 
> Neither the Supreme Court nor I , nor anyone else is bound to abide by one narrowly defined "sole purpose" of any of the Amendments. The "spirit" of the amendment matters and Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart understood that, when he anticipated States "could" establish that a child in the womb is a person.


I agree that a fetus is a person.  However, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.  It solely relates to ex slaves.  That was the purpose and only purpose of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> Bullshit.  Move along.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


>


The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.



According to the 14th Every person has a right to the equal protections of our laws.

It doesn't say "only those who can pass a viability test"  have that right.

Does it.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you imagined logic I never presented and argued against it, because you are lazy and excitable. I never argued men should not have a vote.



You think men have no right to have an opinion or vote on the concept of abortion, or is that not what Dragon was saying,

You also appear to think religious people shouldn't have a vote or opinion either.

Fort fuck Iduhania--"NO ONE SHOULD EXIST EXCEPT PEOPLE LIKE MEEEEEEE"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> You think men have no right to have an opinion or vote on the concept of abortion, or is that not what Dragon was saying,


I know it's not what I was saying. I was saying that the only reason the anti-abortion rights movement has any traction at all is because of men.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I know it's not what I was saying. I was saying that the only reason the anti-abortion rights movement has any traction at all is because of men.



And yet there are plenty of women who are pro-life as well, just read some of the amicus briefs.

By calling out the men you imply they shouldn't have an opinion on this, just like Dragontwat implied.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> And yet there are plenty of women who are pro-life as well


Neat. But this debate would have no political traction in this country  at all,if not for men. That's a fact. An embarrassing fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> By calling out the men you imply they shouldn't have an opinion on this


No, that's whiny nonsense.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Neat. But this debate would have no political traction in this country  at all,if not for men. That's a fact. An embarrassing fact.



And if there were no men there would be no people, because there would be no reproduction, that's a fact that shows you are flailing and retarded.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, that's whiny nonsense.



No, it's the truth. Now go back to the academic thought games/lesbian science fiction of no men being around.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> And if there were no men there would be no people, because there would be no reproduction, that's a fact that shows you are flailing and retarded.


Again... try to follow... I was only illustrating. I never suggested any of the things you are whining about. You just don't have anything else to say. So you invent reasons to get upset.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again... try to follow... I was only illustrating. I never suggested any of the things you are whining about. You just don't have anything else to say. So you invent reasons to get upset.



No you were trying to shut down debate, and now you are retreating like a typical SJW bitch. 

poooooooossssssyyyyyyyyy...


----------



## two_iron

Totally agnostic on abortion.... couldn't care less... but anything that causes the filthy fucking marxist parasites to lose their shit (and possibly ingest Liquid Plumr) has my full support.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> No you were trying to shut down debate, and now you are retreating like a typical SJW bitch.
> 
> poooooooossssssyyyyyyyyy...


No, I offered an illustration to strengthen her point in The debate. And ever since you have been propping up little strawman to knock down, because you are lazy and excitable. So clearly it is you who has taken the discussion off the rails. 

So, back to the topic...go finish your tantrum in the corner.


----------



## martybegan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I offered an illustration to strengthen her point in The debate. And ever since you have been propping up little strawman to knock down, because you are lazy and excitable. So clearly it is you who has taken the discussion off the rails.
> 
> So, back to the topic...go finish your tantrum in the corner.



If there were no men, there would only be a debate between women, and there would still be pro-life women. 

Whenever one of you SJW's make a comment like that, what you are trying to do is either invalidate the position, invalidate the person having the position, or both.

Stop trying to be slick.


----------



## playtime

it will certainly unite females of child bearing age who have never known what it's like to be forced into being an incubator to vote (D).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

martybegan said:


> there would only be a debate between women,


On this scale? Haha, no. Maybe at Tupperware parties.

Same for if you took religious goobers out of the equation.


----------



## g5000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I asked if they were anti choice. Removing the choice for others. Being pro life or anti abortion does not mean being anti choice or being against legan abortion.
> 
> So.. are they?


I have confidence you can figure it out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

g5000 said:


> I have confidence you can figure it out.


I will assume yes. Anti choice. So, should we leave your anecdote as the final word? Or should we check the scoreboard? I think you can figure that out. Me, too.


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So? Are you saying they are also anti-choice?



Dont know what you expect here using 2 opposing labels that haven't got any real meaning. 

I could call the Mississippi law that we're fighting over "pro-choice" because it does not outright BAN abortion. In the same sense as my side-bar with golfing gator about Trump "changing his position" when he decided to run for Prez - Turns out the way he actually governed as "pro-choice" -- he did MORE DAMAGE to the "pro-choice radicals" than any other President. 

I HATE unlimited abortion on demand and up to the time of birth. What am I? I also think abortion should be rare, but I'm TOLERANT ENOUGH to leave the nuances and life realities of it to the families facing those decisions -- up to a POINT.. 

The radicals on BOTH SIDES dont have an ounce of tolerance, or apparently common sense. THEY dont matter.  Govt has to stay in THEIR LANE and moderate or skiddaddle. The result is actually NEITHER the pop culture mantra of pro-choice or pro-life.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> According to the 14th Every person has a right to the equal protections of our laws.
> 
> It doesn't say "only those who can pass a viability test"  have that right.
> 
> Does it.


Ex slaves.


----------



## Lakhota

Yep, that is definitely the problem!  The NaziCon SCOTUS has been stacked against Roe v. Wade - and women's reproductive health and rights.


----------



## Mr. H.

December 1, 2021... "OMG I'm pregnant!

Dec. 2 - Dec. 15. Zzzzzzzzz......

If you were given 15 days to decide whether or not to fix a flat tire, would you have fixed that flat tire? Humanity is broken stick stupid.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> Ex slaves.


Quote the exact wording that specifies ONLY ex-slaves


----------



## Mr. H.

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 570651
> 
> Yep, that is definitely the problem!  The NaziCon SCOTUS has been stacked against Roe v. Wade - and women's reproductive health and rights.


Ugh. Still your same stick stupid self. That's ok. I missed you nonetheless.


----------



## Mr. H.

Some folks take murder into their own hands. Other folks are given time to think about it.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> Quote the exact wording that specifies ONLY ex-slaves


Read it.  Read the entire amendment.  I see the word "slave", but I don't see the word "abortion".  Do you?


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Thing of it is, I don't like the govt. telling a woman what to do with her body.

HOWEVER, if the woman proves she's not in control, such as she's already had two abortions simply because she's irresponsible or flake, there should be the option to remove her mothering parts with the 2nd or 3rd abortion.  If she doesn't like that idea get one elsewhere or on the black market.  

How about people take responsibility for their shit instead?  The Democrack's motto should be displacement of accountability.


----------



## TheGreatSatan

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.


More obvious double standard

Imagine if she was trump or a Trump supporter what Democrats would say.  They would sic the fbi on her.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> Read it.  Read the entire amendment.  I see the word "slave", but I don't see the word "abortion".  Do you?


Feel free to quote where I ever said that the 14th specifically mentions abortion. You can't do it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and other justices during Roe and even the pro-abort attorney Sarah Weddington were the ones who I quoted as saying that If a State establishes that a child in the womb is a "person" their rights would have to be protected under the 14th Amendment.

You can disagree with them and myself all you want to but you won't hinder our efforts in the least by doing so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> Dont know what you expect here using 2 opposing labels that haven't got any real meaning.


Clarifying the difference between prolife and anti choice, for one. Now you know.

You would not call that law that. That is a wild stretch. It removes choices, it doesn't increase them.

Yes, you go ahead and try to  convince women the Mississippi law is pro choice. Good luck.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> Feel free to quote where I ever said that the 14th specifically mentions abortion. You can't do it.
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and other justices during Roe and even the pro-abort attorney Sarah Weddington were the ones who I quoted as saying that If a State establishes that a child in the womb is a "person" their rights would have to be protected under the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You can disagree with them and myself all you want to but you won't hinder our efforts in the least by doing so.


I'm pro life.  I'm on your side.  I'm arguing that the Justices screwed up. The very first paragraph addresses citizens Born here or naturalized.  Fetus, womb aren't mentioned.  They were reading something that wasn't there.


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Clarifying the difference between prolife and anti choice, for one. Now you know.
> 
> You would not call that law that. That is a wild stretch. It removes choices, it doesn't increase them.
> 
> Yes, you go ahead and try to  convince women the Mississippi law is pro choice. Good luck.



It IS Pro-choice.  As much Pro-Choice as the REST OF THE FREAKING world.  It's a matter of using "viability" or "pain sensation" to try and MANAGE the DEGREE OF CHOICE.  Pro-choice like Pro-Life are USELESS terms. 

At 24 weeks, we are in with China and N.Korea and 5 or 8 other unknown countries in terms of when other countries draw the line.


----------



## AntonToo

g5000 said:


> I appreciate your legal reasoning, but I detect some moral fiber in your post, too.
> 
> It would be great if the human race was immune to the seven deadly sins.
> 
> For me, abortion is the killing of a human being.  It's as simple as that.  We don't have a "choice" when it comes to killing people on the street, and we shouldn't have one when it comes to people in the womb.


Persons without brains? Rubbish.


----------



## Lakhota

Some of these NaziCon SCOTUS Justices lied under oath about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings.


----------



## AntonToo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RBG thought it should be framed as gender equality instead.


All of them weak-kneed technocrats too meek to take on the big elephant in the room.

It’s all about personhood. Period.


----------



## Chuz Life

BS Filter said:


> I'm pro life.  I'm on your side.  I'm arguing that the Justices screwed up. The very first paragraph addresses citizens Born here or naturalized.  Fetus, womb aren't mentioned.  They were reading something that wasn't there.


A "citizen" and a "person" are not always the same and the 14th Amendment is clear on that. See Yick Wo vs. Hopkins. You do not have to be a "citizen" to have a right to the equal protections of our laws under the 14th Amendment.

You only need to be a "person."

And, just so you know the 14th Amendment rights was at the root of Wo vs. Hopkins Supreme Court decision and none of the parties involved had anything to do with slavery.


----------



## Chuz Life

antontoo said:


> Persons without brains? Rubbish.


Recommended Reading for You.

"It was just a few months ago -- after the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling ordering Fairfax Hospital to keep the baby alive as the mother wished -- that Harrell came forward publicly to talk about her daughter's rare condition."



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/04/07/death-of-baby-k-leaves-a-legacy-of-legal-precedents/f659261d-decb-42ed-a081-fb3f33e83ce1/


----------



## AntonToo

Chuz Life said:


> Recommended Reading for You.
> 
> "It was just a few months ago -- after the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling ordering Fairfax Hospital to keep the baby alive as the mother wished -- that Harrell came forward publicly to talk about her daughter's rare condition."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/04/07/death-of-baby-k-leaves-a-legacy-of-legal-precedents/f659261d-decb-42ed-a081-fb3f33e83ce1/


This parent, who KNEW this child will be severely deformed and will die shortly after birth, decided to go ahead and continue pregnancy, is a fucking moron.

I have no nicer words for nutbags that do this.


----------



## Chuz Life

antontoo said:


> This parent, who KNEW this child will be severely deformed and will die shortly after birth, decided to go ahead and continue pregnancy, is a fucking moron.
> 
> I have no nicer words for nutbags that do this.


Can a person in a persistent vegetative state be murdered? Yes or no?


----------



## AntonToo

Chuz Life said:


> Can a person in a persistent vegetative state be murdered? Yes or no?


To me there is no person (and thus possibility of murder) without minimal higher brain function ability.


----------



## WEATHER53

So there is no way with all the info we have that the abortion place can maintain records of “you had yours so no more”?
 Then take pills.


----------



## WEATHER53

flacaltenn said:


> Dont know what you expect here using 2 opposing labels that haven't got any real meaning.
> 
> I could call the Mississippi law that we're fighting over "pro-choice" because it does not outright BAN abortion. In the same sense as my side-bar with golfing gator about Trump "changing his position" when he decided to run for Prez - Turns out the way he actually governed as "pro-choice" -- he did MORE DAMAGE to the "pro-choice radicals" than any other President.
> 
> I HATE unlimited abortion on demand and up to the time of birth. What am I? I also think abortion should be rare, but I'm TOLERANT ENOUGH to leave the nuances and life realities of it to the families facing those decisions -- up to a POINT..
> 
> The radicals on BOTH SIDES dont have an ounce of tolerance, or apparently common sense. THEY dont matter.  Govt has to stay in THEIR LANE and moderate or skiddaddle. The result is actually NEITHER the pop culture mantra of pro-choice or pro-life.


Yes this is me too mostly
I believe very hard choices snd fine lines. Opinions versus participants,
Always been tough call for  me even back in hippy  days.!


----------



## WEATHER53

If I was certain it was human life then I would not kill it, At some point that does become certain but how and  when and by whom  is another of myriads off tough calls.


----------



## BS Filter

Chuz Life said:


> A "citizen" and a "person" are not always the same and the 14th Amendment is clear on that. See Yick Wo vs. Hopkins. You do not have to be a "citizen" to have a right to the equal protections of our laws under the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You only need to be a "person."
> 
> And, just so you know the 14th Amendment rights was at the root of Wo vs. Hopkins Supreme Court decision and none of the parties involved had anything to do with slavery.


Well, that's the problem.  Some lawyers are misappropriating the Constitution to legislate from the bench.


----------



## basquebromance

abortion is a miscarriage of justice, my friends! (no pun intended)


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## JWBooth

If Roe is overturned (ain’t happening) the blue states should secede.


----------



## JWBooth

Chuz Life said:


> Can a person in a persistent vegetative state be murdered? Yes or no?


Well, Lakota is still with us so maybe not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> It IS Pro-choice.


Yeah, good luck selling that nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sotomayor addresses the elephant in the room:

“How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor asked of the state’s attempt to define when life begins. - MJ

Of course, the 6 conservative justices and the state will avoid this issue like the plague.


----------



## JWBooth

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sotomayor addresses the elephant in the room:
> 
> “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor asked of the state’s attempt to define when life begins. - MJ
> 
> Of course, the 6 conservative justices and the state will avoid this issue like the plague.


Strawman, got any substance?


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 570672
> 
> Some of these NaziCon SCOTUS Justices lied under oath about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings.



You parrot an awful lot to make yourself feel better, but nowhere do I see you back anything up.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

JWBooth said:


> If Roe is overturned (ain’t happening) the blue states should secede.



Blue states have already seceded, they only pretend to live in the USA.


----------



## surada

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



How will making abortion illegal affect your life.. assuming you are a man?


----------



## WEATHER53

Still think one and done is a doable moderate solution


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JWBooth said:


> Strawman, got any substance?


I don't think you know what the term "strawan" means.


----------



## bendog

surada said:


> How will making abortion illegal affect your life.. assuming you are a man?


I love my wife and daughter, and want women to have equal power in society compared to men.  But because of human reproduction, it is usually the female who sacrifices MORE in life choices and financial benefits in child rearing.  IF women in general have fewer RIGHTS, then imo society overall suffers.

And if women and children were better treated under the laws, there'd be fewer abortions.


----------



## flacaltenn

surada said:


> How will making abortion illegal affect your life.. assuming you are a man?



Kind of a stupid question when you realize that behind every baby -- there's a man. 

Or dont you accept that based on the 49 genders theory?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> Kind of a stupid question when you realize that behind every baby -- there's a man.
> 
> Or dont you accept that based on the 49 genders theory?


So how would it affect your life? It wouldn't. You can say so.


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So how would it affect your life? It wouldn't. You can say so.



AS A FATHER of that BABY?  Tell me you're just not trolling here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> AS A FATHER of that BABY?  Tell me you're just not trolling here.


Are you the father of a baby? Tell me you are not just trolling by pretending it affects you, personally.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So now the argument on the table is that men should have control over abortions, because:

They might get a woman pregnant someday, and she might get an abortion without their consent. And that would hurt their feelings. 

So apparently this trump's the woman's control over herself.

How can anybody say this shit with a straight face?


----------



## Unkotare

WEATHER53 said:


> Still think one and done is a doable moderate solution


One and done of what?


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So now the argument on the table is that men should have control over abortions, because:
> ....


Anything concerning such matters affects our entire society and everyone in it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Anything concerning such matters affects our entire society and everyone in it.


Yes, I covered that: it could hurt their feelings.


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So now the argument on the table is that men should have control over abortions, because:
> 
> They might get a woman pregnant someday, and she might get an abortion without their consent. And that would hurt their feelings.
> 
> So apparently this trump's the woman's control over herself.
> 
> How can anybody say this shit with a straight face?



I said FATHERS.. I can't think of situation where the baby is in jeopardy OR the mother health where the decision is not a FAMILY decision. 

As far as baby daddies go -- maybe not so much.  And for OTHER men -- not at all. 

Do I make this clear enough for you?


----------



## flacaltenn

BTW Fort Fun Indiana , I've been there.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> I can't think of situation where the baby is in jeopardy OR the mother health where the decision is not a FAMILY decision.


I can: all of them. His feelings do not trump her control over her own body.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, I covered that: it could hurt their feelings.


Is the notion that your neighbor might be chopped to pieces with an ax as insignificant to you? Not your problem? The democrat disdain for human life is appalling.


----------



## flacaltenn

Mr. H. said:


> December 1, 2021... "OMG I'm pregnant!
> 
> Dec. 2 - Dec. 15. Zzzzzzzzz......
> 
> If you were given 15 days to decide whether or not to fix a flat tire, would you have fixed that flat tire? Humanity is broken stick stupid.



Who's talking about 15 DAYS there bullwinkle.  Mississipi is 15 WEEKS. We're at an arbitrary 24 weeks now with the likes of Commie China and North Korea. MOST other nations are around 12 weeks.  

In the US -- 85% of abortions are done by 13 weeks. 





__





						Reported abortions - USAFacts
					

<p>This reflects partial, voluntarily submitted state data on legally induced abortions as requested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It should not be treated as an exhaustive count of abortions. California, Maryland, and New Hampshire have never provided data to this...




					usafacts.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> BTW Fort Fun Indiana , I've been there.


Then you should know that consent to sex is not consent to relinquish future control over her own body and life to you. And if you don't know this, then you should learn it.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Circe said:


> No one is putting THAT genie back in the bottle. It's in every drugstore now.











						Texas to implement second major abortion law - Roll Call
					

The new law would decrease when in a pregnancy medication abortions can be prescribed, from 70 days to 49 days.




					www.rollcall.com


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I can: all of them. His feelings do not trump her control over her own body.


And if someone decides to use her body to drive through a parade killing innocent people, that's her business and everyone else should just shut up about it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> And if someone decides to use her body to drive through a parade killing innocent people, that's her business and everyone else should just shut up about it?


Go ahead and state your point.


----------



## Richard-H

Damn!

If they overturn Roe v. Wade, American women will have to start being selective about who they have intercourse with.

No more disco dancin'!


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then you should know that consent to sex is not consent to relinquish future control over her own body and life to you. And if you don't know this, then you should learn it.



Apparently you're clueless about what the marital bond really means. ESPECIALLY when it comes to fucking hard life and health choices of ALL kinds.  I'll just make a note of your indoctrinated naivety


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Go ahead and state your point.


I asked you a question.


----------



## Lisa558

This cavalier comment by liberals that say a woman “should be able to control her on body” overlooks the fact that there is a potential human being at stake, and her decision does eliminate that life.

For example, I as a woman have the right to decide:

1) whether to make my breasts larger or smaller
2) whether to put in a chin implant to improve my receding chin
3) whether to shave my head and look ridiculous
4) whether to kill the growing life inside of me and rob someone else of 90 years of life

See the difference?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> Apparently you're clueless about what the marital bond really means.


...to you. You don't get to decide for others.

And you keep changing the discussion. Now it's married people. Notice I don't have to do that to make my points. No, sorry, I don't think the "marriage bond" gives the man control over her body or life. If a woman decides it does, then she decides it does. He doesn't decide this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> I asked you a question.


And I ignored it and asked you to make your point without my assistance.


----------



## 22lcidw

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, I covered that: it could hurt their feelings.


An African American man who is 36 years old and a Father of 12 children was killed a couple of days ago in a gun event. What do you think the problems are that we sweep under the rug all the time? Just stop charging the taxpayer for this. And then we will see feelings.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And I ignored it ......


And in doing so revealed more than enough about your insecurity over the weakness of your position.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> And in doing so revealed more than enough about your insecurity over the weakness of your position.


That's nice. So, are you going to state your point? I can't figure out what your odd question has to do with any point I have made.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's nice. So, are you going to state your point? ...


Are you going to answer my question?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Are you going to answer my question?


Go ahead and assume any answer you like, for the sake of discussion. Pick whatever answer will allow you to make your point before we all fall into a deep sleep.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Go ahead and assume any answer you like, ....


I don't assume. Answer the question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> I don't assume. Answer the question.


Nah. Just make your point. I am not the topic, and your point  should not rely on my answer. Sorry, I just don't play this game.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah. Just make your point. ......


Just answer the question.


----------



## Colin norris

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



Firstly, got won't help be abuse he doesn't read this firum. 
Second, you have acknowledged  the sc is stacked with conservatives. That's ok if it's them but it totally wrong if the libs do it. 

Thirdly, most of the godbotherers want it over turned purely on religious grounds and nothing else. None of you care about women.  Just do what you think God wants regardless you don't know anyway. 
Them you bellow about people's freedom but won't let women exercise their freedoms. You hypocrites.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Just answer the question.


Moving on...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Colin norris said:


> Firstly, got won't help be abuse he doesn't read this firum.
> Second, you have acknowledged  the sc is stacked with conservatives. That's ok if it's them but it totally wrong if the libs do it.
> 
> Thirdly, most of the godbotherers want it over turned purely on religious grounds and nothing else. None of you care about women.  Just do what you think God wants regardless you don't know anyway.
> Them you bellow about people's freedom but won't let women exercise their freedoms. You hypocrites.


The dems should add 4 liberal judges to the bench, then pass a law limiting the bench to 14.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Moving on...


Chickenshit.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The dems should add 4 liberal judges to the bench, then pass a law limiting the bench to 14.


Typical fdr-type democrat thinking.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Chickenshit.


Oh look, never made your point. Too afraid I guess.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Typical fdr-type democrat thinking.


That makes no sense. My comments arise from the new reality of our politics,where everything  that is not strictly illegal is just fine. And even some things that are illegal are fine.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, never made your point. Too afraid I guess.


Oh look, you were forced yet again to face the fact that your position is indefensible, so you're ducking and avoiding as usual.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Oh look, you were forced yet again to face the fact that your position is indefensible, so you're ducking and avoiding as usual.


No point made by you, so nothing to defend against.


----------



## JohnDB

Depending on how SCOTUS rules...
Abortion can become murder... usually in the first degree. 

Apparently abortion defenders were poorly prepared for court and had the worst rebuttals...pro life advocates were extremely well prepared...

Planned Parenthood won't have fetus parts to sell anymore to the highest bidder.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Depending on how SCOTUS rules...
> Abortion can become murder... usually in the first degree.


And any state that does that will pay a cost.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And any state that does that will pay a cost.


It it's law...then nope...

Go out in the streets and yell and loot and burn down cities if you think that it proves that you are on the side of right and peace and goodness. 

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> It it's law...then nope...


Of course it would have to be a new law in the state. And yes, any State that does that will pay a heavy cost. And if looting is the only cost you can puzzle out, you're pretty lazy.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No point made by you, so nothing to defend against.


You seem to have found yet another question to duck.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You seem to have found yet another question to duck.


You poor baby. Hamstrung and can't make your own big boy point, because mean internet man won't play your game. Bummer.


----------



## Papageorgio

Unkotare said:


> Chickenshit.


If you get him where he looks really stupid or the answer is hard, like you just did, he just shuts down and deflects.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Papageorgio said:


> If you get him where he looks really stupid or the answer is hard, like you just did, he just shuts down and deflects.


Or he could just state his point. I don't perceive any attack on my position, because I don't see any point. I do see two whiners soothing each other.


----------



## Papageorgio

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or he could just state his point. I don't perceive any attack on my position, because I don't see any point. I do see two whiners soothing each other.


You should quit whining then.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You poor baby. ....


Keep ducking, fraud. You know damn well you don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Is the notion that your neighbor might be chopped to pieces with an ax as insignificant to you?


The fairly idiotic question. As significant... as what, specifically? Huh?


----------



## Unkotare

Papageorgio said:


> If you get him where he looks really stupid or the answer is hard, like you just did, he just shuts down and deflects.


Exactly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Keep ducking, fraud. You know damn well you don't have a leg to stand on.


If you have a point t, state it. Here, I will do it for you:

"Abortion is murder."

There. Three words instead of 4 pages of insufferable crybabying.


----------



## eagle7-31

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.


Overturning Roe does not ban abortions, people should realize that


g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.


People should realize overturning Roe does not ban abortions, just leaves it to the states. Now will it be overturned? Don't know, but one of the keys is what Roberts decides to do because he seems to have some sway over a couple of the other GOP appointees.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fairly idiotic question. As significant... as what, specifically? Huh?


Answer it, chickenshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Is the notion that your neighbor might be chopped to pieces with an ax as insignificant to you?


The idiotic question again. As significant as what? Huh?  Nobody knows what this goober is trying to say. Least of all him,apparently.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you have a point t, state it. ......


Answer the question, fraud.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle7-31 said:


> Overturning Roe does not ban abortions, people should realize that


They realize it directly leads to abortion bans.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> .... Nobody knows what this goober is trying to say. .....


Everybody knows you're too chickenshit to answer it. Everyone knows that YOU know your position is indefensible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Answer the question, fraud.


As significant as what? Damn, you will whine all night, won't you?


----------



## eagle7-31

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They realize it directly leads to abortion bans.


Only in some states.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle7-31 said:


> Only in some states.


So, several abortion bans.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As significant as what? Damn, you will whine all night, won't you?


You will duck and dodge all night, won't you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

These appear to be the "best"arguments so far. Which are laughably bad.

1) Marriage means one spouse can control the body and life of the other always, which includes abortion choice.

2) When a woman gets an abortion, it affects all of us. Especially Unkotare , apparently . Hits him right in his feels. Therefore, he should have a say in it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You will duck and dodge all night, won't you?


As significant as what? Still have no idea what you are asking. But I think it's safe to say you know your point is a steaming pile of crap. Else you would be prancing and dancing and parading it around, as you always do.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...
> 
> 1) Marriage means one spouse can control the body and life of the other,...


Nobody said that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Nobody said that.


Oops, better check that. Flacaltenn says that's one thing that a marriage bond entails.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...Still have no idea what you are asking. ....


If someone decides to use her body to drive through a parade killing innocent people, that's her business and everyone else should just shut up about it?

Is the notion that your neighbor might be chopped to pieces with an ax as insignificant to you? Not your problem?


----------



## skews13

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.



What it will do is have an effect at the state level. It will force a lot of Republicans in state legislatures to take a side, and at the state level would be more detrimental to Republicans, than Democrats, as the electorate already assumes the Democrats are decidedly pro choice. 

The majority of America supports the pro choice position, and that is because a plurality of Republicans are pro choice. End Roe, and even more Republicans will support pro choice, if for nothing else, but to retain their seats. They cannot get elected without independents, that the majority of are also pro choice.

Anti choice states would become the center of attention in the news cycle, every time a woman dies, from either a still birth pregnancy, or a botched illegal abortion, and those news stories would only turn off more independent voters, and the Republicans in those states would only start to sound more hollow as time passed, and another woman's death is reported.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, better check that. Flacaltenn says that's one thing that a marriage bond entails.


He didn't say it the way you deliberately misrepresent it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> If someone decides to use her body to drive through a parade killing innocent people, that's her business and everyone else should just shut up about it?


Not sure who you think said that. Oh wait,you did. Weird.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> He didn't say it the way you deliberately misrepresent it.


He did. He did not delineate why a spouse should control the other only for abortion. His inarticulate language is his fault, not mine.


----------



## alang1216

skews13 said:


> What it will do is have an effect at the state level. It will force a lot of Republicans in state legislatures to take a side, and at the state level would be more detrimental to Republicans, than Democrats, as the electorate already assumes the Democrats are decidedly pro choice.
> 
> The majority of America supports the pro choice position, and that is because a plurality of Republicans are pro choice. End Roe, and even more Republicans will support pro choice, if for nothing else, but to retain their seats. They cannot get elected without independents, that the majority of are also pro choice.
> 
> Anti choice states would become the center of attention in the news cycle, every time a woman dies, from either a still birth pregnancy, or a botched illegal abortion, and those news stories would only turn off more independent voters, and the Republicans in those states would only start to sound more hollow as time passed, and another woman's death is reported.


Good points but the way this country is gerrymandered, there are few swing districts where a candidate needs to attract the middle.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Good points but the way this country is gerrymandered, there are few swing districts where a candidate needs to attract the middle.


True. And the data shows they are skewed to Republicans. Democrats have t get more votes to win elections. We have states where 40-50% vote democrat in every election, but 2/3 or more of the statehouse and/or Congressional reps are Republicans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> He didn't say it the way you deliberately misrepresent it.


Oh yes, he believes marriage means one spousecancontrol the other, so the woman should not be able to make the decision on her own. He absolutely said that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare  maybe this will help you understand why you are in a tailspin:

You think abortion is murder. I do not. I do not think the feelings of a man who fathered an aborted baby deserve as much deference as the widow of the ax-murdered neighbor, for example. Yes, he may be just as sad. But that's his problem, not society's problem, nor do his feelings trump her right to choose for herself. 

Apparently, you do think abortion is murder, and his feelings deserve the same consideration.

So this is where you need to grow up and understand that your attempts to make me a hypocrite based on your opinions are stupid and childish. Since I do not share your beliefs, it does not make me a hypocrite.

So here is the net sum of 4 pages of insufferable whining  from you:

"Abortion is murder!"

Three words. Instead of 4 pages of...whatever the hell that embarrassing display was.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> True. And the data shows they are skewed to Republicans. Democrats have t get more votes to win elections. We have states where 40-50% vote democrat in every election, but 2/3 or more of the statehouse and/or Congressional reps are Republicans.


True.  I think the GOP went for the low-hanging fruit but missed the long-term implications of gerrymandering.  

I figured that if the gerrymandering had a major impact I'd find a bunch of states where the governor, elected at large, would be of a different party than the legislature.  I did a search and it didn't seem to be born out by the data (I'm not qualified but what the hell).  My conclusion is that the gerrymandering pushes candidates to the extremes since there are no swing voters they need to attract.  

I think I see this in the election of candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene.  The long-term implications seem to point to the GOP becoming an embarrassment to the majority of voters and eventually even the gerrymandering won't keep them in power.  Maybe just wishful thinking on my part?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> I think I see this in the election of candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene.


Yup. When the district is not competitive, it can become a "race to the bottom" in the primaries. Especially for republican voters, who are aroused by whoever is the most cruel.


----------



## eagle7-31

alang1216 said:


> True.  I think the GOP went for the low-hanging fruit but missed the long-term implications of gerrymandering.
> 
> I figured that if the gerrymandering had a major impact I'd find a bunch of states where the governor, elected at large, would be of a different party than the legislature.  I did a search and it didn't seem to be born out by the data (I'm not qualified but what the hell).  My conclusion is that the gerrymandering pushes candidates to the extremes since there are no swing voters they need to attract.
> 
> I think I see this in the election of candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene.  The long-term implications seem to point to the GOP becoming an embarrassment to the majority of voters and eventually even the gerrymandering won't keep them in power.  Maybe just wishful thinking on my part?



States where the dems control redistricting like New York and Illinois they will gerrymander in their favor. So what is your point?


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yup. When the district is not competitive, it can become a "race to the bottom" in the primaries. Especially for republican voters, who are aroused by whoever is the most cruel.


Do the mainstream GOP voters not cringe when they hear her?  Unfortunately, not yet.  They still seem to overwhelmingly support Trump and anyone who supports him.  I fear things will have to get worse before they get better.  Maybe the 'RINO's will form their own party and get my support.  No sign of a backbone yet.


----------



## there4eyeM

People who pay taxes to bomb women and children sound pretty ridiculous talking about abortion.


----------



## alang1216

eagle7-31 said:


> States where the dems control redistricting like New York and Illinois they will gerrymander in their favor. So what is your point?


Dems are no better than the GOP but I like to think voters are smarter than than that.  Here in VA there was a recent ballot initiative to have an independent commission do our next redistricting.  The Dems controlled VA and didn't support it but it passed and is the law of the land.  It got my vote and now it is up to other states to follow suit.


----------



## eagle7-31

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yup. When the district is not competitive, it can become a "race to the bottom" in the primaries. Especially for republican voters, who are aroused by whoever is the most cruel.


Now that is funny, democrat voters in heavily democratic districts can be just as ideological.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle7-31 said:


> Now that is funny, democrat voters in heavily democratic districts can be just as ideological.


Not as monolithically as Republicans. And they don't have the same appetite for cruelty and proud ignorance. That's the state of affairs today.


----------



## eagle7-31

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not as monolithically as Republicans. And they don't have the same appetite for cruelty and proud ignorance. That's the state of affairs today.


If you chose to believe that fairy tale knock yourself out.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not as monolithically as Republicans. And they don't have the same appetite for cruelty and proud ignorance. That's the state of affairs today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle7-31 said:


> If you chose to believe that fairy tale knock yourself out.


Thanks, I was worried you wouldn't let me.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> If someone decides to use her body to drive through a parade killing innocent people, that's her business and everyone else should just shut up about it?
> 
> Is the notion that your neighbor might be chopped to pieces with an ax as insignificant to you? Not your problem?


.


----------



## eagle7-31

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thanks, I was worried you wouldn't let me.


Don't worry I would never think of trying to get you out of never never land.


----------



## rightnow909

I didn't see anything in OP (just title) about roe v wade..

????


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle7-31 said:


> Don't worry I would never think of trying to get you out of never never land.


Yeah, the cultists always think everyone else is crazy. That's what cultism is.


----------



## eagle7-31

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, the cultists always think everyone else is crazy. That's what cultism is.


Dream on.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lisa558 said:


> All but a handful of Bible Belt states would still allow it.


Such a shameless lie you literally just pulled out of your colon, because you thought it sounded good.

22 States have the laws in place already, ready to go. Several more have legislatures that admit they want to do it. And they will.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...., it does not make me a hypocrite.
> 
> ....



= you demur because you realize it DOES


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> = you demur because you realize it DOES


False, and I explained why. It would make YOU a hypocrite if you took my stances, because of your primitive, shallow beliefs on this topic. But not me. Sorry. This is your neurosis to work through,not mine.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False, and I explained why. ......


You very transparently merely demurred and denied, and still have not answered my question, fraud.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You very transparently merely demurred and denied, and still have not answered my question, fraud.


I didn't? Seems to me I did. You even threw a little baby fit over my answer. 

Sorry you fell on your face.


----------



## rightnow909

I didn't see anything in OP (just title) about roe v wade..

????


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightnow909 said:


> I didn't see anything in OP (just title) about roe v wade..
> 
> ????


Oh, well welcome back from your long coma.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mississippi, it effectively overturns Roe v Wade.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I didn't? Seems to me I did. ....


You admitted to ignoring the question then continued to duck and avoid many times, as usual.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I'm pro-choice, but I agree strictly from a Constitutional standpoint it should be overturned. The Burger Court invented a right to privacy out of thin air to push their own agenda. It was THE textbook case of judicial activism. Even RBG said it was a poorly framed decision.
> 
> Nonetheless, I don't think the court will do it.


Leftist judicial sweet heart, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, called Roe V. Wade horrible law and something to be reworked.





						Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
					

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.




					www.law.uchicago.edu
				




There is no doubt Roe v Wade should be revisited and scrapped and  I doubt the "giant minds" we have on the court today are up to the task however.  Modern technology has smashed many of the assumptions
about children in utero that Roe used to form it's bad law.

It's time for something better and to stop the epidemic of filicide that the sham law Roe v Wade
has brought upon the nation. 
Lincoln gave us the Emancipation Proclamation without partisan political considerations.

I doubt today's leaders are nearly so high minded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You admitted to ignoring the question then continued to duck and avoid many times, as usual.


First, because it was stupid. Second, because I could not tell what you were asking. Then I took my best shot. And still you are throwing an embarrassing hissy fit.

It is clear that your only point was to throw a hissy fit. Mission accomplished.

Now, I will ignore your posts about me. Which appears to be all of them, at this point. Good luck. I'm rooting for you.


----------



## dudmuck

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Leftist judicial sweet heart, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, called Roe V. Wade horrible law and something to be reworked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
> 
> 
> Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.uchicago.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt Roe v Wade should be revisited and scrapped and  I doubt the "giant minds" we have on the court today are up to the task however.  Modern technology has smashed many of the assumptions
> about children in utero that Roe used to form it's bad law.
> 
> It's time for something better and to stop the epidemic of filicide that the sham law Roe v Wade
> has brought upon the nation.
> Lincoln gave us the Emancipation Proclamation without partisan political considerations.
> 
> I doubt today's leaders are nearly so high minded.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> First, because it was stupid. Second, because I could not tell what you were asking. ....


First, because you were too chickenshit to answer it.
Second, because you were too chickenshit to answer it.
Third, because you were too chickenshit to answer it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

dudmuck said:


>


Because they don't give a damn about anyone's fetus. They are just trying to punch ther own tickets to their special afterlife prize box.


----------



## JohnDB

Baby murder or infanticide is not defensible.  

Killing babies?  
Somebody actually wants to defend the right to kill children?  

What kind of immoral person defends killing the defenseless?


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because they don't give a damn about anyone's fetus.......


Don't assume the democrat disdain for human life is universal, ghoul.


----------



## Unkotare

JohnDB said:


> Baby murder or infanticide is not defensible.
> 
> Killing babies?
> Somebody actually wants to defend the right to kill children?
> 
> What kind of immoral person defends killing the defenseless?


The person avoiding questions on this thread, for one.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

alang1216 said:


> Are they federally funded?  They seem to be in the suburbs and not downtown where the poor generally reside.


The poor don't live in the suburbs.  They live in the city in the projects or Section 8 housing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Don't assume the democrat disdain for human life is universal, ghoul.


Oh no, those evangelical fools are much worse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The poor don't live in the suburbs. They live in the city in the projects or Section 8


You are too smart to say something so stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are too smart to say something so stupid.


He's stupid enough to say anything ignorant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> He's stupid enough to say anything ignorant.


Not that ignorant. Same goes for you. But geez, it's not that high a bar.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dragonlady said:


> I'm no a proponent of eugenics.  I am merely pointing to all of you people who fear whites losing power in the USA, that 70% of the women who have abortions are poor.  The people who are the poorest in America are black and Hispanic women.
> 
> You don't want to pay welfare, food stamps, or education expenses for the poor, and yet you want to force all of these non-white women to give birth to babies they can't afford to raise.  When abortion is banned, the middle class white women will continue to get abortions, because they've always gotten abortions.
> 
> If I had gotten pregnant while in high school, I would not have had the money to get an abortion, even if had known where to go to get one.


So you would have relied on your government to provide you with an abortion?  Sounds typical for a libtard.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

basquebromance said:


> the liberty clause in the 14th amendment allows the right to abortion, my friends


Post it and show us.  I am betting you cannot find those words.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> So you would have relied on your government to provide you with an abortion?


If she needed it? Yes, of course. She has been paying into the social safety net her entire life.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If she needed it? Yes, of course. She has been paying into the social safety net her entire life.


Too bad ghouls like you never think about a safety net for unborn children.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Too bad ghouls like you never think about a safety net for unborn children.


Yes, we're too busy thinking about the mothers instead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Leftist judicial sweet heart, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, called Roe V. Wade horrible law and something to be reworked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
> 
> 
> Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.uchicago.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt Roe v Wade should be revisited and scrapped and  I doubt the "giant minds" we have on the court today are up to the task however.  Modern technology has smashed many of the assumptions
> about children in utero that Roe used to form it's bad law.
> 
> It's time for something better and to stop the epidemic of filicide that the sham law Roe v Wade
> has brought upon the nation.
> Lincoln gave us the Emancipation Proclamation without partisan political considerations.
> 
> I doubt today's leaders are nearly so high minded.


You don't get to cite RBG for why the law is "bad", and then take the 180 degree opposite stance she took. Her argument was that the law was _not strong enough. _She would spit on your comments.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 570672
> 
> Some of these NaziCon SCOTUS Justices lied under oath about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings.


Let's see the lies you claim they made!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Too bad ghouls like you never think about a safety net for unborn children.


Oh, and before this rancid fart of a thought floats away for good... let's check the scoreboard and remind everyone who is pushing for universal prenatal healthcare, and who is pushing against this.



Let's check who the largest provider of free prenatal healthcare is: community health centers, followed by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

And who is blocking bills like this one from Senate vote?:

H.R.1943 - Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019​








						H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019
					

Summary of H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019



					www.congress.gov
				




Why, that would be Republicans, blocking the democrats.

Who is trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Easy answer.  Who is pushing against that? Democrats.

Who is pushing for public option? For universal health insurance? Not republicans.

So, which party is trying to provide the safety net for unborn kids? Healthcare and food for pregnant women?

Check the scoreboard. It's not even CLOSE.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, we're too busy thinking about the mothers instead.


Do you think about a mother who is 25 years old?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Do you think about a mother who is 25 years old?


Nope, only 24.862 years old. And not one day more or less.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh, and before this rancid fart of a thought floats away for good... let's check the scoreboard and remind everyone who is pushing for universal prenatal healthcare, and who is pushing against this.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check who the largest provider of free prenatal healthcare is: community health centers, followed by organizations like Planned Parenthood.
> 
> And who is blocking bills like this one from Senate vote?:
> 
> H.R.1943 - Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019
> 
> 
> Summary of H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, that would be Republicans, blocking the democrats.
> 
> Who is trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Easy answer.  Who is pushing against that? Democrats.
> 
> Who is pushing for public option? For universal health insurance? Not republicans.
> 
> So, which party is trying to provide the safety net for unborn kids? Healthcare and food for pregnant women?
> 
> Check the scoreboard. It's not even CLOSE.



The utter shamelessness of democrat hypocrisy is appalling. Anyone who doesn't support _every_ democrat policy "doesn't care" about whomever they happen to be talking about, but at the same time their most passionate issue is the "right" to mercilessly kill the most innocent and vulnerable human life in the world.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope, only 24.862 years old. And not one day more or less.


That sounds closer to honest than anything you've posted on this thread.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

alang1216 said:


> True.  I think the GOP went for the low-hanging fruit but missed the long-term implications of gerrymandering.
> 
> I figured that if the gerrymandering had a major impact I'd find a bunch of states where the governor, elected at large, would be of a different party than the legislature.  I did a search and it didn't seem to be born out by the data (I'm not qualified but what the hell).  My conclusion is that the gerrymandering pushes candidates to the extremes since there are no swing voters they need to attract.
> 
> I think I see this in the election of candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene.  The long-term implications seem to point to the GOP becoming an embarrassment to the majority of voters and eventually even the gerrymandering won't keep them in power.  Maybe just wishful thinking on my part?


Kentucky has a Democrat governor and hardly any other elected offices are Democrats.  Republicans control the legislature and almost every county government in the state.  Only the two largest cities have Democrats as mayors and they will probably be thrown out after the next election.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Anyone who doesn't support _every_ democrat policy "doesn't care"


Useless non sequitur. Try "any" program to give healthcare to more pregnant women. And then you're getting warmer.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Useless non sequitur. Try "any" program to give healthcare to more pregnant women. And then you're getting warmer.


Shameless, blood thirsty hypocrite.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Kentucky has a Democrat governor and hardly any other elected offices are Democrats. Republicans control the legislature and almost every county government in the state.


 Strange, given that 35-40% do vote democrat regularly. That gets them 25% of the house in KY


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"You don't care about unborn babies!"

"But we are the ones pushing for free healthcare for pregnant women carrying their babies to term, and you are the ones pushing against it."

"Uh...you're hypocrites, then!"

Just so painfully dumb. And shallow.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ....we are the ones pushing for free healthcare for pregnant women carrying their babies to term, ......


As long as you reserve the right to kill any of them anytime you feel the need to wipe out human life, ghoul? Do you support the "right" of some crazed killer to drive a car through a parade and kill a bunch of innocents as long as tax money is given to everyone who _doesn't_ drive a car through a parade and kill a bunch of innocents?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> As long as you reserve the right to kill any of them anytime you feel the need to wipe out human life, ghoul?


Such a bizarre comment. I, in fact, would never get to make that choice. I do not have a uterus. In fact, in every instance, only one person would get to make the choice. Get a grip. You're rabid.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> .... I, in fact, would never get to make that choice. .....


You don't have a car? Therefore those dead people mean nothing to you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You don't have a car? Therefore those dead people mean nothing to you?


I already explained that I care more about the mother than the fetus. There is no comparison to dancing grannies being run down by a maniac, to me. Again, that's your fetish. YOUR belief. Not mine. YOU conflate them, not me.  You have a hard time recognizing that line in the sand.


----------



## Lakhota

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Let's see the lies you claim they made!



Decide for yourself...

Collins cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2018. The senator, a supporter of abortion rights, said at the time that Kavanaugh assured that he believed in the concept of stare decisis, or adhering to precedent, and that he viewed Roe v. Wade as “settled law.”

Susan Collins Silent On Major Supreme Court Case Challenging Roe v. Wade​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lakhota said:


> Decide for yourself...
> 
> Collins cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2018. The senator, a supporter of abortion rights, said at the time that Kavanaugh assured that he believed in the concept of stare decisis, or adhering to precedent, and that he viewed Roe v. Wade as “settled law.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Susan Collins Silent On Major Supreme Court Case Challenging Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> The senator backed the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wondered if the court should be neutral on abortion rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


She was lying. She did not care. She knew damn well that his anti abortion cred was the ONLY reason he was nominated, over more qualified people.  Shameful lies on her part. 

Why? Why did she lie? What was her motive?

I say, party loyalty. She saw the writing on the wall in her State, and she undermined herself forever for that sweet 2020 election win. History will record her obvious and shameful lies.


----------



## Lakhota

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> She was lying. She did not care. She knew damn well that his anti abortion cred was the ONLY reason he was nominated, over more qualified people.  Shameful lies on her part.
> 
> Why? Why did she lie? What was her motive?
> 
> I say, party loyalty. She saw the writing on the wall in her State, and she undermined herself forever for that sweet 2020 election win. History will record her obvious and shameful lies.



Yep, Collins is a NaziCon shapeshifter.  A chameleon.


----------



## JohnDB

So....
If you spank a child for correction you should be jailed for crimes...
However...
If you kill a baby you are making smart choices?

A woman's body is her choice until it comes to vaccines eh?  


Nothing but hypocrisy from the Democrats lately....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lakhota said:


> Yep, Collins is a NaziCon shapeshifter.  A chameleon.


A symbolic icon, for what has happened these last 20 years. Susan Collins, the self proclaimed and seemingly lifelong feminist and centrist conservative. A bastion of moderation and modernism in the conservative movement, really...


...lying her ass off in typical Collins slow motion about what she 100% knew was the GOP's Abortion Fairy, Brett Kavanaugh.

 Sad to see.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

antontoo said:


> This parent, who KNEW this child will be severely deformed and will die shortly after birth, decided to go ahead and continue pregnancy, is a fucking moron.
> 
> I have no nicer words for nutbags that do this.



OMG we agree on something. 

End of the day even if they outlaw abortions to near none they'll continue on the black market and across the border.  Difference is fewer women will become pregnant.   Hard to believe but supposedly there are 2-3 abortions a second worldwide.  Unbelievable.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I already explained that I care more about the mother than the fetus. There is no comparison to dancing grannies being run down by a maniac, to me. .....


According to your own standard, there should be. You have admitted to valuing older humans more than younger ones to the extent that fabricated "rights" are more important to you than actual human lives. Nice value system, you fucking ghoul.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You have admitted to valuing older humans more than younger ones


Yes,  albeit "younger" than a 24-week fetus. I fully admit to this crime. Are you going to write me a ticket, officer?


----------



## OKTexas

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma




Yeah, the little commie scumbags don't realize Roe overturned 200 years of precedent, where the States were allowed to make the policy on abortion. But hey, commie States will be free to kill all the kids they want. Hell they can even run PSAs promoting abortion tourism to their States.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OKTexas said:


> Yeah, the little commie scumbags don't realize Roe overturned 200 years of precedent, where the States were allowed to make the policy on abortion.


As intended. And good on it for doing so.


----------



## theHawk

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



Why can’t Dems just allow the American people to vote on abortion?   If they think it’s so popular, why not let the voters decide?

If it’s overturned, then it will remain largely as is now, easy to get an abortion in blue states and difficult to get one in red states.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes..... Are you going to write me a ticket, officer?


You're writing your own ticket, ghoul.


----------



## OKTexas

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As intended. And good on it for doing so.



Right, and 747s can fly powered by unicorn farts. LMAO I bet you think that's in the Constitution too. You commies nullified Roe when you decided there is no medical privacy.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> Why can’t Dems just allow the American people to vote on abortion?


Because they don't think it should be left to the states or to opinion. They think it should be a universal right.


----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because they don't think it should be left to the states or to opinion. They think it should be a universal right.


Well of course they believe their beliefs should automatically be made law of the land without votes, they are authoritarian fascists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> Well of course they believe their beliefs should automatically be made law of the land without votes, they are authoritarian fascists.


A numbskull retreat. We are talking about one particular belief. There is no place for your fake victim crybabying.here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OKTexas said:


> Right, and 747s can fly powered by unicorn farts


Maybe in. your bizarre fantasies. But as of this moment, abortion is a constitutionally protected right in all 50 states. Or maybe you forgot what you are supporting., which is the overturning of that, my fake libertarian cultist friend.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You're writing your own ticket, ghoul.


Oh no! To a magical place? Scary!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Overturning this may well result in the Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in next year's midterms.  I guarantee you behind closed doors most of the elected Republicans throughout Congress and state and local level offices are hoping Roe gets upheld, but most of them won't admit it out loud.


What’s the point in electing repubs if they’re afraid to effect any change?


----------



## OKTexas

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe in. your bizarre fantasies. But as of this moment, abortion is a constitutionally protected right in all 50 states. Or maybe you forgot what you are supporting., which is the overturning of that, my fake libertarian cultist friend.




Yeah, slavery was once constitutionally protected as well, things change. The supremes have reversed previous decisions about 200 times. With any luck the supremes will nullify Roe and move on to faghadist marriage, another decision that had no basis in the Constitution.  Also I guess you have me confused with someone else, I've never claimed to be a libertarian.

.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A numbskull retreat. We are talking about one particular belief. There is no place for your fake victim crybabying.here.


No, it’s all of your beliefs that you have no problem being forced on people without voting on it.  Mask mandates, Vax mandates, gay marriage, abortion-on-demand, taking away guns....
All of those things you don’t mind your Agenda being pushed by court rulings that block laws passed by the people.


----------



## Thunderbird

Some people want to tear apart millions of helpless innocent children? Rip them out of their mother’s womb for $$$$? That’s hard to imagine.

Don’t most people want to protect unborn babies:


----------



## alang1216

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Kentucky has a Democrat governor and hardly any other elected offices are Democrats.  Republicans control the legislature and almost every county government in the state.  Only the two largest cities have Democrats as mayors and they will probably be thrown out after the next election.


You make a good case against gerrymandering, thanks.


----------



## Papageorgio

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh, and before this rancid fart of a thought floats away for good... let's check the scoreboard and remind everyone who is pushing for universal prenatal healthcare, and who is pushing against this.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check who the largest provider of free prenatal healthcare is: community health centers, followed by organizations like Planned Parenthood.
> 
> And who is blocking bills like this one from Senate vote?:
> 
> H.R.1943 - Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019
> 
> 
> Summary of H.R.1943 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Community Health Center and Primary Care Workforce Expansion Act of 2019
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, that would be Republicans, blocking the democrats.
> 
> Who is trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Easy answer.  Who is pushing against that? Democrats.
> 
> Who is pushing for public option? For universal health insurance? Not republicans.
> 
> So, which party is trying to provide the safety net for unborn kids? Healthcare and food for pregnant women?
> 
> Check the scoreboard. It's not even CLOSE.


So the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the Presidency is so inept that they can't pass simple legislation. Man the Republicans are just such a strong and overpowering party.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ....They think it should be a universal right.


"They" think declaring anything and everything "a universal right" is an easy way to get whatever they want without the inconvenience of voting and laws and states' rights and the will of the people. It's just another form of "shut up and do what I say!" Look at how blatantly leftists are afraid to even answer questions about their supposed positions. They know they can't defend the indefensible, so they cry "universal right!" and ignore their moral and logical inconsistencies.


----------



## Theowl32

I would be willing to bet if everyone actually saw pictures of aborted babies, many loud and proud "pro choice" (pro abortion) people would be singing a different tune.

Dare you to listen to this ex abortion doctor testimony in front of congress.


Go ahead and listen


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Hence, there would need to be a constitutional basis for such a law to be passed. There are no enumerated abortion powers in the Constitution for the government to base pertinent laws on.



Yep, the Federal government has no say over abortion at all, the Constitution is completely clear.   By the 10th amendment, abortion is a State power, and by the 9th, that limit on Federal power is as important as free speech, freedom of religion or any other limit on Federal power


----------



## kaz

Theowl32 said:


> I would be willing to bet if everyone actually saw pictures of aborted babies, many loud and proud "pro choice" (pro abortion) people would be singing a different tune



Or any other medical procedure.    This is a terrible argument.  And I'm on you side, at least at the Federal level.   But saying for example if you had to examine someone who was shot, you'd be for limiting gun rights would be an equivalent argument and one that neither you or I would agree with.  So get the silly shit out of here


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> but at the time the const was ratified there weren't laws against abortion.  So, the argument would go, what is the basis for any state or federal prohibition unless the Founders expressly provided one?



Actually, the Founding Fathers were devilishly clever and they already thought of this.   The Constitution specifically covered how do deal with things they hadn't anticipated.    The Constitution is a living document.     They gave us 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.   Have Democrats done that to get your way?   Um ... no ... you haven't.  BTW, 5/9 isn't there either



bendog said:


> In short, this is one time when I don't think "original intent" really gets anyone anywhere, but I expect the Five to overturn Roe at least to some extent



If the SCOTUS rules the Feds have zero say about abortion until you follow the prescribed formula (2/3, 2/3 and 3/4), then they will have finally gotten it right


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> You really don't think that overturning Roe is going to swing suburbs away from the gop on this single issue?



That's always been the Democrat threat, but you are self deluded about your ability to deliver.    Abortion would still be widely available in blue States.    Whether Alabama allows abortion or not is NOT a kitchen table issue for most people.

Besides, the SCOTUS should be focused on getting it right, and the Constitution doesn't cover abortion, you made that up


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> That's always been the Democrat threat, but you are self deluded about your ability to deliver.    Abortion would still be widely available in blue States.    Whether Alabama allows abortion or not is NOT a kitchen table issue for most people.
> 
> Besides, the SCOTUS should be focused on getting it right, and the Constitution doesn't cover abortion, you made that up


We'll see if it plays out electorally.  I don't have any doubt it will play out with less financial growth for Jesusland.  As for the 14th amendment, you have about a 50% chance of being right .. or wrong.  LOL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> No, it’s all of your beliefs that you have no problem being forced on people without voting on it.


Nah, crybaby fantasy. Childish things you tell yourself to justify being an insufferable asshole.


----------



## bendog

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah, crybaby fantasy. Childish things you tell yourself to justify being an insufferable asshole.


And I'm all for voting on it.  Say goodnite to all those Susan Collinses


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> We'll see if it plays out electorally.  I don't have any doubt it will play out with less financial growth for Jesusland.  As for the 14th amendment, you have about a 50% chance of being right .. or wrong.  LOL



Your choice of vomiting Marxist propaganda actually demonstrates quite well that this is not a life issue to most people.

Psst, here's the secret about the leftist propagandists you are appealing to, they are already voting Democrat.

I did like your 50% claim, talk about pulling crap out of your ass ...


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> And I'm all for voting on it.  Say goodnite to all those Susan Collinses



Your fantasy still backed up by nothing but leftist dogma


----------



## Theowl32

kaz said:


> Or any other medical procedure.    This is a terrible argument.  And I'm on you side, at least at the Federal level.   But saying for example if you had to examine someone who was shot, you'd be for limiting gun rights would be an equivalent argument and one that neither you or I would agree with.  So get the silly shit out of here


Don't think so. The number of abortions worldwide faaaar outnumber shooting deaths. Especially the accidental ones. 

But....

Abortions execute the most innocent on earth. Did you listen to that Doctor explain the procedure? If not, then please listen and then get back to me.

Also, getting rid of guns is about as futile as sweeping sand off of the beaches. And it is true that if we saw more shooting victims, there may be an attitude change. 

However, for the left it is about attacking America and the Constitution.


----------



## kaz

Theowl32 said:


> Don't think so. The number of abortions worldwide faaaar outnumber shooting deaths. Especially the accidental ones.
> 
> But....
> 
> Abortions execute the most innocent on earth. Did you listen to that Doctor explain the procedure? If not, then please listen and then get back to me.
> 
> Also, getting rid of guns is about as futile as sweeping sand off of the beaches. And it is true that if we saw more shooting victims, there may be an attitude change.
> 
> However, for the left it is about attacking America and the Constitution.



Changing your argument is irrelevant.   Your argument was about anyone who saw an aborted fetus, not the stuff you're making up now like you are Joe Biden.  Your argument wasn't based on the number of abortions or that babies are "innocent."    I'm not playing whack a mole with your shifting arguments


----------



## JohnDB

Statistics show that abortion is used as a means of secondary birth control...not for incest or rape. 

Second reason abortions were performed was for birth defects... including such easily treatable issues as hairlip.


----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah, crybaby fantasy. Childish things you tell yourself to justify being an insufferable asshole.


Can’t refute what I said, so all you have are the insults of a petulant child.


----------



## Theowl32

kaz said:


> Changing your argument is irrelevant.   Your argument was about anyone who saw an aborted fetus, not the stuff you're making up now like you are Joe Biden.  Your argument wasn't based on the number of abortions or that babies are "innocent."    I'm not playing whack a mole with your shifting arguments


Don't think I changed it at all. Babies in the womb are all innocent and they are being barbaracially slaughtered. 

There was a reason why people were shown the IMAGES of the HOLOCAUST.

Something happens to many people when they see something rather than just hearing about it.

I am willing to bet that half of these pro choicers would have a change of heart and mind if they saw the images of slaughtered babies. Just the expressions of their little faces alone. 

Or the pile up of arms legs eyes lungs in the bowl next to them as the doctor rips the baby out piece by piece with forceps. 

Don't think it would change some minds eh? Fine, let the carnage continue. Cause the countless prayers Don't seem to be enough.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> Can’t refute what I said, so all you have are the insults of a petulant child.


Calling it a crybaby fantasy is refuting it,ya dummy.


----------



## georgephillip

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.


*Maybe she should be more worried about losing the last reason that voters have to vote for Democrats?*





"For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), *we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade. *

"Over that same period, the court has swung to a super-majority of the far right, which has whacked voting rights, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, immigration rights, and abortion rights. 

*"For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President. *

"The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them."

DECEMBER 3, 2021
Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid​BY JEFFREY ST. CLAIR


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

georgephillip said:


> *Maybe she should be more worried about losing the last reason that voters have to vote for Democrats?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For the past 8 presidential elections, 5 of which were won outright by Democrats (who also carried the popular vote in 7), *we were told that the primary reason to hold our collective noses and vote for Democrats was to preserve the Supreme Court and save Roe v. Wade. *
> 
> "Over that same period, the court has swung to a super-majority of the far right, which has whacked voting rights, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, immigration rights, and abortion rights.
> 
> *"For 25 of those 29 years, Joe Biden was either chair/ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Vice-President or President. *
> 
> "The Democrats have forsaken the last reason to vote for them."
> 
> DECEMBER 3, 2021
> Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid​BY JEFFREY ST. CLAIR


You seem confused. Remember how a republican candidate has only won the popular vote once during that time? Now imagine what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned.


----------



## 22lcidw

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem confused. Remember how a republican candidate has only won the popular vote once during that time? Now imagine what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned.


City folk! The world's elites collapse the economy and they can...we will see how macho we all are.


----------



## georgephillip

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem confused. Remember how a republican candidate has only won the popular vote once during that time? Now imagine what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned.


Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 POTUS elections yet there's a 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS. Are you expecting a significantly larger turn-out at the polls if half of US states outlaw abortion?


----------



## JohnDB

georgephillip said:


> Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 POTUS elections yet there's a 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS. Are you expecting a significantly larger turn-out at the polls if half of US states outlaw abortion?


Personally I expect most states to outlaw abortions...the state legislatures and governors have gone conservative for a vast majority of the states...and with mid term elections probably even moreso.


----------



## Theowl32

JohnDB said:


> Personally I expect most states to outlaw abortions...the state legislatures and governors have gone conservative for a vast majority of the states...and with mid term elections probably even moreso.


Ever see a dead aborted baby? Ever actually see one?


----------



## beautress

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


The evil of Roe v. Wade opened up this nation to the loss of 70 million unborn Americans and the rise of communism that will ultimately destroy the Constitution, subject God-fearing people to the anarchy of politicians who are selling us out for pocket money. The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church unwisely gave his blessing to Joe Biden who parted way with decency on or before the day his first wife died.

edit: added preposition accidentally omitted.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

georgephillip said:


> Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 POTUS elections yet there's a 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS.


Yep. And you saw what ramming through the little abortion fairy Barrett right before the election did to the vote tally. So tell us more about how overturning Roe v Wade is going to make Democrats stay home. You're delusional.


----------



## georgephillip

JohnDB said:


> Personally I expect most states to outlaw abortions...the state legislatures and governors have gone conservative for a vast majority of the states...and with mid term elections probably even moreso.


Notes on the State of the 2020 Election – Sabato's Crystal Ball




*I'm not sure everyone who votes Republican favors outlawing abortion, but it is certainly true Democrats have wasted the last 48 years when it comes to cementing pro-choice laws:*

DECEMBER 3, 2021
Roaming Charges: Tribute Must be Paid​BY JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

"In the 48 years since Roe was decided, the Democrats have had ample opportunity to codify the right to an abortion. 

*"In that time, they’ve controlled the Senate for 29 years, the House for 29 years and the presidency for 21 years.* 

"Instead, many Dems sought to restrict abortion rights, especially for poor women, largely by enacting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds for abortions. 

"The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1977, only four years after Roe. 

*"One of its most enthusiastic co-sponsors: Joe Biden."*


----------



## georgephillip

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep. And you saw what ramming through the little abortion fairy Barrett right before the election did to the vote tally. So tell us more about how overturning Roe v Wade is going to make Democrats stay home. You're delusional.


If I remember correctly, Biden vs Trump inspired slightly less that 70% of eligible voters to cast a ballot. Are you imagining a 10%-20% surge in voters in '22, and even if that happens...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

georgephillip said:


> If I remember correctly, Biden vs Trump inspired slightly less that 70% of eligible voters to cast a ballot. Are you imagining a 10%-20% surge in voters in '22, and even if that happens...


Doesn't have to be more in 2022. anywhere even close to 2020 would be a huge turnout for a midterm election.

You saw what happened in Virginia, when a bunch of gullible goobers were convinced that crt was being taught to their kindergarteners. Now imagine what Democrats will do over something that actually exists and actually is a big deal.


----------



## beautress

Theowl32 said:


> Don't think I changed it at all. Babies in the womb are all innocent and they are being barbaracially slaughtered.
> 
> There was a reason why people were shown the IMAGES of the HOLOCAUST.
> 
> Something happens to many people when they see something rather than just hearing about it.
> 
> I am willing to bet that half of these pro choicers would have a change of heart and mind if they saw the images of slaughtered babies. Just the expressions of their little faces alone.
> 
> Or the pile up of arms legs eyes lungs in the bowl next to them as the doctor rips the baby out piece by piece with forceps.
> 
> Don't think it would change some minds eh? Fine, let the carnage continue. Cause the countless prayers Don't seem to be enough.


Prayers of thanks to God for this country gave us independence from a monarchy, and President George Washington continued to pray before and after he led America's barefoot and half starved trrops to victory when a Jewish patriot by the name of Haim Solomon gave his fortune up so they could have shoes food guns and ammo to fight off the bloody British with their hit list of colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence and got their farms and businesses burned to the ground, wives, children and many of themselves killed, maimed, and things too fierce to mention.

 Prayers brought this nation back together following the Civil War, and I am praying every day for President Trump to be restored along with others cheated of seats of Congress by the mob who are running their power to ditch Constitutional amendments into the not very sacred public sewer.


----------



## beautress

georgephillip said:


> Republicans have lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 POTUS elections yet there's a 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS. Are you expecting a significantly larger turn-out at the polls if half of US states outlaw abortion?


The truth is that a robust economy gives the jobless good jobs and people who work hard win. Republicans are all about drumming up good jobs for all, and the Donald makes good things happen when he uses the gifts God gave him to keep America blessed by God. Next time, God will let him bring on World Peace as well as finish what he started with ocean cleanup so that fish can flourish again in good health with no plastics hiding in their muscles that make scores of people sick in port cities that depend on robust hauls of fish. Christ himself gave his disciples scads of good fish in the Sea of Gallilee. We're praying for God to bring all good things back to the earth like clean oceans and peace in the Middle East.


----------



## Dadoalex

g5000 said:


> What post?
> 
> Welcome to the GOP?  BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!  I left the GOP after Trump was elected.


So you say but obviously you took Trump's lies with you.


----------



## JohnDB

Theowl32 said:


> Ever see a dead aborted baby? Ever actually see one?


Ummmm...
I happen to support life...always err on the side of Life...not even a fan of the death penalty. God is the giver of all life. Who am I to take it?


----------



## georgephillip

beautress said:


> he truth is that a robust economy gives the jobless good jobs and people who work hard win. Republicans are all about drumming up good jobs for all, and the Donald makes good things happen when he uses the gifts God gave him to keep America blessed by God. N


Did god give Trump his nickname: Don the Con?




There hasn't been a more corrupt administration in history, and Trump will likely be living in prison or Russia long before 2024.

Warren Releases New Report: Lawlessness and Disorder: The Corrupt Trump Administration Has Made A Mockery of the Hatch Act | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

"Under President Trump's watch, 14 administration officials have violated the Hatch Act over 50 times. At least another 22 officials are presently under investigation for nearly 100 more violations.​​"Despite repeated and flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, these Trump administration officials have not faced any meaningful consequences for breaking the law."​


----------



## Dayton3

ColonelAngus said:


> Most dumbasses do not even understand what ROE V WADE is.
> 
> Interesting that ROE claimed she REGRETTED murdering her baby and REGRETTED being the poster girl for the extreme left.



Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) never actually got an abortion did she?


----------



## JohnDB

georgephillip said:


> Did god give Trump his nickname: Don the Con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a more corrupt administration in history, and Trump will likely be living in prison or Russia long before 2024.
> 
> Warren Releases New Report: Lawlessness and Disorder: The Corrupt Trump Administration Has Made A Mockery of the Hatch Act | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
> 
> "Under President Trump's watch, 14 administration officials have violated the Hatch Act over 50 times. At least another 22 officials are presently under investigation for nearly 100 more violations.​​"Despite repeated and flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, these Trump administration officials have not faced any meaningful consequences for breaking the law."​


This has nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## beautress

georgephillip said:


> Did god give Trump his nickname: Don the Con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a more corrupt administration in history, and Trump will likely be living in prison or Russia long before 2024.
> 
> Warren Releases New Report: Lawlessness and Disorder: The Corrupt Trump Administration Has Made A Mockery of the Hatch Act | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
> 
> "Under President Trump's watch, 14 administration officials have violated the Hatch Act over 50 times. At least another 22 officials are presently under investigation for nearly 100 more violations.​​"Despite repeated and flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, these Trump administration officials have not faced any meaningful consequences for breaking the law."​


You forget. Maxine Waters took off her dirty panties and pissed all over the Hatch act when she ordered her minions to stalk Republican employees in the White House and follow them to public restaurants and all gatherings possible where all of them took their pissy panties off and pissed allover the Hatch Act, the common law, and divided the country with the leftist press swooning over their vaccuum of morality, decency, and the brotherly love this country used to stand for since Democrats made mooning their butts in public all over the place.

Barackass the Jackass broke every law in the book his last week in office by issuing Hillary "I forget" Clintoon's witches cauldron of fakes impeachments and harrassment of Trump' entire staff with made up shit that would take months if not years to disprove. Barook had judicial appointees from his and the Clinton administration to rubberstamp everything and everyone the deep staters wanted out of there because basically, they "knew too much." about the dirty dealings the Demonrats were up to such as replicating the techniques used in former American allies in South America who went commie and had cheating their adversaries out of the votes they won by computer and other many ways of making the dirty hands losers faux victors of elections. How low can Hillary go? She,s the limbo star of snakesnot politics with some adjacent cow patties thrown in to obfuscate the viper poison with defacation smells. Hilary Clinton is a  butt bunion. And so are her lockstepping press prunes.


----------



## JohnDB

Most women don't have abortions...

In Texas only 9.4/1000 women have one...
In Mississippi only 4.3/1000 women have one...

Unlike Washington DC...(mostly women except for the very very few men) has 30.2/1,000 women having them.


----------



## kaz

Theowl32 said:


> Don't think I changed it at all. Babies in the womb are all innocent and they are being barbaracially slaughtered.
> 
> There was a reason why people were shown the IMAGES of the HOLOCAUST.
> 
> Something happens to many people when they see something rather than just hearing about it.
> 
> I am willing to bet that half of these pro choicers would have a change of heart and mind if they saw the images of slaughtered babies. Just the expressions of their little faces alone.
> 
> Or the pile up of arms legs eyes lungs in the bowl next to them as the doctor rips the baby out piece by piece with forceps.
> 
> Don't think it would change some minds eh? Fine, let the carnage continue. Cause the countless prayers Don't seem to be enough.



And most people would become vegetarians if they had to kill animals themselves or see similar graphic pictures.  Or open heart surgery ... or ... 

Were I disagree with you is government is a terrible solution to any problem.    And you did change your argument


----------



## beautress

antontoo said:


> This parent, who KNEW this child will be severely deformed and will die shortly after birth, decided to go ahead and continue pregnancy, is a fucking moron.
> 
> I have no nicer words for nutbags that do this.


Sometimes the child fights for its own life and gets one. Maybe you would like to be one of the names you call others. If karma were real you might be in trouble up to your neck.


----------



## Dragonlady

beautress said:


> Sometimes the child fights for its own life and gets one. Maybe you would like to be one of the names you call others. If karma were real you might be in trouble up to your neck.



No they don't.  That's a fiction that the right uses to sell you that a child "might" survive.  

I have one in my family who fought for his own life.  Born at 24 weeks, he's now in his late 30's.  The only time he's out of bed is when he's in a wheel chair and leaving the house.  He hates his life and wants to die.  My aunt, his mother, is now in her mid-70's and has spent the last 40 years of her life caring for him.  

She doesn't know what will happen when she can no longer do the work.  I wonder what her life would have been like if she hadn't spent more than half her adult life, caring for her child.

The doctor who "saved" my cousin, bragged about it until the day he died.  Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should.


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle

bendog said:


> God I hope the GOP Supreme Court overturns Roe



Agreed


----------



## Colin norris

beautress said:


> Sometimes the child fights for its own life and gets one. Maybe you would like to be one of the names you call others. If karma were real you might be in trouble up to your neck.


A foetus cannot fight for its own life. Its at the mercy of the  mother. 
As for your silly karma, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ColonelAngus said:


> Most dumbasses do not even understand what ROE V WADE is.
> 
> Interesting that ROE claimed she REGRETTED murdering her baby and REGRETTED being the poster girl for the extreme left.



Um, Norma McCorvey (pseudonym "Jane Roe") never had an abortion.  The case took three years, and in the meantime, she had the baby and put him/her up for adoption.


----------



## Cecilie1200

night_son said:


> These pro-abortion nutcases *ARE *demon possessed. They wail and lament, rage and howl and scream as if loss of their ability to MURDER unborn children is a crime against humanity. These pro-child murder people are the enemy of ALL mankind. We should deal with them accordingly.



Yeah, it's demonic to oppose killing children, and the enemy of mankind to want children to live.  Okay, we'll get right on accepting your overheated, underthought hormones as our new moral standard.  Any moment now, your fantasies of being a good person will become true.  Hold your breath waiting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dayton3 said:


> Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) never actually got an abortion did she?



No, she didn't.


----------



## Lisa558

The baby who came close to never existing is a 50-year-old woman named Shelley Lynn Thornton. She chose to never meet the woman who almost destroyed her, and who never expressed any concern for her.

As far as the “mother,” she was a slut who had multiple casual affairs with men, and had a brief marriage at 16. She had two pregnancies before the ”Roe” one, and gave both of those babies up for adoption. She was 22 when she became pregnant a third time.

That a 22-year-old has already had three unplanned pregnancies speaks to her irresponsibility, carelessness, and laziness. There were several forms of very effective birth control available, yet she didn’t bother.

Technically, the decision in 1973 was wrong and merely reflected the mores of the times, and a liberal SCOTUS. That abortion laws may now be returned to the state is correcting an erroneous decision decades ago.









						Daughter of ‘Jane Roe’ has ‘no regrets’ about never meeting biological mother
					

The daughter of “Jane Roe” the woman whose case was used in the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision says she has “no regrets” about never meeting her biological mother.




					nypost.com


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle




----------



## ColonelAngus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, Norma McCorvey (pseudonym "Jane Roe") never had an abortion.  The case took three years, and in the meantime, she had the baby and put him/her up for adoption.



And she is a huge anti abortion advocate.


----------



## AntonToo

Not a Monkeys Uncle said:


> View attachment 595604


No it isn't.

mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
the *unlawful* premeditated killing of one human being by another.


----------



## Lisa558

ColonelAngus said:


> And she is a huge anti abortion advocate.


She’s nothing NOW, other than dead.. But true, she did switch sides and fight against the immorality of abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ColonelAngus said:


> And she is a huge anti abortion advocate.



She did eventually become an anti-abortion advocate.  She's dead now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lisa558 said:


> She’s nothing NOW, other than dead.. But true, she did switch sides and fight against the immorality of abortion.


Because like you she thought she was punching her ticket for her special little live forever reward. You people are all frauds. Everyone knows it. Not sure who any of you think you are fooling.


----------



## Death Angel

alang1216 said:


> Be careful what you wish for.  Pro-choice is the majority position in the US.  If it is eliminated the backlash might put the Dems is power and allow them to fundamentally change the laws governing, not only abortion, but many other Dem favorites.


The decision to murder your baby simply goes back to the state where it belongs.  You'll always find a "legal" way to kill your kids, if that's what you're into


----------



## Death Angel

antontoo said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> mur·der
> /ˈmərdər/
> noun
> the *unlawful* premeditated killing of one human being by another.


Murder is the taking of an 8nnocent human life.

Stop with the nazi reasoning.  "Jews are less than human, therefore, if the government says killing a Jew is okay, then it must be okay"


----------



## alang1216

Death Angel said:


> The decision to murder your baby simply goes back to the state where it belongs.  You'll always find a "legal" way to kill your kids, if that's what you're into


I wonder if the States that make abortions harder to get will make raising children easier?  Why does it seem to me that pro-lifers confine their concern to a small fraction of life and don't seem concerned with those already born?


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> I wonder if the States that make abortions harder to get will make raising children easier?  Why does it seem to me that pro-lifers confine their concern to a small fraction of life and don't seem concerned with those already born?


It might be a good idea to have babies after you graduate from college as opposed to after you graduate from kindergarten.


----------



## Colin norris

beautress said:


> Prayers of thanks to God for this country gave us independence from a monarchy, and President George Washington continued to pray before and after he led America's barefoot and half starved trrops to victory when a Jewish patriot by the name of Haim Solomon gave his fortune up so they could have shoes food guns and ammo to fight off the bloody British with their hit list of colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence and got their farms and businesses burned to the ground, wives, children and many of themselves killed, maimed, and things too fierce to mention.
> 
> Prayers brought this nation back together following the Civil War, and I am praying every day for President Trump to be restored along with others cheated of seats of Congress by the mob who are running their power to ditch Constitutional amendments into the not very sacred public sewer.


Stop the shit about God and what you think he did.  He never existed. Grow up.


----------



## Colin norris

alang1216 said:


> I wonder if the States that make abortions harder to get will make raising children easier?  Why does it seem to me that pro-lifers confine their concern to a small fraction of life and don't seem concerned with those already born?


They are not pro life. They are pro birth. 
Then the teenage girl with an unwanted child is  ridiculed by thise same godbothering arseholes for not having a job.
The same baby they saved. 

Religious women have abortions exactly the same rate but you never hear a word about that. Why don't they save those  kids?


----------



## beautress

Colin norris said:


> Stop the shit about God and what you think he did.  He never existed. Grow up.


1. Do not tell me what to say.
2. It is bad to deny God when he has given you the world.,


----------



## Colin norris

beautress said:


> 1. Do not tell me what to say.
> 2. It is bad to deny God when he has given you the world.,


I'll voice my opinion about you when I like and I don't care what you think. 

You gave no evidence of a god and never will. He doesn't exist and if he did he should be in jail. I'll mock the shit out of him and hope it annoys you. 
Don't tell me what to do or say you hypocrit. 
You're just another delusional godbotherer who won't admit being conned. 
Have another go.


----------



## fncceo

LordBrownTrout said:


> Looks like Shaheen is calling for violence.



I'm always calling for violence...

... but I never get any.


----------



## fncceo

Colin norris said:


> He doesn't exist and if he did he should be in jail.



That would be a mighty big cell...


----------



## Wickerthing

I think first trimester abortions should be the bar set for allowing it.   But I also think that support for Women's health centers should be the norm too  There should be availability.  If Roe V Wade is overturned, all you anti women's rights folks should realize that there will be enormous costs involved.  We either take care of unwanted babies or the cost to those kids will be at least as terrible as a first term abortion, in my opinion it would be far worse.  I've seen Neo Natal ICU babies born to addicted women and left to fend for themselves.  No dad, no mom.  Seems the Gov't is gung ho about saving fetuses but once they are born, you don't hear about them from all of the self righteous save the world types.  I wish all of the anti abortion folks could see what I've seen.  Could be a game changer and a mind changer.


----------



## Colin norris

fncceo said:


> That would be a mighty big cell...


Not for one ghost.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wickerthing said:


> I think first trimester abortions should be the bar set for allowing it.   But I also think that support for Women's health centers should be the norm too  There should be availability.  If Roe V Wade is overturned, all you anti women's rights folks should realize that there will be enormous costs involved.  We either take care of unwanted babies or the cost to those kids will be at least as terrible as a first term abortion, in my opinion it would be far worse.  I've seen Neo Natal ICU babies born to addicted women and left to fend for themselves.  No dad, no mom.  Seems the Gov't is gung ho about saving fetuses but once they are born, you don't hear about them from all of the self righteous save the world types.  I wish all of the anti abortion folks could see what I've seen.  Could be a game changer and a mind changer.



Blah blah blah random-assertion-of-worldview-as-fact blah blah.

I'm just going to marvel at how you can blithely decide that death is better than life . . . for OTHER people.  And yet, you can still delude yourself that you are making some sort of moral argument.


----------



## Indeependent

Colin norris said:


> Stop the shit about God and what you think he did.  He never existed. Grow up.


You’ll find out when you die.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> It might be a good idea to have babies after you graduate from college as opposed to after you graduate from kindergarten.


Thanks for validating my opinion of conservatives.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for validating my opinion of conservatives.


You have thus far provided no evidence of your claims.
It gets annoying after a few thousand posts.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> You have thus far provided no evidence of your claims.
> It gets annoying after a few thousand posts.


I don't need to, you have done that for me.  Your lack of compassion and focus on justice is very Conservative and very Biblical.


----------



## alang1216

Colin norris said:


> They are not pro life. They are pro birth.
> Then the teenage girl with an unwanted child is  ridiculed by thise same godbothering arseholes for not having a job.
> The same baby they saved.
> 
> Religious women have abortions exactly the same rate but you never hear a word about that. Why don't they save those  kids?


I especially like it when women are forced to give birth to severely handicapped children and then have their access to healthcare restricted.


----------



## Colin norris

alang1216 said:


> I especially like it when women are forced to give birth to severely handicapped children and then have their access to healthcare restricted.


Ya gotta love those godbotherers and their hypocrisy.


----------



## dblack

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests....
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma


Nobody cares because all the morons are voting lesser-of-two-evils, which basically destroys democracy.


----------



## bendog

dblack said:


> Nobody cares because all the morons are voting lesser-of-two-evils, which basically destroys democracy.


Yeah, but I think I'd have been drawn towards Adams intellectually, but Jefferson apparently had a sort of a charisma.  LOL


----------



## dblack

bendog said:


> Yeah, but I think I'd have been drawn towards Adams intellectually, but Jefferson apparently had a sort of a charisma.  LOL


Not sure what that has to do with anything, but everything I've read about Jefferson indicates he had zero charisma outside his writings.


----------



## Rigby5

g5000 said:


> I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade as well, but probably for different reasons than you do.
> 
> I suspect your reasoning is that such a decision would cause a Democratic rush to the polls in the mid terms, and that is probably true.
> 
> But my reasons are purely moral.  Abortion is wrong, and it would be best left to the states to decide the issue.
> 
> However, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think it would have almost no impact on the number of annual abortions in America.
> 
> But it should be overturned regardless.



Wrong.
States have zero authority over individual rights.
Look it up in the 14th amendment.
It is supposed to be totally up the woman and her doctor.


----------



## g5000

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> States have zero authority over individual rights.
> Look it up in the 14th amendment.
> It is supposed to be totally up the woman and her doctor.


States have authority over murder.  Abortion is murder.

Simple as that.


----------



## DGS49

With the voter suppression thing I only asked that the people claiming votes were being suppressed to come up with one human example of someone who would not be able to vote if, for example, they were required to provide a photo ID.  Seriously, let's talk to that person and see exactly what the problem is.  But of course there are no such people.

And with the RvW thing, I'd like to interview *one woman who will be forced to have a baby* if they are allofasudden placed in a situation where abortions are not available under any circumstances.  I want to see what it is that FORCES her to have unprotected sex, or PREVENTS her from going to WalMart (or Planned Parenthood) and getting BC pills.  Seriously.  Let's talk to this fucking woman and see what her problem is.  I don't see it right now.


----------



## Lisa558

DGS49 said:


> With the voter suppression thing I only asked that the people claiming votes were being suppressed to come up with one human example of someone who would not be able to vote if, for example, they were required to provide a photo ID.  Seriously, let's talk to that person and see exactly what the problem is.  But of course there are no such people.
> 
> And with the RvW thing, I'd like to interview *one woman who will be forced to have a baby* if they are allofasudden placed in a situation where abortions are not available under any circumstances.  I want to see what it is that FORCES her to have unprotected sex, or PREVENTS her from going to WalMart (or Planned Parenthood) and getting BC pills.  Seriously.  Let's talk to this fucking woman and see what her problem is.  I don't see it right now.


And remember, even if Roe is reversed, abortions will still be widely available in this country. The pro-abortion crowd isn’t really arguing to allow abortions - because they will be regardless - they are arguing for a CONVENIENT abortion.


----------



## Lesh

Lisa558 said:


> And remember, even if Roe is reversed, abortions will still be widely available in this country. The pro-abortion crowd isn’t really arguing to allow abortions - because they will be regardless - they are arguing for a CONVENIENT abortion.


You fuckers will then turn your sites on those state which allow it


----------



## Dayton3

Lesh said:


> You fuckers will then turn your sites on those state which allow it


That's called "democracy".


----------



## Pellinore

I have absolutely no doubt that there are already talks about criminalizing abortion nationwide.  How far that movement gets probably depends on how things go in November, and who wins in 2024.


----------



## Indeependent

Lesh said:


> You fuckers will then turn your sites on those state which allow it


You fuckers will keep fucking without protection.


----------



## dblack

Indeependent said:


> You fuckers will keep fucking without protection.


And it will continue to bother busybody fuckers who never learned to mind their own business.


----------



## Indeependent

dblack said:


> And it will continue to bother busybody fuckers who never learned to mind their own business.


Except for the fact that our tax dollars are being used, Mr. “Libertarian”.


----------



## dblack

Indeependent said:


> Except for the fact that our tax dollars are being used, Mr. “Libertarian”.


Well, that's on obvious horseshit excuse. If that were the concern, it'd be a lot simpler, and less intrusive, so simply repeal government funding of abortions. But that's not what they're after.

Got any more lame excuse for sticking your nose into a woman's womb?


----------



## Indeependent

dblack said:


> Well, that's on obvious horseshit excuse. If that were the concern, it'd be a lot simpler, and less intrusive, so simply repeal government funding of abortions. But that's not what they're after.
> 
> Got any more lame excuse for sticking your nose into a woman's womb?


Your usual dribble.
Libertarian’s sole issue is being taxed so stick your self-righteous bullshit back up your ass.


----------



## dblack

Indeependent said:


> Libertarian’s sole issue is being taxed ...


Uh, no. Try again.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I'm pro-choice, but I agree strictly from a Constitutional standpoint it should be overturned.  The Burger Court invented a right to privacy out of thin air to push their own agenda.  It was THE textbook case of judicial activism.  Even RBG said it was a poorly framed decision.
> 
> Nonetheless, I don't think the court will do it.


But maybe…


----------



## frigidweirdo

bendog said:


> Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned
> 
> 
> 
> It would be refreshing to me for people to begin voting again on truly vested interests.  We used to see this when there were true economic differences in parties, but now the party that wins both congress and the WH is the party that turns out it's own in states it cannot lose, and captures suburban swing votes in the 6 or 7 states that actually decide elections.
> 
> Even vietnam didn't really make a difference.  But once the dems under Carter embraced using the Fed to engineer recessions over inflation ... wages are relatively flat, while the rich earn more per capita, and taxes apply more and more the the rich, but rise slower than their incomes by percentage.
> 
> But nobody really cares because .... we have the soma



If you want proper democracy, overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to give you that.

Pushing for Proportional Representation will.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wickerthing said:


> Rights are either real or they are not.   Suppose that SCOTUS took away mail-in voting and made it so that there were only 3 voting stations in the country one in Hawaii, one in Alaska and one in Key West Florida.  One could still make the argument that "you can vote!"  And you live in Nebraska.  Could the Government, be it Federal or State then say, "Oh!  so you just want us to make it "convenient" for you to vote?  Well tough toenails!



1)  Abortion isn't voting.

2)  Is someone suggesting only three abortion clinics in the whole country?  I must have missed that press release.


----------



## skye

Report: Supreme Court’s Roe Vote Remains Intact​
May 8, 2022








						Report: Supreme Court's Roe Vote Remains Intact
					

A draft of the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision was leaked to the mainstream press. Although the leaker has not been identified, the current theory is




					thepalmierireport.com


----------



## ColonelAngus

frigidweirdo said:


> If you want proper democracy, overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to give you that.
> 
> Pushing for Proportional Representation will.


The cult hates the Constitutiion.


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou

*Stick to the thread topic! Trump, Biden, taxes, mail-in votes, gerrymandering, redrawing voting district maps, etc IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD!*


----------

