A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Jack4jill]

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

Your still kicking that dead horse,your excuses get thinner as you go,comparing a naturally occurring abortion to a non natural,screems desperation.

All you have to do is demonstrate that the right to life exist?

After conception everyone knows and those who are honest will agree that conception brings forth a child. Our constitution and laws prove that they have the right to live. What law or document states that anyone has the right to snuff out that life?

Not seeing that right to life yet?

A fetus is spontaneously aborted, what happened to its right to life?

 

[Jackson]

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

Your still kicking that dead horse,your excuses get thinner as you go,comparing a naturally occurring abortion to a non natural,screems desperation.

All you have to do is demonstrate that the right to life exist?

After conception everyone knows and those who are honest will agree that conception brings forth a child. Our constitution and laws prove that they have the right to live. What law or document states that anyone has the right to snuff out that life?

Not seeing that right to life yet?

A fetus is spontaneously aborted, what happened to its right to life?

Just as in all animal life, if the fetus cannot survive its term in the vessel of the mother, it is aborted in a natural way.

 

[OKTexas]

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

You're delusional. We only complain about the rich and corporations not paying their fair share. You psuedo compassionates want people who have nothing to pay while letting the rich like Trump escape without paying. That's really stupid, but then, conservative logic has never been considered supreme. And, Trumpf must not be following the law, as he got away without paying taxes back in 78 and 79...yet you illogical conservatives want to make him President.

One by one, all that called Trump a con artist, a cancer, a liar and a pariah among other nasty things are now, like good little lemmings falling in step defending him and supporting him. Hypocrites, conservative is thy name.

Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79

Well child, like the typical regressive sodomite enabler you're making assumptions that you can't or won't back up, absolutely nothing in your leftwing rag link said he broke any law. So how about you provide a link where he did, or admit you're full of shit. Anyone who files and pay their taxes according to the law is paying their fair share, of course I'm sure you're so committed to big government you wouldn't think of taking a single deduction, right? LMFAO
Also as I've stated may times, the one and only reason I'll vote for Trump is I don't want the hildabitch within a thousand miles of a supreme court nomination. In the presidential election I'm admittedly a single issue voter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no right to life

Really now? Just who isn't entitled to the right to live, hmm? You people think you can just play God and determine what is or isn't life. Such arrogance.

 

[OKTexas]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

Wrong, a person in a coma is technically incompetent and can't handle their own affairs, and incompetent people under the current law may not own a gun.

 

[Chuz Life]

What I said was dumb?

"Why are you just repeating what I said?

TWO parts, female and male, create ONE new human being.

Within that ONE new human being are female and male, TWO parts."

Once again, things merge; sperm fertilizes egg.

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

The question is not complicated at all if are are honest.

Do you have a right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

If you don't have a right to your life. . . What right would you have to defend it?

As far as your question about spontaneous abortion. It's just more telling about your lack of any understanding about rights.

The right that individuals have to their lives is not a shield or barrier that protects against that person ever being killed. It's more akin to a claim. Like miners have.

A tree has a right to the life it is living because the life that the tree is living belongs to that tree.

Does that mean that the tree can not die or be killed? Of course not.

But the tree still has the right to live for as long as it is able to maintain the life it is living.

The same applies to human beings only we add LEGEAL consequences for the violation of some rights more than others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I said was dumb?

"Why are you just repeating what I said?

TWO parts, female and male, create ONE new human being.

Within that ONE new human being are female and male, TWO parts."

Once again, things merge; sperm fertilizes egg.

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

So, what if a healthy unborn child is aborted? Was its right to life violated? If so, by whom?

 

[TemplarKormac]

All you have to do is demonstrate that the right to life exist?

Have you lost your cotton pickin' mind? If we didn't have the right to life, the human species wouldn't even exist. None of us would be here to debate the topic.

 

[initforme]

How about offering those who are seeking abortion 5 grand up front not to do this? Some of you will disagree because your god is money.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

Wrong, a person in a coma is technically incompetent and can't handle their own affairs, and incompetent people under the current law may not own a gun.

This is news to me. So when my wife was in her coma, what other rights did she loose?

 

[Jackson]

How about offering those who are seeking abortion 5 grand up front not to do this? Some of you will disagree because your god is money.

Every pregnant lady can say they are contemplating an abortion just to get the $5 grand.

 

[Chuz Life]

How about offering those who are seeking abortion 5 grand up front not to do this? Some of you will disagree because your god is money.

Im not getting the connection between the child's Constitutional rights to their life and to the EQUAL protections of our laws (which is supposed to be free) and the 5 k bounty you are placing on their lives.

 

[Jack4jill]

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

The question is not complicated at all if are are honest.

Do you have a right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

If you don't have a right to your life. . . What right would you have to defend it?

As far as your question about spontaneous abortion. It's just more telling about your lack of any understanding about rights.

The right that individuals have to their lives is not a shield or barrier that protects against that person ever being killed. It's more akin to a claim. Like miners have.

A tree has a right to the life it is living because the life that the tree is living belongs to that tree.

Does that mean that the tree can not die or be killed? Of course not.

But the tree still has the right to live for as long as it is able to maintain the life it is living.

The same applies to human beings only we add LEGEAL consequences for the violation of some rights more than others.

Who is at fault when the right to life for a fetus ends because it is spontaneous aborted?

 

[Jack4jill]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

Wrong, a person in a coma is technically incompetent and can't handle their own affairs, and incompetent people under the current law may not own a gun.

Gun control freak.

 

[Jack4jill]

There is no right to life

Really now? Just who isn't entitled to the right to live, hmm? You people think you can just play God and determine what is or isn't life. Such arrogance.

We do play God, since he doesn't.

 

[Jack4jill]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

Wrong, a person in a coma is technically incompetent and can't handle their own affairs, and incompetent people under the current law may not own a gun.

This is news to me. So when my wife was in her coma, what other rights did she loose?

Lose.

 

[Jackson]

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

The question is not complicated at all if are are honest.

Do you have a right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

If you don't have a right to your life. . . What right would you have to defend it?

As far as your question about spontaneous abortion. It's just more telling about your lack of any understanding about rights.

The right that individuals have to their lives is not a shield or barrier that protects against that person ever being killed. It's more akin to a claim. Like miners have.

A tree has a right to the life it is living because the life that the tree is living belongs to that tree.

Does that mean that the tree can not die or be killed? Of course not.

But the tree still has the right to live for as long as it is able to maintain the life it is living.

The same applies to human beings only we add LEGEAL consequences for the violation of some rights more than others.

Who is a fault when the right to life for a fetus ends because it is spontaneous aborted?

There is no fault. Consider it natural selection.

The Declaration of Independence should be enough for you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

 

[Chuz Life]

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

You don't seem to be able to fully comprehend what a right is.

The life you are living right now. Who does it belong to?

A complicated question, but let's skip that part and you tell me, when a fetus is spontaneously aborted, was its right to life violated, and if so, by whom?

The question is not complicated at all if are are honest.

Do you have a right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

If you don't have a right to your life. . . What right would you have to defend it?

As far as your question about spontaneous abortion. It's just more telling about your lack of any understanding about rights.

The right that individuals have to their lives is not a shield or barrier that protects against that person ever being killed. It's more akin to a claim. Like miners have.

A tree has a right to the life it is living because the life that the tree is living belongs to that tree.

Does that mean that the tree can not die or be killed? Of course not.

But the tree still has the right to live for as long as it is able to maintain the life it is living.

The same applies to human beings only we add LEGEAL consequences for the violation of some rights more than others.

Who is a fault when the right to life for a fetus ends because it is spontaneous aborted?

Who knows?

Why do you ask?

 

[OKTexas]

Okay, answer me this then. Does a person in a deep coma lose the right to own a gun? Yes or no.

No.

But they aren't going to have much luck expressing said right.

Wrong, a person in a coma is technically incompetent and can't handle their own affairs, and incompetent people under the current law may not own a gun.

This is news to me. So when my wife was in her coma, what other rights did she loose?

If she didn't have an advance directive or a living will, her right to self determination. But the VA reports people to the NICS data base all the time when they just can't handle their own finances or elects to have someone else to do them for them as incompetent and their gun rights are lost.

 

[Jackson]

There is no right to life

Really now? Just who isn't entitled to the right to live, hmm? You people think you can just play God and determine what is or isn't life. Such arrogance.

We do play God, since he doesn't.

What does that mean? Who is "he"?