'Daily Show' Mocks ‘Crazy-Ass’ Alabama Law Protecting the Unborn

[Luddly Neddite]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

Correct.

The point of posting the article is to expose the Left's inbred hypocrisy. They claim to be the defender of the defenseless... and the video clearly demonstrates their true nature, which is to mock, berate and belittle the defenseless and to do the same for those who are literally defending those who cannot otherwise defend themselves. NOW... with that said... THE ACLU, is literally mocking the defense of the defenseless... .

It doesn't GET any better that THAT video in terms of demonstrations of Leftist hypocrisy.

Actually Alabama is a perfect example right wing dogma driven law...

Alabama has no statewide public defender program. So while the state is paying for lawyers to represent the unborn, adults who need constitutionally-guaranteed legal representation often can't get it.

"If you can't afford an attorney, Alabama has got your back -- until the day you're born," Williams concluded.

Well simple solution. If you're a criminal. don't move to Alabama, that's one way to keep them up in the blue states so the uppity libs can pay for them...

And innocent people NEVER get accused or go to jail, now do they?

Mind of a child, as usual...

the uppity snob who thinks it's up to all of us to PAY for everything for others, Even a damn CRIMINAL

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

Typical brainless, anti-Constitutional RW.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Since many states already treat the unborn as people in the case of drunk dfriving fatalities say, this isn't as over-the-top at it might seem at first glance. Just the logical extension of murder charges for the death of an unborn person. If that makes sense, then so to does defending an unborn person's right to exist vis a vis abortion.

Correct.

The point of posting the article is to expose the Left's inbred hypocrisy. They claim to be the defender of the defenseless... and the video clearly demonstrates their true nature, which is to mock, berate and belittle the defenseless and to do the same for those who are literally defending those who cannot otherwise defend themselves. NOW... with that said... THE ACLU, is literally mocking the defense of the defenseless... .

It doesn't GET any better that THAT video in terms of demonstrations of Leftist hypocrisy.

Actually Alabama is a perfect example right wing dogma driven law...

Alabama has no statewide public defender program. So while the state is paying for lawyers to represent the unborn, adults who need constitutionally-guaranteed legal representation often can't get it.

"If you can't afford an attorney, Alabama has got your back -- until the day you're born," Williams concluded.

Well that serves reason. Ya see, the pre-born child is DEFENSELESS; meaning that it has NO ADVOCATE, EXCEPT THE MOTHER... while the other human beings to which you refer, have at least SOME MEANS to defend themselves. SO... Alabama is using the time tested approach known as triage... which basically means organizing their resources in such a way as to provide the best care to those who NEED IT MOST!

See how that works?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

 

[Stephanie]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you

don't start with your nonsense. this is about John Stewart... and how ugly and stupid he is

 

[Wyatt earp]

You don't have a brain steph

 

[Roadrunner]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you

don't start with your nonsense. this is about John Stewart... and how ugly and stupid he is

I predict one of these professional smartasses attracts a nut before too long.

Seems the cool thing is going to be "Known Wolves", misfits we have right under our noses but are too PC to act on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

 

[Stephanie]

More here. Stewart has run out of being funny. so he MOCKs everything and others. what a lowlife unfunny ass. Video at the site

SNIP:

The Daily Show Mocks Aborted Babies
Because Dead Babies Are So Hilarious
1.16.2015
News
Paul Bois
145
23 Share on print

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Thursday night, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show reached the nadir of its depravity -- if there ever was one -- when it openly mocked aborted babies as his audience shrieked with laughter.

In a segment titled "The Unborn Ultimatum," Jon Stewart sent his minion Jessica Williams down to Alabama to do his dirty work for him, where the cheerfully feminist comedian "investigated" a new anti-abortion law that drove the ACLU crazy.

all of it here:
The Daily Show Mocks Aborted Babies Truth Revolt

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

Funny you don't mention The sperm donor

 

[NYcarbineer]

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Nazis use to call Jews anything but humans. Made it easier to exterminate them. Fetus? Call them babies and then crush their skulls.

Take it up with the Constitution and its case law.

Show me where you can crush a baby's skull in the Constitution. And not some bogus interpretation.

How would the Constitution function without interpretation?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

Funny you don't mention them sperm donor

SOOoooo... You're you not familiar with "Coitus"? And of course the woman's right to choose when, where and with WHOM she engages in such? (FYI: That's the right which is sustained ONLY through the woman bearing her responsibility for having chosen to participate in such.)

In that case, scamp... you shold probably head back over to the "FIRE HOT!" thread...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How would the Constitution function without interpretation?

It functions perfectly with SOUND, OBJECTIVELY REASONED interpretation... For instance, where the constitution says that the individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom, it means that individuals who own and are effective in the use of firearms, are the means by which the free state is defended.

See how that works?

Now an unsound, subjective 'interpretation' of such would determine that the bill dedicated to the protections of the means of INDIVIDUALS to defend their God-given rights, refers to the collective right... which is an 'interpretation' that diametrically opposes the right of the individual to be free. This such is a demonstration of raw, unfettered idiocy.

That is why it is SO critical to never allow individuals who present a perversion of reasoning to hold any position of authority. As they injure the very viability of freedom itself.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

Funny you don't mention them sperm donor

SOOoooo... You're you not familiar with "Coitus"? And of course the woman's right to choose when, where and with WHOM she engages in such? (FYI: That's the right which is sustained ONLY through the woman bearing her responsibility for having chosen to participate in such.)

In that case, scamp... you shold probably head back over to the "FIRE HOT!" thread...

This post tells me right away you are a nerd, ugly as hell and never played a woman, just because you were drunk and wanted a piece of ass

 

[Wyatt earp]

Guilty as charge of one night stands

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

Funny you don't mention them sperm donor

SOOoooo... You're you not familiar with "Coitus"? And of course the woman's right to choose when, where and with WHOM she engages in such? (FYI: That's the right which is sustained ONLY through the woman bearing her responsibility for having chosen to participate in such.)

In that case, scamp... you shold probably head back over to the "FIRE HOT!" thread...

This post tells me right away you are a nerd, ugly as hell and never played a woman, just because you were drunk and wanted a piece of ass

Irony... I adore it!

Thank you for that. I enjoyed it VERY much!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman's protected liberty to decide whether to have a child or not.

There is no challenge on a woman's right to have a child. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to conceive a child. To the contrary, we have taken to establishing such as a capital crime... the perpetrators of such being subject to punishment up to the forfeiture of their very LIVES!

What YOU and the Cult are doing is the audulent conflation of the point... the woman has a right to choose, with whom, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse. Where she chooses to do so, she MAKES the choice, exercising her right... from THAT POINT ON... she is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER CHOICE!

You want her to be a human incubator, you sick mofo bet you fantasize about rapping women and they state forcing them to carry through birth

How cool is it to watch the idiots run to escape responsibility for EVERYTHING THEY DO?

It is truly HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word)

Funny you don't mention The sperm donor

Didn't you know?

According to ignorant RWs, men have no part in the process.

Ask Stupid Stephanie - She'll tell you women should just keep their legs closed and unwanted children should be left to starve in the streets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

A fetus can't have rights that conflict with woman's right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.

Good point.

Which, given that a fetus is a distinct human life and human life is endowed by its creator with unalienable rights, that is all one needs to know, to know that the decision that is "Roe": is LUDICROUS, thus irrelevant in terms of law.

The video in the article, demonstrates that beautifully... but it's nice that you took the time to offer another perspective.

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

How would the Constitution function without interpretation?

It functions perfectly with SOUND, OBJECTIVELY REASONED interpretation... For instance, where the constitution says that the individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom, it means that individuals who own and are effective in the use of firearms, are the means by which the free state is defended.

See how that works?

Now an unsound, subjective 'interpretation' of such would determine that the bill dedicated to the protections of the means of INDIVIDUALS to defend their God-given rights, refers to the collective right... which is an 'interpretation' that diametrically opposes the right of the individual to be free. This such is a demonstration of raw, unfettered idiocy.

That is why it is SO critical to never allow individuals who present a perversion of reasoning to hold any position of authority. As they injure the very viability of freedom itself.

You can't dictate to judges what their opinions must be.

The Constitution does NOT say 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

You can't dictate to judges what their opinions must be.

I dam' sure can scout... I'm an American. We take our rights seriously and we don't allow anyone to 'interpret' us out of 'em. That goes for Judges, Legislators, President and Kings.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to fuck off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution does NOT say 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

No? Let's test that...

Amendment 2 US Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There ya go...

That's the Constitution saying: 'individual ownership and effective use of firearms is essential to the state of freedom'.

See how that works?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fetus cannot be given rights until the 3rd trimester.

The human being is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Thus, the human being is endowed with rights when it is endowed with life and life begins at the beginning and the beginning of human life is conception.

That's your 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on words not even in the Constitution.

I thought you just declared 'interpretation' to be verboten.

oops.

HEY! Fun Fact... the first time we actually enforced our rights, was against A KING!

Now, think about that... if we'll tell the King to fuck off... what makes you think a Judge is going to so much as slow us down?

Oh, now I get it, you're basing all your constitutional pontifications on the assumption that your views will only be actually put in place after an armed rebellion.

lol, good one.