Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By the US Constitution. The 14th amendment says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US with all the rights, benefits, and protections thereof. It doesn't mention the non-existent rights of the fetus.Agreed yet they really think they are fair minded and protecting individual rights. They never consider the rights of the fetus. It’s crazy.
Rights are bestowed at birth. The idea that a fetus (or anything else inside a woman's body) has "rights" is insane. Trying to enact such insanity, into real policy, will create a nightmarish police state that has authority over the insides of our bodies. That's seriously fucked up.
Rights are bestowed at birth . . . by whom? Who says? You state this like it's a universal truth known and accepted by everyone. Newsflash: it isn't. So before you rush on to making your point based on this as an accepted reality, I'd suggest you spend a little time proving this assertion.
The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.By the US Constitution. The 14th amendment says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US with all the rights, benefits, and protections thereof. It doesn't mention the non-existent rights of the fetus.Agreed yet they really think they are fair minded and protecting individual rights. They never consider the rights of the fetus. It’s crazy.
Rights are bestowed at birth. The idea that a fetus (or anything else inside a woman's body) has "rights" is insane. Trying to enact such insanity, into real policy, will create a nightmarish police state that has authority over the insides of our bodies. That's seriously fucked up.
Rights are bestowed at birth . . . by whom? Who says? You state this like it's a universal truth known and accepted by everyone. Newsflash: it isn't. So before you rush on to making your point based on this as an accepted reality, I'd suggest you spend a little time proving this assertion.
It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
What happens when medical science is capable of keeping the few weeks old fetus alive, outside the womb? We are very close to doing this now.That's what KIng Charles III said of the Colonists. The very idea that his ownership of citizens relieves them of their civil rights is what was insane back in the 1770s. We proved that we do have rights. And we exercise them, dblack. We exercise our rights, those of our offspring, those of our loved ones. Human beings and citizens of this country have rights. As I pointed out, a baby was murdered inside its mother's womb by a crazy man. Its number made the kill at 14. It stands to this day. That baby was a person in 1966, 60,000,000 babies who were aborted were persons, but 60,000,000 times evil influences killed them off. The consequence is foreign invasion over our southern border. Our Congress was too cowardly to deem them human beings from conception, so people who do not wish to be bothered with babies claimed the right to kill those little human beings. That's right from conception on, the human being is not merely a "group of cells," it's a human being in the process of sorting out what it will be like when it grows up, arm length, height, strength, hair and eye color, shade of skin, everything. And from the beginning, that little cell mass tries its best to survive and thrive. Killing such a person because one failed to use contraceptives is not an excuse, it's a death warrant, and it's evil as sin gets.Agreed yet they really think they are fair minded and protecting individual rights. They never consider the rights of the fetus. It’s crazy.
Rights are bestowed at birth. The idea that a fetus (or anything else inside a woman's body) has "rights" is insane. Trying to enact such insanity, into real policy, will create a nightmarish police state that has authority over the insides of our bodies. That's seriouslyfuckedup.
My point is that these LABELS are STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT of a BIRD. It 8s a BIRD at each of these STAGES.I wonder if Alfred E Newman thinks hatchlings, nestlings, and fledglings qualify as birds
No idea, but I'm betting he/she/it considers birds to be exactly analogous to humans, and has no idea that they're radically different creatures who have little in common with mammals.
Because every leftist here seems to have dropped out of school prior to the 8th grade, when this stuff was taught.
A HUMAN embryo of fetus is still HUMAN.
This is willful ignorance on the part of tards to justify their bloodlust.
Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.By the US Constitution. The 14th amendment says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US with all the rights, benefits, and protections thereof. It doesn't mention the non-existent rights of the fetus.Rights are bestowed at birth . . . by whom? Who says? You state this like it's a universal truth known and accepted by everyone. Newsflash: it isn't. So before you rush on to making your point based on this as an accepted reality, I'd suggest you spend a little time proving this assertion.
It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.By the US Constitution. The 14th amendment says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US with all the rights, benefits, and protections thereof. It doesn't mention the non-existent rights of the fetus.
It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
"OMG, living babies are enslavement of women!"
Spare me your BS on behalf of the "rights" YOU insist, in your infinite male wisdom, I want . . . which (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) tend to benefit men far more than they do women.
I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.
1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.
Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....
They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.
I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.
2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.
5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.
When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.
Liberals believe that it is the right of the women to decide how many children to have in her family.
Not the state or a rapist.
Educating libs is a hoot...I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.
1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.
Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....
They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.
I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.
2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.
5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.
When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.
Liberals believe that it is the right of the women to decide how many children to have in her family.
Not the state or a rapist.
Bulletin:
"New Study Shows Link Between Sex, Pregnancy
June 7th, 2016
ANN ARBOR, MI—Researchers at the University of Michigan announced Tuesday that a comprehensive, decade-long study has discovered a strong correlation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy in women—a groundbreaking conclusion that is sure to have far-reaching implications.
According to Dr. Michael Citino, who led the study, nearly every one of the tens of thousands of test subjects had engaged in sexual intercourse at least once in the several months immediately preceding pregnancy.
“The correlation is dramatic and astounding, and gives us fresh insight into how and why women become pregnant,” Citino said at a press conference, noting also that the results of this study can be immediately beneficial for humankind, especially in the area of family planning.
“For instance, extrapolating the data would seem to indicate that for anyone who wishes to avoid becoming pregnant with a child—or impregnating someone else—abstaining from sexual intercourse should, according to the study, be one very effective way to achieve that result.”
New Study Shows Link Between Sex, Pregnancy
Nobody told you about this study??????
But ya' need all them big colored crayons, and paper and stuff....
Ask yourself that the next time repugs cut aid programs to needy mothers with kids.Killing children is easy for you isn't it tard.Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
Yeah, the kid she is breastfeeding is born, and therefore a person and citizen with rights. The fetus isn't. One is murder, the other isn't.Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
Republicans pried the slaves out of Democrat's hands, and now wish to protect the defenseless from the Democrats/Fascists.
The unique distinct human being that the mother is temporarily nourishing is not 'her body'......
Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.
To a nut-job having a baby is enslaving.Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.It is more than interesting that Democrats use the same policy for infanticide that they did for slavery:
a. If the person was in Mississippi, he was a slave; in Connecticut, the very same person would be free
b. baby in the birth canal can be slaughtered in the most brutal manner; a few centimeters later, and, as the Democrat Governor of Virginia states, it could be decided by the mother.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
As your Messiah said, “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.” The sicko wants to murder his grandchild. WTF!
Do you get context or just the stupid?
Educating libs is a hoot...I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.
1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.
Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....
They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.
I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.
2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.
5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.
When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.
Liberals believe that it is the right of the women to decide how many children to have in her family.
Not the state or a rapist.
Bulletin:
"New Study Shows Link Between Sex, Pregnancy
June 7th, 2016
ANN ARBOR, MI—Researchers at the University of Michigan announced Tuesday that a comprehensive, decade-long study has discovered a strong correlation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy in women—a groundbreaking conclusion that is sure to have far-reaching implications.
According to Dr. Michael Citino, who led the study, nearly every one of the tens of thousands of test subjects had engaged in sexual intercourse at least once in the several months immediately preceding pregnancy.
“The correlation is dramatic and astounding, and gives us fresh insight into how and why women become pregnant,” Citino said at a press conference, noting also that the results of this study can be immediately beneficial for humankind, especially in the area of family planning.
“For instance, extrapolating the data would seem to indicate that for anyone who wishes to avoid becoming pregnant with a child—or impregnating someone else—abstaining from sexual intercourse should, according to the study, be one very effective way to achieve that result.”
New Study Shows Link Between Sex, Pregnancy
Nobody told you about this study??????
But ya' need all them big colored crayons, and paper and stuff....
That was added in case trump reads this board.
Funny, that’s what I keep getting from you.Yeah, the kid she is breastfeeding is born, and therefore a person and citizen with rights. The fetus isn't. One is murder, the other isn't.Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 which was after slavery was abolished, and was supported by President Grant and the Republicans of the time.
Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
Republicans pried the slaves out of Democrat's hands, and now wish to protect the defenseless from the Democrats/Fascists.
The unique distinct human being that the mother is temporarily nourishing is not 'her body'......
Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.
I just heard, "I approve of one and not of the other, and my perceptions and personal opinions dictate reality!"
Pondering a progressive price list for a baby brain I found none at any price.
So I called their "help the pregnant" hotline and asked.
They said they never get any because only liberals sign up with them and though they get plenty of mouthes and assholes they've never seen a "patient" with a brain......
Is that what passes as conservative humor?
No wonder there isn't any conservative comedians.
Then she should have decided to use birth control you butcher.I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.
1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.
Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....
They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.
I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.
2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.
5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.
When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.
Liberals believe that it is the right of the women to decide how many children to have in her family.
Not the state or a rapist.
Well that interesting, since conservative want to outlaw those too.
Funny, that’s what I keep getting from you.Yeah, the kid she is breastfeeding is born, and therefore a person and citizen with rights. The fetus isn't. One is murder, the other isn't.Republicans abolished slavery over 150 years ago, but now pro-birther republicans want to enslave women. Don't know why they want to force unwilling women to give birth, especially since they don't give a shit about the kid once it's born. Then they wail and moan about lousy parents, welfare moochers, and societal parasites.Are you really missing the point?????
Or trying to.
Republicans pried the slaves out of Democrat's hands, and now wish to protect the defenseless from the Democrats/Fascists.
The unique distinct human being that the mother is temporarily nourishing is not 'her body'......
Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.
That's called logic.
I just heard, "I approve of one and not of the other, and my perceptions and personal opinions dictate reality!"
It's best for women to avoid sex before marriage, keeping in mind her boyfriend might be immature, not ready for responsibility, has made commitments he hasn't kept in the past, has a bad reputation of sexual misconduct and disrespects women in thought, word, and deed.Notice, not a single Republican talks about what is best for women?
The up side of a high standard means she will not become sterile due to an std, will not get pregnant, will not get her heart broken after the wedding, and will enjoy having respect for herself and others for life.
It's best for women to avoid sex before marriage, keeping in mind her boyfriend might be immature, not ready for responsibility, has made commitments he hasn't kept in the past, has a bad reputation of sexual misconduct and disrespects women in thought, word, and deed.Notice, not a single Republican talks about what is best for women?
The up side of a high standard means she will not become sterile due to an std, will not get pregnant, will not get her heart broken after the wedding, and will enjoy having respect for herself and others for life.
If there's a benefit to women in this societal push toward sexual activity prior to marriage as the norm, I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is. For certain it doesn't trump the downsides of increased vulnerability in a myriad of ways.
So why are Republicans so protective of rapists?
They want to give parental rights to children of rapists? How can that be?
Is that taking men’s rights over women’s rights to the extreme?
"So why are Republicans so protective of rapists? he
Wait....you have something against rapists?????
Then why did you Liberals/Democrats elect one as President????
A Democratic President has been convicted of rape?
