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.
You're a brainwashed racist Joe
You notice how every time he is proven wrong a moves the goals and ignores the posts that prove him wrong? He was saying there is no such thing as late term abortions, LOL.
1. You have NEVER established that I "hate" people who worship a different god than I do. You're projecting, Joe, because you're small-minded. I must be blunt because that's the only way to get through to you.
Naw, honey... you go on and on about how their religion is evil because they don't like us invading their countries... then you tell lies about their practices because you don't really understand their religion.
One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.
Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.
Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.
Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.
Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?
In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.
Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.
But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.
And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"
Leftists are scum.
"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this."
I believe this summarizes the OP.
Fucks sake... Here is an English lesson:
A baby has to be born... You are talking about is
Zygote and Fetus...
One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.
Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.
Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.
Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.
Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?
In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.
Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.
But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.
And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"
Leftists are scum.
"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this."
I believe this summarizes the OP.
Fucks sake... Here is an English lesson:
A baby has to be born... You are talking about is
Zygote and Fetus...
So when you talk about babies I am clueless to what you are saying...
Trumpeters are the ones who support the President babies in cages... So please save us your crocodile tears for babies...
This morning, I read the book of Hosea in the Old Testament. This has all happened to God's beloved before, and I thought as I was reading it, this is us, except the time was long ago. The temptations and doings seem to be similar to today's people who have turned their back on God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit and looked to themselves for goodness, but they got lost and went back to worshipping Ba'al. It was a very sad time for the people of God's light. We must be strong and win this battle against whoever assails the Kingdom of God."U.K. Court Reverses Ruling That Would Have Forced Mentally Disabled Woman to Have an Abortion
According to a Press Association report, a three-judge panel overturned that decision Monday following an appeal filed by the unidentified woman’s mother, a Nigerian immigrant and former midwife who opposes the abortion and has offered to care for the child. The three judges — Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Peter Jackson — said they would provide their rationale for overturning the previous ruling at a later date."
Britain & Forced Abortion -- U.K. Court Reverses Ruling Regarding Mentally-Ill Woman | National Review
Wonder if they'll be honest and say, "Because we made ourselves look like a bunch of tyrannical, baby-hating dicks and potentially did serious damage to the pro-abort arguments"?
I don't believe honesty enters the equation.
For the most part, Britain is lost....in many ways.
Take the insane positions the Democrat Party has taken, and the UK is on it on steroids.
Islamism, anti-free speech, guns, ....and, it appears, abortion.
I guess this is where the "Abortion YAY!" position takes you: from arguing for "a woman's choice" to telling her an abortion is more important than her choice.
Ironically, the pro-aborts are the ones who LOOOOOOVE to accuse pro-lifers of "forcing women".
First, there's no such thing as a "late term abortion".
You're an ignorant lying sack of shit. "Late Term Abortion" is an abortion late in the third term,in other words, days before birth.
A true story movie was made about a man sent to prison for it.
Pull your head out of your ass you fucking moron.
US abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty of murders
Abortion doctor guilty of murders
A Philadelphia doctor has been convicted of the first-degree murders of three babies delivered and killed with scissors in late-term abortions.
Dr Kermit Gosnell, 72, was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter of an adult patient who died of an overdose. He was acquitted on another charge of killing a fourth baby.
The case was seized on by both sides in the US debate over abortion.
First, there's no such thing as a "late term abortion".
You're an ignorant lying sack of shit. "Late Term Abortion" is an abortion late in the third term,in other words, days before birth.
A true story movie was made about a man sent to prison for it.
Pull your head out of your ass you fucking moron.
US abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty of murders
Abortion doctor guilty of murders
A Philadelphia doctor has been convicted of the first-degree murders of three babies delivered and killed with scissors in late-term abortions.
Dr Kermit Gosnell, 72, was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter of an adult patient who died of an overdose. He was acquitted on another charge of killing a fourth baby.
The case was seized on by both sides in the US debate over abortion.
Banning abortion will lead to more Gosnells not fewer. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you need science and education not prohibitions. You do things like this:
Teen pregnancy and abortion rates see big drops, which Colorado officials attribute to IUD program
Banning abortion will lead to more Gosnells not fewer.
Banning abortion will lead to more Gosnells not fewer.
You are a Sea Witch alright. That's like saying Banning rapes will lead to more rapes not fewer.
You don't make something illegal based on what might happen, you make something illegal if it needs to be illegal. And in case you didn't know it, murder is illegal!
Like most people you don't even understand the issue at hand. The issue is Fundamental Human Rights. All of us have the right to not be murdered by someone else. And babes in the womb are human beings too, entitled to human rights too.
Abortion violates the most fundamental human right. THAT is the issue at hand.
And by the way: As a woman I find your comment insulting to my intelligence, that somehow I am going to seek out a Gosnell rather than give life to the child inside of me.
Banning abortion will lead to more Gosnells not fewer.
You are a Sea Witch alright. That's like saying Banning rapes will lead to more rapes not fewer.
You don't make something illegal based on what might happen, you make something illegal if it needs to be illegal. And in case you didn't know it, murder is illegal!
Like most people you don't even understand the issue at hand. The issue is Fundamental Human Rights. All of us have the right to not be murdered by someone else. And babes in the womb are human beings too, entitled to human rights too.
Abortion violates the most fundamental human right. THAT is the issue at hand.
And by the way: As a woman I find your comment insulting to my intelligence, that somehow I am going to seek out a Gosnell rather than give life to the child inside of me.
No, it's actually nothing like that. It's not even like "make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns". It's a simple fact. Make abortion illegal and you will create hundreds of Kurt Gosnells all over the country. People that poor women go to for abortions if you succeed in making abortion illegal. Rich women will always be able to get safe abortions, you will just make it dangerous for poor women.
What you don't understand is that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.
One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.
Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.
Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.
Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.
Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?
In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.
Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.
But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.
And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"
Leftists are scum.
"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this."
I believe this summarizes the OP.
Fucks sake... Here is an English lesson:
A baby has to be born... You are talking about is
Zygote and Fetus...
So when you talk about babies I am clueless to what you are saying...
Trumpeters are the ones who support the President babies in cages... So please save us your crocodile tears for babies...
Virginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
Virginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Sometimes late term abortions are necessary. No State allows for the killing of a baby born alive, even from a botched abortion.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
So what? The single celled Zygote has unique human DNA and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It lives.
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
"Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.
This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
This view is sometimes called 'gradualism'."
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Virginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Sometimes late term abortions are necessary. No State allows for the killing of a baby born alive, even from a botched abortion.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
So what? The single celled Zygote has unique human DNA and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It lives.
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
"Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.
This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
This view is sometimes called 'gradualism'."
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Aren't you the one who said this?
Are you related to Heinrich Himmler?
I guess that's no, I don't really care about the lives of these babies.
Liberals On Abortion
Slither off, snake
IVirginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Sometimes late term abortions are necessary. No State allows for the killing of a baby born alive, even from a botched abortion.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
So what? The single celled Zygote has unique human DNA and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It lives.
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
"Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.
This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
This view is sometimes called 'gradualism'."
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Aren't you the one who said this?
Are you related to Heinrich Himmler?
I guess that's no, I don't really care about the lives of these babies.
Liberals On Abortion
Slither off, snake
I was speaking in the third person of my perception of Gipper's position on helping raise those unwanted children.
But coming up with false narratives is part an parcel for pseudo-cons, isn't it?
Probably have courses on it at Pseudo-conn U.
First, there's no such thing as a "late term abortion".
You're an ignorant lying sack of shit. "Late Term Abortion" is an abortion late in the third term,in other words, days before birth.
A true story movie was made about a man sent to prison for it.
Pull your head out of your ass you fucking moron.
IVirginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Sometimes late term abortions are necessary. No State allows for the killing of a baby born alive, even from a botched abortion.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
So what? The single celled Zygote has unique human DNA and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It lives.
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
"Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.
This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
This view is sometimes called 'gradualism'."
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Aren't you the one who said this?
Are you related to Heinrich Himmler?
I guess that's no, I don't really care about the lives of these babies.
Liberals On Abortion
Slither off, snake
I was speaking in the third person of my perception of Gipper's position on helping raise those unwanted children.
But coming up with false narratives is part an parcel for pseudo-cons, isn't it?
Probably have courses on it at Pseudo-conn U.
Is this you attempt to repudiate, to rescind, the disgusting post in favor of the slaughter of the innocent, the bland statement in favor of murder???
IVirginia and New York are at late term abortions and even murdering children AFTER birth.
Sometimes late term abortions are necessary. No State allows for the killing of a baby born alive, even from a botched abortion.
Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood & human DNA, which makes him or her human;
So what? The single celled Zygote has unique human DNA and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It lives.
The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.
"Although it's uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the foetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops.
This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the foetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the foetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
This view is sometimes called 'gradualism'."
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Aren't you the one who said this?
Are you related to Heinrich Himmler?
I guess that's no, I don't really care about the lives of these babies.
Liberals On Abortion
Slither off, snake
I was speaking in the third person of my perception of Gipper's position on helping raise those unwanted children.
But coming up with false narratives is part an parcel for pseudo-cons, isn't it?
Probably have courses on it at Pseudo-conn U.
Is this you attempt to repudiate, to rescind, the disgusting post in favor of the slaughter of the innocent, the bland statement in favor of murder???
No. What do you think "I guess that's a no," signifies in that sentence you used in your attempted false narrative attack.
