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.
Cry more.You wouldn't know reality if it crawled up your nose.
So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.And you are deciding which rights? Clearly, the right to terminate a life is not a “right” intended by the Constitution. Why do liberals think THEY get to determine which rights are guaranteed, and conservatives have to STFU about it? Oh right, I forgot….silencing.
A child is about to be robbed of a life here on Earth, and your big concern is that it shouldn’t be inconvenient for women who live in states that will have restrictions, and who most likely were irresponsible with birth control, and then took too long to make up her mind. If her baby is about to be killed, she can get on a GD bus.
As you ignore a unborn childs life. He has no voice. KissvthisWhat's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.
BS Roe v Wade ruling stated they avoided when life begins in the ruling. That is why half the states have banned late term already. They used viability to survive birth for that. They also agreed it was a life at that point which too many call medical waste.So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.
Putting up a strawman doesn't make your argument better. We have established, and you have conceded there are different ways to interpret the constitution. We have established, and you have conceded that people can have different viewpoints on abortion. We have established, and you have conceded that the constitution allows for unenumerated rights to be held constitutional in certain cases.
Only one of us is insisting that despite all that ambiguity their opinion allows them to impose their viewpoint on other people, even if they don't agree. That person is you.
Disagreeing with someone does not equate to silencing. Here as in the issue of abortion, you are trying to make the argument that only your opinion is valid.
Yes, I will. In the choice between a fully developed person, who has an impact on the world around them, a voice, a family who will miss them, and who will be expected to take care and provide for a baby if he or she is born. And something that is neither developed, self-aware, and has no way to survive outside of the womb ( the standard Roe v Wade set for allowing abortion). I will choose the first. Both do not have equal rights.As you ignore a unborn childs life. He has no voice. Kissvthis
The problem with that argument is that most people who are obsessed with the life of the unborn, do not give a shit about those kids after they are born.As you ignore a unborn childs life. He has no voice. Kissvthis
The problem with that argument is that most people who are obsessed with the life of the unborn, do not give a shit about those kids after they are born.
I didn’t change my argument. I still say R v W should be reversed because it violates the Constitution regarding states rights. i quoted the Gallop poll that said that 47% of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable and 46% do not. The country is evenly split.So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.
Putting up a strawman doesn't make your argument better. We have established, and you have conceded there are different ways to interpret the constitution. We have established, and you have conceded that people can have different viewpoints on abortion. We have established, and you have conceded that the constitution allows for unenumerated rights to be held constitutional in certain cases.
Only one of us is insisting that despite all that ambiguity their opinion allows them to impose their viewpoint on other people, even if they don't agree. That person is you.
Disagreeing with someone does not equate to silencing. Here as in the issue of abortion, you are trying to make the argument that only your opinion is valid.
When do the Democrats’ actions cross over to incite to riot, and form grounds for impeachment?Pelousy applauds the righteous anger of Baby Killers.
When do the Democrats’ actions cross over to incite to riot, and form grounds for impeachment?
I have talked to plenty of so called pro-lifers. They are mostly republicans who do not support things like which would provide an incentive to bring a child to term-even if unplanned :The problem with that argument is that it's complete, made-up bullshit by people who are far too busy "knowing" about pro-lifers to actually talk to and listen to pro-lifers.
But go ahead. Criticize us for not caring enough about the babies you want to just kill. THAT'LL certainly work.
I can see grounds for impeachment for Biden, on several fronts; for Harris, for obvious incompetence; for Pelosi, for riling up an angry mob and inciting riots; and for Schumer, for threatening the justices of the Supreme Court.When Republicans take power and can enforce the laws, one hopes.
Many Americans are living in poverty as thought it were a third world country through no fault of there own.This is not a third world country. Americans take care of themselves. When you put your life in the hands of the gov't they destroy you...just like where we are now.
The rethinking of Roe V Wade is not going to change things any...except it won't be determined by the feds but rather the states. you can kill your child if you think it inconvenient. that will go on. But i won't be paying for it. And then it will TRULY be in the hands of the the woman and her doctor.
Roe v Wade allows bans past 22 weeks and only allows abortion up to that point. Half the country has late term abortion laws half does notYes, I will. In the choice between a fully developed person, who has an impact on the world around them, a voice, a family who will miss them, and who will be expected to take care and provide for a baby if he or she is born. And something that is neither developed, self-aware, and has no way to survive outside of the womb ( the standard Roe v Wade set for allowing abortion). I will choose the first. Both do not have equal rights.
dailycaller.com
I have talked to plenty of so called pro-lifers. They are mostly republicans who do not support things like which would provide an incentive to bring a child to term-even if unplanned :
Nor do they support policies and programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Health care for all
- Food programs
- Housing assistance
- Affordable day care and pre school
- Protecting the environment from pollution
- Addressing climate change so that there is a viable earth for those kids
- Addressing income and wealth disparity to preserve and strengthen the middle and working class
The fact is that the rate of abortion is way down thanks to progressive policies and programs and it could be much lower if it were not for Republican obstructionism
- Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
- Affordable contraception
- Career and educational opportunities that provide an incentive to avoid pregnancy
THE STATES THAT HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS ARE ALSO THE STATES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES, THE LOWEST RATES OF PRENATAL CARE AND HIGHEST LEVELS OF POVERTY
The article says protest, not violence. Protests are protected speech and the basis for the inception of the US.Georgetown Law Prof calls for violence against SC justices. Josh Chafetz is his name. Seems to me that would be reasons for arrest?
Georgetown Law Professor Appears To Endorse Mob Violence Against SCOTUS On Twitter
A Georgetown Law professor insinuated that it is appropriate to protest at the homes of conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices.
