Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power. .The federal government doesn't presume it has the power to stop anyone from doing anything,
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.
Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power. .The federal government doesn't presume it has the power to stop anyone from doing anything,
It's already a human being. A living one. Abortion ends that life. Abortion is killing.Abortion prior to 28 weeks kills all chances of that developing human organism that is part of a woman’s body to develop into a viable human being. But the choice not to deliver a new human being lies with the woman who carries it. THERE IS ZERO moral choices for the rest of society to make on the issue. If the woman who terminates is of a religion that forbids abortion and she does it anyway, then the consequences of her religious immorality, sin if you will, are between the woman and her church and her God not me.
He basically pulled a Bill Clinton with that one... lol.That's an odd way of saying it will die. Almost like something a shifty lawyer or politician would say. Abortion ends a human life. That is reality.
No, I'm not lying. But lying isn't a sin, dummy.
Bearing false witness is a sin. I can tell you that that dress doesn't make you look fat and it wouldn't be a sin even though it's a lie.
You can make an even better argument that a government that has the power to allow abortions has the power to force abortions. As a government that allows abortions has already demoralized abortion whereas a government which doesn't allow abortions, hasn't.Government that presumes it has the power to stop you from having an abortion, has the power to force you to get one. Just depends on who's running things at the time.
Cool story, ma'am.Thou shalt not bear false witness. That is what you do literally all the time.
But I bet your sect has a special definition of “witness” that gets you off on a technicality.
Your religion is SUCH A JOKE.
Someone has to have a say in what the citizen's might want, so the state's being independent of one another should be able to promote (within the law of course), what their citizen's want to represent them in their state.Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power. .
LOL!!!You can make an even better argument that a government that has the power to allow ...
So you mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between something that's alive and something that isn't?That depends, of course, on your very special definition of human life. But it's irrelevant. If it's inside someone else's body, it's none of my business. But, apparently, you think it's yours. The government should reign supreme in all things, even procreation.
Speaking of definitions, when I say statist, I mean someone who thinks the purpose of government is force their values on others.
I see government as a necessary evil.LOL!!!
The "power to allow"???
Is that really how you see government? Of course it is.
You are crying over spilled milk. It's not going back into the bowl. Get over it.Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power. .
No, no, no. This is precisely what I reject about the prevailing political philosophies of both parties.Someone has to have a say in what the citizen's might want ...
I appreciate the general value of decentralization, I'm with you there. But I don't think that fundamental rights should depend on which state you are in.Remember now "WITHIN THE LAW". Once abortion is outlawed in a state, and the people agree, then the state law shouldn't be abused by anyone in the state.... If don't like it, then freely move to another state where uncivilized activities are allowed, and are allowed with the ok of that government.
You know what *the power to allow" is? It's nothing. No government power required at all. But it tells me something about how you see government. It presumes that government already has the universal power to prohibit, and what it chooses not to prohibit, it "allows". Or perhaps requires.I see government as a necessary evil.
Not in the context of it use to be illegal. Being legal is closer to forced abortions than being illegal is.You know what *the power to allow" is? It's nothing. No government power required at all. But it tells me something about how you see government. It presumes that government already has the universal power to prohibit, and what it chooses not to prohibit, it "allows".
Ah . So is that your definition "human life"? Something that's alive? Is that it? Care to get more specific? I can work with that, but I'll warn you, it will lead to some pretty ridiculous places.So you mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between something that's alive and something that isn't?
Human life begins after fertilization and ends at death. It's what is taught in every embryology textbook. It's just science.Ah . So is that your definition "human life"? Something that's alive? Is that it? Care to get more specific? I can work with that, but I'll warn you, it will lead to some pretty ridiculous places.
Ok.Human life begins after fertilization and ends at death. It's what is taught in every embryology textbook. It's just science.
1. Yes, yes, yes if the people in a majority (within the law), want their representative's to enforce the laws within their state, then they best do so.No, no, no. This is precisely what I reject about the prevailing political philosophies of both parties.
I appreciate the general value of decentralization, I'm with you there. But I don't think that fundamental rights should depend on which state you are in.