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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are describing yourself and what you. Dodging fails you every time. The foetus is dependent on the mother, and has no independent spot in law. Sorry, little buddy. What was the final charge.You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.Only because the foetus was dependent on the mother. What was the final charge? Chuz, I am so glad you are here so I can correct you regularly, because you are regularly wrong on this issue.You are (as usual) wrong again. The case where a guy who tricked his girlfriend into eating pancakes laced with an abortifacient being a good example. He was initially charged with the MURDER of that child - even though the mother was not targeted or physically harmed at all.Of course they do. No murder without harming a pregnant woman. She takes precedent over the fetus.A person who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with double murder...Our fetal homicide laws do not support your denials about that. Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile appA fetus is not a baby in terms of murder, Chuz. It is not an independent living entity. Only if it, as part of the pregnant woman's body, is illegally and criminally terminated can a person be prosecuted. That is not changing anytime soon.
Dodge, twist and spin all you want. The laws do not require that the woman also be harmed and THAT was what you claimed.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The final charge is not relevant to the point of what the seriousness of the charge could be. Plea bargains are not the point and they are not guaranteed to anyone who is charged. So you will not pull me off point with that shit.You are describing yourself and what you. Dodging fails you every time. The foetus is dependent on the mother, and has no independent spot in law. Sorry, little buddy. What was the final charge.You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.Only because the foetus was dependent on the mother. What was the final charge? Chuz, I am so glad you are here so I can correct you regularly, because you are regularly wrong on this issue.You are (as usual) wrong again. The case where a guy who tricked his girlfriend into eating pancakes laced with an abortifacient being a good example. He was initially charged with the MURDER of that child - even though the mother was not targeted or physically harmed at all.Of course they do. No murder without harming a pregnant woman. She takes precedent over the fetus.A person who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with double murder...Our fetal homicide laws do not support your denials about that. Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Dodge, twist and spin all you want. The laws do not require that the woman also be harmed and THAT was what you claimed.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
so there was no murder charge in the end the which invalidates your whole argumentThe final charge is not relevant to the point of what the seriousness of the charge could be. Plea bargains are not the point and they are not guaranteed to anyone who is charged. So you will not pull me off point with that shit.You are describing yourself and what you. Dodging fails you every time. The foetus is dependent on the mother, and has no independent spot in law. Sorry, little buddy. What was the final charge.You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.Only because the foetus was dependent on the mother. What was the final charge? Chuz, I am so glad you are here so I can correct you regularly, because you are regularly wrong on this issue.You are (as usual) wrong again. The case where a guy who tricked his girlfriend into eating pancakes laced with an abortifacient being a good example. He was initially charged with the MURDER of that child - even though the mother was not targeted or physically harmed at all.Of course they do. No murder without harming a pregnant woman. She takes precedent over the fetus.
Dodge, twist and spin all you want. The laws do not require that the woman also be harmed and THAT was what you claimed.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Don't know who 'alt-right' is. Don't know who 'libs' are. Do know I'm not either. Am devilishly pleased to see the type of posters that violently disagree with me.
This is an actual detailed look at the alt-right free speech movement...
An Establishment Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right
Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.
It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.
National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working-class who worship “father-Führer” Donald Trump. Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast attacked Rush Limbaugh for sympathising with the “white supremacist alt-right.” BuzzFeed begrudgingly acknowledged that the movement has a “great feel for how the internet works,” while simultaneously accusing them of targeting “blacks, Jews, women, Latinos and Muslims.”
The amount of column inches generated by the alt-right is a testament to their cultural punch. But so far, no one has really been able to explain the movement’s appeal and reach without desperate caveats and virtue-signalling to readers.
Part of this is down to the alt-right’s addiction to provocation. The alt-right is a movement born out of the youthful, subversive, underground edges of the internet. 4chan and 8chan are hubs of alt-right activity. For years, members of these forums – political and non-political – have delighted in attention-grabbing, juvenile pranks. Long before the alt-right, 4channers turned trolling the national media into an in-house sport.
Having once defended gamers, another group accused of harbouring the worst dregs of human society, we feel compelled to take a closer look at the force that’s alarming so many. Are they really just the second coming of 1980s skinheads, or something more subtle?
We’ve spent the past month tracking down the elusive, often anonymous members of the alt-right, and working out exactly what they stand for.
THE INTELLECTUALS
There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.
The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right.
The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.
Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism.
The point is that it's a child. Be they dependent or not, and as such it is a human being and a person. The point is that they are Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.so there was no murder charge in the end the which invalidates your whole argumentThe final charge is not relevant to the point of what the seriousness of the charge could be. Plea bargains are not the point and they are not guaranteed to anyone who is charged. So you will not pull me off point with that shit.You are describing yourself and what you. Dodging fails you every time. The foetus is dependent on the mother, and has no independent spot in law. Sorry, little buddy. What was the final charge.You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.Only because the foetus was dependent on the mother. What was the final charge? Chuz, I am so glad you are here so I can correct you regularly, because you are regularly wrong on this issue.You are (as usual) wrong again. The case where a guy who tricked his girlfriend into eating pancakes laced with an abortifacient being a good example. He was initially charged with the MURDER of that child - even though the mother was not targeted or physically harmed at all.
Dodge, twist and spin all you want. The laws do not require that the woman also be harmed and THAT was what you claimed.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
the point, bean head, is that the charge revolves around the foetal relationship to the mother not to its own independent spot in law.
IF men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrementWhen it comes to abortion, conservative scum will side with rapists, every time. It does not matter what they say. Their word is hollow and meaningless. The people who need to be aborted are these worthless Republican shitlords in Arkansas who wrote this bill.
You were running away, and I tripped you. Your fallacy of false equivalency was explained above. Don't have sex if you are afraid of being responsible . . . hmmm?Got it. We can treat people differently because of their biological difference. Is that correct Jake? Or are you going to run from it later?Fallacy of definition, fallacy of false equivalency. Your problem is women get pregnant, you don't. You do not understand.Fallacy of false equivalency. You really don't understand.Sure, so the man should have the legal right to abort all future financial support if the child should the female decide to take the pregnancy full term?
Equality for all
Equality is not a fallacy. Their are two adults involved in each pregnancy. Only one is allowed no decision in it. The male.
IF men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrementWhen it comes to abortion, conservative scum will side with rapists, every time. It does not matter what they say. Their word is hollow and meaningless. The people who need to be aborted are these worthless Republican shitlords in Arkansas who wrote this bill.
Try selling that shit denial to any of those already doing time for the murder of a 'child in the womb' and convicted under one of our fetal homicide laws.Chuz, no, a foetus is not a child, except in your imagination.
Yeah because no women oppose abortions. Right?IF men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrementWhen it comes to abortion, conservative scum will side with rapists, every time. It does not matter what they say. Their word is hollow and meaningless. The people who need to be aborted are these worthless Republican shitlords in Arkansas who wrote this bill.
That is merely your opinion. It has no importance to the law, and thinking people just go "uh, that's Pop, move on."You were running away, and I tripped you. Your fallacy of false equivalency was explained above. Don't have sex if you are afraid of being responsible . . . hmmm?Got it. We can treat people differently because of their biological difference. Is that correct Jake? Or are you going to run from it later?Fallacy of definition, fallacy of false equivalency. Your problem is women get pregnant, you don't. You do not understand.Fallacy of false equivalency. You really don't understand.
Equality is not a fallacy. Their are two adults involved in each pregnancy. Only one is allowed no decision in it. The male.
Not running away at all. I'm creating equality that you appear to agree with.
Don't have sex if you don't want to take the responsibility. But that only applies to males.
According to you, biological differences can be used to treat people differently under the law.
Sweet.
What is the difference between living sperm, living eggs and a fertilized egg?
Only in relationship to the primary, the mother. To call abortion 'murder' is an unintelligent comment.Try selling that shit denial to any of those already doing time for the murder of a 'child in the womb' and convicted under one of our fetal homicide laws.Chuz, no, a foetus is not a child, except in your imagination.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
After birth, sure.What is the difference between living sperm, living eggs and a fertilized egg?
Sperm and eggs are haploid, having only one set of chromosomes. On their own, they have no potential to be anything more than single-celled sperm and eggs. Put them together,and you have a new, unique diploid organism, ready to grow into a complex, mature human being.
Like I said, try selling your denials to those already convicted.Only in relationship to the primary, the mother. To call abortion 'murder' is an unintelligent comment.Try selling that shit denial to any of those already doing time for the murder of a 'child in the womb' and convicted under one of our fetal homicide laws.Chuz, no, a foetus is not a child, except in your imagination.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Because of the relationship of dependence of Mom.Like I said, try selling your denials to those already convicted. Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile appOnly in relationship to the primary, the mother. To call abortion 'murder' is an unintelligent comment.Try selling that shit denial to any of those already doing time for the murder of a 'child in the womb' and convicted under one of our fetal homicide laws.Chuz, no, a foetus is not a child, except in your imagination.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
According to your pap, the Dimz have nothing to fear about Roe v Wade being overturned and they never did have any reason to worry about it.Because of the relationship of dependence of Mom.Like I said, try selling your denials to those already convicted. Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile appOnly in relationship to the primary, the mother. To call abortion 'murder' is an unintelligent comment.Try selling that shit denial to any of those already doing time for the murder of a 'child in the womb' and convicted under one of our fetal homicide laws.Chuz, no, a foetus is not a child, except in your imagination.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
You will always lose this argument, because abortion is a medical term.
That is merely your opinion. It has no importance to the law, and thinking people just go "uh, that's Pop, move on."You were running away, and I tripped you. Your fallacy of false equivalency was explained above. Don't have sex if you are afraid of being responsible . . . hmmm?Got it. We can treat people differently because of their biological difference. Is that correct Jake? Or are you going to run from it later?Fallacy of definition, fallacy of false equivalency. Your problem is women get pregnant, you don't. You do not understand.Equality is not a fallacy. Their are two adults involved in each pregnancy. Only one is allowed no decision in it. The male.
Not running away at all. I'm creating equality that you appear to agree with.
Don't have sex if you don't want to take the responsibility. But that only applies to males.
According to you, biological differences can be used to treat people differently under the law.
Sweet.
