OK, May is here. Anyone have any new topic suggestions to get riots and protesting underway for the 2022 season?

Why do you assume there will be riots? When liberals don't get their way, when have they ever rioted? Don't they usually respond by starting grass-roots campaigns, writing letters to their congressmen, etc??

It's an unbelievable story, many fascinating angles.

It might be exactly the mobilizing tempest that the left needed to prevent a rout in November.

And I hope Samuel Alito has someone tasting his food and starting his car for him. Instead of pooling our money to buy Powerball tickets, I suggest we pool our money to take out a life insurance policy on Samuel Alito.

If it's even true...who knows if it's the most recent draft? Drafts change, that's why they call it a draft.

MSNBC and CNN are saying untold millions of women will die in back alley abortions. But even if Roe is repealed, liberal states will continue to provide safe (for the mother, that is) abortions. Why would anyone be stupid enough to reach for a coat hanger instead of driving to a Planned Parenthood in the next state over? I just don't see how repealing Roe has a huge practical effect, though obviously travel makes the logistics harder, but nowhere near impossible. I can't see many states outlawing abortion. Only the reddest of red states.

The 1973 Roe decision was decided 7-2 and written by a Nixon appointee. The 1987 Casey decision upholding Roe was written by a Reagan appointee on a Court w/ 8 justices appointed by GOP presidents.

Rejecting Roe as “egregiously wrong” 50 yrs later = a radical, political act.

Alito's draft declares that, inter alia, the right to marry a person of a different race, the right to contraception, and the right not to be forcibly sterilized, all lack "any claim to being deeply rooted in history" – which is the same reason he overrules the right to abortion.

For those capable of grasping its breadth, losing the right to privacy will mean the end of every other Constitutional guarantee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the late 1890's, the SCOTUS decided in Plessy V Ferguson, that segregation was constitutional. That remained "the law of the land" for about 50 years.

Then in 1954, SCOTUS essentially overturned Plessy V Ferguson in the case of Brown V Board Of Education, which paved the way to end segregation.

Should the SCOTUS in 1954 have automatically sided with precedent, and left segregation as the law of the land? Were they wrong to ignore precedent and overturn a decision they thought was wrong on the law?

Or are there cases where the court can/should throw out precedent and leave it in the ash heap of history, because previous justices were simply wrong?

Next up:

Griswold vs Connecticut
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ginni Thomas
leaked the SCJ ruling

https://c.tenor.com/uo0GgmRo5YAAAAAC/riot-season-covid-season.gif

https://c.tenor.com/uo0GgmRo5YAAAAAC/riot-season-covid-season.gif

OK youre on a roll with Looney Tunes references, they're the best...

my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling.

Funny I suggested the same. Thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, May is here. Anyone have any new topic suggestions to get riots and protesting underway for the 2022 season?

I’m assuming Rudy will start one, along with Hawley, Cruz and Mo Brooks. Oh wait they already did.

The “Peoples Convoy” aka Antivacc caravan is coming back to DC after citizens in CA got sick of them honking and started egging them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th



"Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th. The Court was the one institution where conservatives and liberals lived in peace and trust," wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich.


Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.

Mitch and right is off to the races blaming it on a liberal leak let me guess it was Antifa just like Jan 6th

That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ?

most on the left had a good idea it was going to lean that way anyway

where the advantage ? or perceived leverage or mob rule or intimidation they already wrote it?



A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base ... there's Mitch's campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law. by a minority

Q: As you may know, abortion law in the United States is based on the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Roe v. Wade. Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade or overturn it?

By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned


54 % say yes 28% no 18% no opinion

Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have said they want Roe v. Wade to remain, according to polling conducted by Gallup

Broad support for abortion rights: Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May 2021, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.

The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high of 47% in May, up from a low of 36% in 2009, and a Quinnipiac poll found support for abortion being legal in all or most cases reached a near-record high in September with 63% support.


We are seeing the Tyranny of the Minority play out

Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th



"Leaking a draft SCOTUS ruling is worse than January 6th. The Court was the one institution where conservatives and liberals lived in peace and trust," wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich.


Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.

Mitch and right is off to the races blaming it on a liberal leak let me guess it was Antifa just like Jan 6th

That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ?

most on the left had a good idea it was going to lean that way anyway

where the advantage ? or perceived leverage or mob rule or intimidation they already wrote it?



A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base ... there's Mitch's campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law. by a minority

Q: As you may know, abortion law in the United States is based on the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Roe v. Wade. Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade or overturn it?

By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned


54 % say yes 28% no 18% no opinion

Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have said they want Roe v. Wade to remain, according to polling conducted by Gallup

Broad support for abortion rights: Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May 2021, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.

The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high of 47% in May, up from a low of 36% in 2009, and a Quinnipiac poll found support for abortion being legal in all or most cases reached a near-record high in September with 63% support.


We are seeing the Tyranny of the Minority play out

"wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich. "

I follow news more closely than you do, and I've never heard of this guy.

Harvey Weinstein was a huge democrat. Does that say ANYTHING about you? If not, this clown doesn't say anything about me.

" That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ? "

Because you stink at this stuff. The leak has multiple benefits to the left, it has zero benefit to the right. If the leaker is caught, the motives are much more important than the party affiliation.

"By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned "

Unfortunately for them, judges who know their jobs, don't base decisions based on popularity. The left never stops crying about how unpopular this is. That doesn't matter. All that matters, is the constitutionality. The word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution, neither is the word "privacy". Many, many legal scholars think that it was poorly decided. Judges make mistakes too, they aren't gods. In any event, please tell me why popularity matters one bit when a judge is making a decision? Do you have any idea why the statue of Lady Justice depicts her in a blindfold? Do you have any clue what the blindfold represents? It means that personal agendas and personal desires are left at the door. All that matters is if something is constitutional.

You want abortion to be clearly constitutional? Amend the constitution (there's a mechanism to do this) to specify abortion, then it's irrefutably constitutional. Until then, it's very subjective.

"where the advantage ? "

It puts a huge amount of public pressure on judges. A weak willed judge might see how angry everyone is, and change their minds. That's the obvious advantage. That's what this is an assault on the basic concept of justice.


"A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base"

You're assuming the conservative judges answer to their base, but they've decided plenty of cases in ways that disappointed conservatives.

"The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high"

(1) Again, that's absolutely meaningless to a judge. It must be meaningless to a judge, or there's no such thing as justice, there's only majority rule.

(2) Even if Roe is overturned, that doesn't mean abortion is outlawed. It means it's a state issue. State legislatures will decide it, which is exactly where this belongs, in the hands of people who are elected by, and therefore answerable to, us. Any state where most people want abortion, will continue to provide it. That's how democracy works.

We weren't polarized enough! Going to be an interesting summer and fall...

The “riot” at the Capitol looks completely different than the mostly peaceful protest on the 6th. Someone is likely to loose their job over the leak, but it will probably make the mid terms interesting.

"wrote right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich. "

I follow news more closely than you do, and I've never heard of this guy.

Harvey Weinstein was a huge democrat. Does that say ANYTHING about you? If not, this clown doesn't say anything about me.

" That logic doesn't make a lot of sense sense ? "

Because you stink at this stuff. The leak has multiple benefits to the left, it has zero benefit to the right. If the leaker is caught, the motives are much more important than the party affiliation.

"By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned "

Unfortunately for them, judges who know their jobs, don't base decisions based on popularity. The left never stops crying about how unpopular this is. That doesn't matter. All that matters, is the constitutionality. The word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution, neither is the word "privacy". Many, many legal scholars think that it was poorly decided. Judges make mistakes too, they aren't gods. In any event, please tell me why popularity matters one bit when a judge is making a decision? Do you have any idea why the statue of Lady Justice depicts her in a blindfold? Do you have any clue what the blindfold represents? It means that personal agendas and personal desires are left at the door. All that matters is if something is constitutional.

You want abortion to be clearly constitutional? Amend the constitution (there's a mechanism to do this) to specify abortion, then it's irrefutably constitutional. Until then, it's very subjective.

"where the advantage ? "

It puts a huge amount of public pressure on judges. A weak willed judge might see how angry everyone is, and change their minds. That's the obvious advantage. That's what this is an assault on the basic concept of justice.


"A conservative leaking it makes more sense . out of fear in the final draft would change or be watered down or not completely striking down ROE in its entirety .. so leak it and force their hand to not abandon the base"

You're assuming the conservative judges answer to their base, but they've decided plenty of cases in ways that disappointed conservatives.

"The share of Americans in Gallup’s poll who say abortion is morally acceptable reached a record high"

(1) Again, that's absolutely meaningless to a judge. It must be meaningless to a judge, or there's no such thing as justice, there's only majority rule.

(2) Even if Roe is overturned, that doesn't mean abortion is outlawed. It means it's a state issue. State legislatures will decide it, which is exactly where this belongs, in the hands of people who are elected by, and therefore answerable to, us. Any state where most people want abortion, will continue to provide it. That's how democracy works.

We weren't polarized enough! Going to be an interesting summer and fall...

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note


And every Red state is now part of the 3rd world

GOP progress on display
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note


And every Red state is now part of the 3rd world

GOP progress on display
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i go by the merits of an argument. not just who agrees. i’m very secure in my beliefs.

if you’re right, there will be a huge exodus from those third world red states.

but you’re not right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note


And every Red state is now part of the 3rd world

GOP progress on display
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which countries think the solution
to surging crime, is less police presence? where’s that list? I’m sure that’s an impressive list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which countries think the solution
to surging crime, is less police presence? where’s that list? I’m sure that’s an impressive list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Keep changing the subject your good at it.

Ps why did At least two of the recent appointed judges who swore up and down that they cared about the rule of law and Roe v Wade is settled law.” Lied?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep changing the subject your good at it.

Ps why did At least two of the recent appointed judges who swore up and down that they cared about the rule of law and Roe v Wade is settled law.” Lied?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

same exact subject. identical. you’re saying republicans are judged by people who agree with them. you’ll never hold your side to the same standard.

same exact subject.

there’s nothing non judicial about reversing precedent. why are you acting like it’s never been done? bad laws get overturned. accepting current law, isn’t the same as saying you’ll side with it forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The “riot” at the Capitol looks completely different than the mostly peaceful protest on the 6th. Someone is likely to loose their job over the leak, but it will probably make the mid terms interesting.




Just wait, RIOT season starts soon.

Just wait, RIOT season starts soon.

If you mean women of this country rising up not willing to have old white fossils tell them they have to have that unwanted baby their uncle, rapist or supposed boy friend left them, instead of being able to finish school, enjoy a career or actually have a family with someone that loves them; well you are probably correct.

If you’re really unhappy about having protests, you’ve got options
None of the options have the freedoms that citizens do in this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It looks to me like the dog caught the car, after forty years of attacking Roe vs Wade they may have finally caught it.
Great job attaining something deemed worthwhile by less than 40% of the population.

Case # 1
A Jewish woman who has access to an abortion provider denied in a Christian Theocracy state sue that the Christian rules inhibit her religious freedom under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

She'll lose, because the conservative Supreme Court justices are nothing if not dripping wet hypocrites. But it's still the right argument to make.

Case #2
A woman who would like to remove not the fetus, but the placenta which is malfunctioning. That should be an equal protection claim because a man would be allowed to remove malfunctioning organs from his body.

Case #3
A straight 8th amendment claim: A rape victim should argue she's being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for somebody else's crime.

Case #4
A straight 13th Amendment claim that a person is being forced to labor against their will for no compensation, in violation of the constitutional prohibition on forced labor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you mean women of this country rising up not willing to have old white fossils tell them they have to have that unwanted baby their uncle, rapist or supposed boy friend left them, instead of being able to finish school, enjoy a career or actually have a family with someone that loves them; well you are probably correct.

you can’t finish school, work, or get married if you have a baby and put it up for adoption?

please explain….because we all know people who have done exactly that

The dishonest hyperbole is incredible.

Oh, and why can’t they just continue to have abortions, where they will continue to be legal? do you understand that repealing Roe doesn’t mean abortion is outlawed?

the justices didn’t tell women what they can and can’t do. they said people can decide for themselves in state the legislatures, which is where the decision belongs.

is a little speck of honesty too much?

if a majority of people want abortion, a majority of states will continue to offer it.

that’s called democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t finish school, work, or get married if you have a baby and put it up for adoption?

please explain….because we all know people who have done exactly that

The dishonest hyperbole is incredible.

Oh, and why can’t they just continue to have abortions, where they will continue to be legal? do you understand that repealing Roe doesn’t mean abortion is outlawed?

the justices didn’t tell women what they can and can’t do. they said people can decide for themselves in state the legislatures, which is where the decision belongs.

is a little speck of honesty too much?

if a majority of people want abortion, a majority of states will continue to offer it.

that’s called democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your daughter is raped by her uncle, a stranger or a boy she thought wasn’t evil, she has to carry that child to term because of what, your misguided sense of right and wrong. Oh and after nine months she what just willingly gives up the baby she has taken to term, yeah how able she now feels obligated and her life just changed and not necessarily for the better. Your kidding yourself if you think that argument is that simple.

The states that want to ban abortion have something in common. Do you know what it is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just think if the goal was to support mothers and children, but that’s not what the GOP is pitching. If this country wanted to, it could reduce the number. We’d need a better adoption system, and financial support for women who want to carry to term, as well as preschool etc.

Then, there would be fewer abortions. Not zero, but fewer.

And if you think that making abortion illegal will work, just look at your speedometer the next time you drive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your daughter is raped by her uncle, a stranger or a boy she thought wasn’t evil, she has to carry that child to term because of what, your misguided sense of right and wrong. Oh and after nine months she what just willingly gives up the baby she has taken to term, yeah how able she now feels obligated and her life just changed and not necessarily for the better. Your kidding yourself if you think that argument is that simple.

you told a handful of ridiculous, demonstrable lies. you have nothing to say except pivoting to a very rare exception?

it’s my understanding that before roe v wade,,abortion was legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the luge of the mom was in danger. not everywhere, but in many states.

why would a woman who had no issues with slaughtering her unborn child in her womb, all of a dude. fee maternal instinct after the baby is born?

all you have is gotcha, hypothetical extremes. and you don’t even have that, because if women want an abortion, they can go to planned parenthood in the next state over to get one. not the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you told a handful of ridiculous, demonstrable lies. you have nothing to say except pivoting to a very rare exception?

it’s my understanding that before roe v wade,,abortion was legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the luge of the mom was in danger. not everywhere, but in many states.

why would a woman who had no issues with slaughtering her unborn child in her womb, all of a dude. fee maternal instinct after the baby is born?

all you have is gotcha, hypothetical extremes. and you don’t even have that, because if women want an abortion, they can go to planned parenthood in the next state over to get one. not the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow rape or unwanted pregnancys are rare and every woman has the sensibilities, money and means to go to another state, you really do live in your own little bubble don’t you.

Wow rape or unwanted pregnancys are rare and every woman has the sensibilities, money and means to go to another state, you really do live in your own little bubble don’t you.

here, if you click on the table
referenced in the study, you’ll
see less than 1.5% of americans women getting abortion, cite rape or incest as a reason.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GS i answered your questions.

please tel me why women can’t finish school,,get a job, or get married, if they put their baby up for adoption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here, if you click on the table
referenced in the study, you’ll
see less than 1.5% of americans women getting abortion, cite rape or incest as a reason.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I added unwanted and that covers a lot a ground and if a women is forced to carry and deliver an unwanted pregnancy and she is young and single, your kidding yourself if her life can just go on normally like nothing happened. I’m not going debate you, I am 100% behind a women’s choice to elect how she deals with a pregnancy, which in her state might not be evident until after it then becomes illegal. I hope the leaked brief upsets some Republican wins and costs them seats likely won. I’m heading back to my life, yours it seems is way to wrapped up in proving your view of basically anything is correct and how evil liberals and Dems are. I don’t know who I feel more sorry for on this never ending circle jerk called the political forum you few guys seem to enjoy, I’ve got better things to do. Only posted as I support a womens right to choose and hope this comes back to bite the right and I can always easily get Jim started on his next crusade.

GS i answered your questions.

please tel me why women can’t finish school,,get a job, or get married, if they put their baby up for adoption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This.

Once again a person who has zero chance of ever having to deal with the ramifications of an act, claims it’s inconsequential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was that a response to Jim in CT? I reread his thread and didn't see anything in it about the "act" being inconsequential. But, then, you do see things the way you want to see them.

As far as inconsequential goes the cost of a vaginal delivery in America as of 11/21 was $5-$11K. Who foots the bill for that, to say nothing of raising a child, when women are forced to give birth & the places most likely to force them to do so don’t fund medical & related services?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you assume there will be riots? When liberals don't get their way, when have they ever rioted? Don't they usually respond by starting grass-roots campaigns, writing letters to their congressmen, etc??

It's an unbelievable story, many fascinating angles.

It might be exactly the mobilizing tempest that the left needed to prevent a rout in November.

And I hope Samuel Alito has someone tasting his food and starting his car for him. Instead of pooling our money to buy Powerball tickets, I suggest we pool our money to take out a life insurance policy on Samuel Alito.


In the US there have been 41 bombings of abortion clinics, and another 173 arsons.
11 total people have been murdered in 7 separate attacks on abortion clinics. There have also been 17 attempted murders.
To my knowledge, there are zero cases of pro-choice bombings or murders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.

no, not this. not even close.

(1) everyone understands that the more restrictive abortion rights are, the harder things will be for some women. And i feel empathy for them.

but…

(2) please tell me where in the constitution, where it says that judges are supposed to decide cases, based on the premise of easing the burden for one side or the other. It doesn’t say that.

(3) i can happily and honestly discuss the impact of restrictions on women. You can raise my taxes to pay for effective sex education and availability of contraception. I’m all in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancies. You can also raise my taxes to pay for expenses to help pregnant women carry the baby and give it up for adoption.

It’s your side, which never, ever discusses the impact of all this to the other party involved, the baby. All you do is express concern for the mother. The mother isn’t the only one involved. You’ll never be aborted, and you have literally zero empathy or consideration for the tens of millions who are.

i have deep empathy for a woman who is pregnant and in despair over it. That empathy, does t extend to the point where i’m ok with them slaughtering someone else to ease their burden.

there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.

There is an explicit, irrefutable
right, to not have your life taken without due process.

The issue of abortion isn’t about women’s rights, because we all agree that women can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t harm someone else. we all agree on that.

The whole issue then, is whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”. every other angle of this, is a politically motivated smokescreen.

that’s all that matters here, the status of the baby. yet your side never mentions it. because they know it makes their position look monstrous.

you focus on the impact to mothers, and ignore the impact to the babies, because it’s more convenient for you. It’s also extremely intellectually dishonest and cowardly. But it makes your position a whole lot easier to do defend, and that’s all just matters.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I added unwanted and that covers a lot a ground and if a women is forced to carry and deliver an unwanted pregnancy and she is young and single, your kidding yourself if her life can just go on normally like nothing happened. I’m not going debate you, I am 100% behind a women’s choice to elect how she deals with a pregnancy, which in her state might not be evident until after it then becomes illegal. I hope the leaked brief upsets some Republican wins and costs them seats likely won. I’m heading back to my life, yours it seems is way to wrapped up in proving your view of basically anything is correct and how evil liberals and Dems are. I don’t know who I feel more sorry for on this never ending circle jerk called the political forum you few guys seem to enjoy, I’ve got better things to do. Only posted as I support a womens right to choose and hope this comes back to bite the right and I can always easily get Jim started on his next crusade.

yes you added unwanted. but you included rape and incest, which is a rounding error.

if a woman can dismember a baby in her womb and “carry on with her life like nothing happened”, please explain why she can’t do the same if she gives the baby up for adoption, giving the baby a life and giving a desperate couple something they can love. it’s about as loving and noble and heroic a thing as i can imagine.

and like every other pro abortion person, you spend 100% of your focus on the mother, and you purposely ( and conveniently ) ignore the impact to the other party involved,,the baby.

It’s very convenient for you, to pretend like there’s only one side to this. I did that for a few years when i was pro abortion. then i bothered to consider the impact to the other party involved. And then i saw my first ultrasound of an unborn baby, and there wasn’t any ambiguity as to what i was looking at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservative logic and Jim carrying their water


there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.


let's just skip Unenumerated rights and the Ninth Amendment

here are some Basic Rights Not Listed in the Constitution so let go with The argument there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip. as they reason to overturn 50 years of settled law

So how willing is the GOP and the SCJ willing to go?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote (gop already dont think this is a right )
The Right to Travel
Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
and the big one the right to Reading and Interpreting the Constitution

Those who claim that the Constitution doesn’t say “right to privacy” or “separation of church and state” are relying upon the assumption that unless a particular phrase or specific words actually appears in the document, then the right doesn’t exist — either because the interpreters are drawing invalid implications or because it’s illegitimate to go beyond the exact text at all.

the GOP the constitution is for Me not thee . unless it's a right they agree with

Conservative logic and Jim carrying their water


there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip.


let's just skip Unenumerated rights and the Ninth Amendment

here are some Basic Rights Not Listed in the Constitution so let go with The argument there is literally zero right to abortion in the constitution. Zip. as they reason to overturn 50 years of settled law

So how willing is the GOP and the SCJ willing to go?

Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trial
The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote (gop already dont think this is a right )
The Right to Travel
Judicial Review
The Right to Marriage
The Right to Privacy
and the big one the right to Reading and Interpreting the Constitution

Those who claim that the Constitution doesn’t say “right to privacy” or “separation of church and state” are relying upon the assumption that unless a particular phrase or specific words actually appears in the document, then the right doesn’t exist — either because the interpreters are drawing invalid implications or because it’s illegitimate to go beyond the exact text at all.

the GOP the constitution is for Me not thee . unless it's a right they agree with

of course there are non enumerated rights.

the right to life isn’t one of them. that’s enumerated clearly, isn’t it?

i’m not getting aborted. so how is my being pro life a scenario where i’m securing rights for me, that i’m not giving to thee? please, please explain.

you accuse me of carrying the rights water. yet i criticize the right frequently, and i’ve never seen you disagree with the left. not once.

doesn’t that imply that i think, and you’re the one carrying water?

sure seems so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes you added unwanted. but you included rape and incest, which is a rounding error.

if a woman can dismember a baby in her womb and “carry on with her life like nothing happened”, please explain why she can’t do the same if she gives the baby up for adoption, giving the baby a life and giving a desperate couple something they can love. it’s about as loving and noble and heroic a thing as i can imagine.

and like every other pro abortion person, you spend 100% of your focus on the mother, and you purposely ( and conveniently ) ignore the impact to the other party involved,,the baby.

It’s very convenient for you, to pretend like there’s only one side to this. I did that for a few years when i was pro abortion. then i bothered to consider the impact to the other party involved. And then i saw my first ultrasound of an unborn baby, and there wasn’t any ambiguity as to what i was looking at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in a nutshell Jim you are fine with imposing your moral objection .
on people you have never met . have no insight with their situation or more than likely will never meet ..and will impact you NEVER!

And this is the problem with the anti abortion crowd this Faux suggestion it's about the unborn it's just a lie woven into their narrative so they dont look like what they are the arrogant morality police ...

So then what's next for the anti abortion GOP vote getter cause More CRT more Grooming and suggestions of pedophiles

making it a crime for state residents from seeking Abortions in other states or Mail ordering the day after Pill . why stop their ban blow jobs and masterbation cant have all that potential life swirling down the drains of America !

they claim it's now a states right issue they will be attacking this next ... I am certain

FYI I myself or my family do not promote Abortion nor have stood in the way of others if the thought that was best for them or their family .. I guess freedom has a different meaning in my house and the 54% of americans who think row shouldn't be struck down


And here's a question I have no answer for why wouldn't States actually hold a referendum vote on Abortion in their state ? if they are 100% positive that's what the people Want...

https://i1.wp.com/i.giphy.com/media/xULW8jvwhvl6BD0ig8/giphy.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in a nutshell Jim you are fine with imposing your moral objection .
on people you have never met . have no insight with their situation or more than likely will never meet ..and will impact you NEVER!

And this is the problem with the anti abortion crowd this Faux suggestion it's about the unborn it's just a lie woven into their narrative so they dont look like what they are the arrogant morality police ...

So then what's next for the anti abortion GOP vote getter cause More CRT more Grooming and suggestions of pedophiles

making it a crime for state residents from seeking Abortions in other states or Mail ordering the day after Pill . why stop their ban blow jobs and masterbation cant have all that potential life swirling down the drains of America !

they claim it's now a states right issue they will be attacking this next ... I am certain

FYI I myself or my family do not promote Abortion nor have stood in the way of others if the thought that was best for them or their family .. I guess freedom has a different meaning in my house and the 54% of americans who think row shouldn't be struck down

i don’t impose
many of my beliefs in others. But i’m comfortable trying to impose my opposition to mass infanticide, onto others

When you express your opinions, that’s fine. When i do it, i’m trying to impose my morals on others.

Do i have that right?

Your opinion on abortion, has nothing to do with whether or not roe should
be overturned. All
that matters, is whether or not the case was constitutionally correct.

If it gets overturned it goes to the states, and THERE is where we can debate the pros and cons.

Supreme court decisions aren’t guided by popularity. You don’t seem to get that.

Drawing a constitutional line from the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, to abortion, is a big, questionable leap.

send it to the states. Why are you afraid to let democracy play out?

big moral questions should be decided by our representatives. by people who we can vote out if they get it wrong.

Even if roe is overturned,,people
will be able to get abortions. the logistics will surely be harder for some, but not impossible.

you can start a fund to help cover the costs to help women get to the closest Planned Parenthood clinic.

abortion will be in pretty good shape after this. hundreds of thousands of unborn will still be brutally dismembered every year, through zero fault of their own, so that as GS said, “moms can go on with their lives as if nothing happened.”. that should make you happy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, read this. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a big believer in abortion rights, but she had criticisms of the way SCOTUS decided Roe.

Being against Roe V Wade, and being against abortion, are not the same thing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/why-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-disapproved-of-roe-v-wade
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting side effect, is what this means for Trump. Until monday night, i had held out hope that if he runs again, that there’s was a chance someone would beat him in the primary.

Now, there may not be any chance. He did this. The social conservatives will be worshipping the guy. if they werent already, there are now. He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn that had ever been in the white house. This cements that. Not saying he did it for noble reasons, he may well have only done this only to tick off liberals
more. but he did it nonetheless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans won’t hold a vote in red states . Oddly the majority of theses states houses are you guessed it men .. and abortion is about votes

They fear a referendum vote on the topic so it will never been on the ballot..

And sorry Jim actually suppressing someone’s Rights isn’t just having an opinion it’s actually causing tangible harm to those who are being denied the right they held for 50 years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting side effect, is what this means for Trump. Until monday night, i had held out hope that if he runs again, that there’s was a chance someone would beat him in the primary.

Now, there may not be any chance. He did this. The social conservatives will be worshipping the guy. if they werent already, there are now. He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn that had ever been in the white house. This cements that. Not saying he did it for noble reasons, he may well have only done this only to tick off liberals
more. but he did it nonetheless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn

What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes

He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear . And if he thinks it benefits him the louder he gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He had already established himself as probably the best friend to the unborn

What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes

He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear . And if he thinks it benefits him the louder he gets
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes"

Not sure how any human being could possibly conclude I believe he's sincere. In the post you replied to, I specifically said:

"Not saying he did it for noble reasons,"

So when I say that, you somehow conclude that I believe he's genuine? How?

You're either not very bright, or a liar. There simply isn't a third possibility. I specifically said, in a short sentence with very small words (8 words, 5 had only 1 syllable), that I question his intentions. And you believe I said the opposite.

Talking with you is a complete waste.

"He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear"

A con man makes promises, and then doesn't keep them. He delivered, he didn't just promise. Social conservatives have been asking for this for 50 years, and it took him to do it. Others promised to try, he did it.

Worth noting that liberals also asked for criminal justice reform for decades, and it also took Trump to do it. Obama had huge democratic majorities in congress for his first 2 years, he could have given liberals criminal justice reform in a day if he wanted to. Trump did it for them.

The draft ruling renews debate over minority rule in the country

I guess I am not the only one thinking this :cheers2:

The draft ruling renews debate over minority rule in the country

2:

Which is a better example of "minority rule"?

(1) 9 un-elected appointees deciding these things, or

(2) the American people getting to decide for themselves?

How will abortion be banned, in states where most people want it? If most people want it, they'll elect legislators who will vote that way. That's how our country works.

"What comical is you actually think he is sincere in those believes"

Not sure how any human being could possibly conclude I believe he's sincere. In the post you replied to, I specifically said:

"Not saying he did it for noble reasons,"

So when I say that, you somehow conclude that I believe he's genuine? How?

You're either not very bright, or a liar. There simply isn't a third possibility. I specifically said, in a short sentence with very small words (8 words, 5 had only 1 syllable), that I question his intentions. And you believe I said the opposite.

Talking with you is a complete waste.

"He’s a con telling the gullible what they want to hear"

A con man makes promises, and then doesn't keep them. He delivered, he didn't just promise. Social conservatives have been asking for this for 50 years, and it took him to do it. Others promised to try, he did it.

Worth noting that liberals also asked for criminal justice reform for decades, and it also took Trump to do it. Obama had huge democratic majorities in congress for his first 2 years, he could have given liberals criminal justice reform in a day if he wanted to. Trump did it for them.

you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

a friend posted this. interesting

An abortion costs about $400.

In the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal birth is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees. A cesarean section (C-section) is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 Who do you think pays for this?

if they have no insurance


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. 1 With an annual adjustment for inflation of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049.


Hard to earn a living trying to raise a child you weren't expecting and your choices were removed by people claiming they care .. then claim we are a welfare state

you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

"you really need to decide if your in the Trump cult or your Not .. your all over the map"

I'm "all over the map", because I'm not a thoughtless simpleton.

You, like many people, think it's all or nothing. This is why you never criticize liberals, never agree with conservatives. It has to be all or nothing.

I see that life isn't that simple.

Trump is a disgusting human being, who nonetheless achieved some terrific policy results. And he had some dismal policy failures.

Unlike you, I can judge politicians on everything they actually do, good and bad. You can only see good in liberals, can only see bad in conservatives.

"your all over the map"

I am actually relieved to hear you say that. yes, I'm all over the map. Because even though you won't admit this, there are good ideas and bad ideas on both sides. There are god people and bad people on both sides.

It's confusing to you that I'm "all over the map". You are firmly planted on the left side of the map, with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

It's a good thing, not a bad thing, to be all over the map.

Trump gave conservatives a huge win with Roe, which conservatives wanted for decades. He also gave liberals a big win with criminal justice reform, which liberals wanted for decades.

Trump (1) is a disgusting individual, who (2) did do some things to help both sides.

Both of those things are true.

So your now suggesting Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law . and lied in their confirmation hearing about it

I love your version of America could it get any more corrupt



FYI Trump’s criminal justice reform bill becomes persona non grata among GOPers

With rising crime and the approaching midterms, Republicans have moved far past the First Step Act.

Three-and-a-half years later, few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it.

"Trump made what conservatives wanted for 50 years by stealing a SCJ nomination from Obama"

How on Earth, did Trump steal that nomination from Obama? He was a private citizen. Lord is he living rent free in your head.

I agree Garland should have been given a hearing (and then rejected). Here's what you won't admit...what McConnell did, was invoke the "Biden Rule", that's actually what it was called. When Bush Sr was POTUS, Biden famously said that if Bush tried to nominate a justice, the democrat-controlled senate should stop him. Biden said it, they call it the "Biden Rule". Now, the democrats never acted on that, but Biden suggested it was appropriate. What's good for the goose...

Also, the American people chose to give Senate control to Republicans at that time. They didn't do that, because they all wanted Garland to replace Scalia. Elections have consequences.

"and nominating 2 conservatives Judges who were against Row on moral grounds and their religion . not the Law"

So in addition to macroeconomics, you're also an expert on Constitutionjal law.

There's no way you read that draft opinion. So you have no clue what their legal basis was. There are many legal scholars who believe Roe was wrongly decided.

"and lied in their confirmation hearing about it "

Show me video where one of them promised never to repeal Roe. They dodged a little for sure. Again, it was Ginsburg who set the precedent during her confirmation, she refused to get specific about how she'd vote on future cases. All others after her, have followed suit.

Do you aver answer any of my questions? Ever?

a friend posted this. interesting

Not interesting as much as it is stupid. The unborn "never make demands of you." This "traditional pastor" must not have had a pregnant wife or pregnant parishioners. Babies in the womb make constant, 24/7 demands. That ranks as one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.

And "prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, widows, orphans, all get thrown under the bus for the unborn"--really? I've not seen this phenomenon. Whenever a woman gets pregnant all those groups are thrown under a bus? Wait . . . I thought this traditional pastor said the unborn "never make demands of you."

Sounds like this traditional pastor is demanding that his pregnant parishioners keep pouring money into his coffers for all those groups without detracting a bit for the expense of the babies in the womb who "never make demands of you."

An abortion costs about $400.

In the U.S., the average cost of a vaginal birth is $13,024, including standard predelivery and postdelivery expenses such as facility fees and doctor fees. A cesarean section (C-section) is much more expensive, costing an average of $22,646 Who do you think pays for this?

if they have no insurance


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015. 1 With an annual adjustment for inflation of 2.2% each year factored in, the lifetime cost of raising a child born in 2022 could be estimated at $272,049.


Hard to earn a living trying to raise a child you weren't expecting and your choices were removed by people claiming they care .. then claim we are a welfare state

i don’t value life with a financial
accounting.

anyone can go to a catholic hospital, give birth, and pay nothing if you can’t afford it.

lots of people make a good living while raising children. there’s also adoption.

again, all your side ever does, is focus on the mother. the baby is the other side.

can you discuss abortion from the baby’s perspective, for a sentence or two?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That ranks as one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard.
"

bingo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a friend posted this. interesting

"the unborn never make any demands of you".

Well, in that case, it's no burden asking pregnant mother to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption.

My god, man, where do you get this stuff. Do you subscribe to some low IQ lefty news service?

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.
The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights. It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.
Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.
All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.
Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.
Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As far as inconsequential goes the cost of a vaginal delivery in America as of 11/21 was $5-$11K. Who foots the bill for that, to say nothing of raising a child, when women are forced to give birth & the places most likely to force them to do so don’t fund medical & related services?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the federal government responsible for the cost of a vaginal delivery or have the power to determine who foots the bill for it?

Does vaginal delivery fall within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause or any other federal enumerated power in the Constitution?

In the US there have been 41 bombings of abortion clinics, and another 173 arsons.
11 total people have been murdered in 7 separate attacks on abortion clinics. There have also been 17 attempted murders.
To my knowledge, there are zero cases of pro-choice bombings or murders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The states have the legal power to penalize murder. All 50 states have laws against murder and attempted murder. Murders by pro-life advocates are not exempt from prosecution and punishment. What more do you want?

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

He doesn't get, that the right isn't afraid of this, the right wants this, the right knows full well that abortion isn't going to be outlawed everywhere, many states will continue to offer it. CT will probably attempt to turn it into a tourism industry here.

"Come for the abortions, stay for the insurance!"

The states have the legal power to penalize murder. All 50 states have laws against murder and attempted murder. Murders by pro-life advocates are not exempt from prosecution and punishment. What more do you want?

In the same time, 63,000,000 babies have been slaughtered. How come none of the pro abortion crowd, not here, not in DC, not on TV, not anywhere, can discuss that for ten seconds.

When you willfully ignore the impact to the babies, abortion doesn't seem so bad. Which is like saying if you ignore the iceberg, the maiden voyage of the Titanic doesn't seem so bad.

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.

This is opinion masquerading as fact.

The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights.

It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How so? The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to murder.

The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.

Contraception prevents their being a third party.

All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.

Alito's opinion maintains the constitutional separation of power between federal and local governments. It more consistently maintains the integrity of the Constitution. And it doesn't outlaw abortion, or sexual intimacy, or interracial marriage, or contraception.

All rights are in jeopardy when left to the whim of Progressive interpretation. You, or who you're parroting, sound like a Progressive and would tolerate any SCOTUS decision that allowed whatever you prefer. Those things you listed are less "in jeopardy" by Alito's constitutional opinion than by a Progressive basis for constitutional interpretation regarding any of them when under the scrutiny of Progressive jurors who see the constitution as an ever changing, living and breathing, legal prescription whose main purpose is to uphold the power of the central government's desire to improve the lives of the people depending on what the experts of the day decide is currently considered "good."

Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.

Progressives like to have it both ways. Precedent (that they approve of) is sacrosanct and must not be overturned (until they deem it as musty remnants of old dead white men). But, on the other hand, the Constitution must constantly change to somehow suit the time.

Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "history and tradition" of constitutional separation of powers that limits the central power and gives more power to the states has had a bad name in the view of Progressives ever since their beginning in this country.

yep that's about right

yep that's about right

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yep that's about right

Yup. Our government has been turning into a carnival of stealing. Stealing elections, the people's money and livellhoods, freedoms and rights--one big Progressive power grab filtering into the megaplex of power and control by the few who enrich themselves while distracting us with cartoonish entertainments to keep us reasonably happy as they pull the phony wool over our eyes.

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t talk to them. can’t.

Thanks TDF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

i said garland should have had a hearing. and then been rejected.

but, you know what the biden rule is. What McCinnell did, literally and exactly, was to enact the Biden Rule.

if it was swell for biden, please explain why it was bad for McConnell.

Spence here’s a very simple question. Do you think i oppose abortion because i want to enslave women, or because I’m a racist? or because i’d prefer babies be born, to their being slaughtered by the tens of millions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's right there next to "filibuster," after the section where it says the Supreme Court can only have nine Justices.

Before the section that limits the House to 435 members?
Or the section that prohibits DC statehood?
Or the one that says a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution?

It would also be hard to find abortion in the constitution because it doesn’t mention woman at all nor anyone who wasn’t a white male as having rights so not the best document to look at for words like that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander "

Please tell us, in a statewide election/referendum, what effect gerrymandering has?

Answer - none. It makes zero difference in a statewide contest, because every vote counts the same, regardless of which district it's in.

Where do you get the idea that democrats don't gerrymander? When CT lost a congressional seat a few years ago, they re-drew the one conservative district (rural) in the state, and re-defined it to include enough of Waterbury (urban) to make it reliably blue.

Gerrymandering helps you win statewide contests. Honest to god...

"McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President"

Did the democrats in the senate steal Bork's seat when they rejected him?

Why is it OK for senate democrats to block a republican nominee, but "stealing" when senate republicans block a democrat nominee?

The Biden Rule. If it was OK for Biden, it's OK for McConnell. What's good for the goose...

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you aware that this is hardly the first time the SCOTUS had overturned precedent?

Look up Plessy V Ferguson. There, the SCOTUS said segregation was legal. Then, 50 years later, SCOTUS reversed that in Brown V Board of Ed.

Decisions sometimes get reversed. It's not a crisis when a decision gets reversed.

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They will be after a National ban next "

My good god. The basis of the draft opinion, is that it's not a federal issue, but a state issue.

"Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors"

And if his constituents don't like that, they will vote him out.

"I guess..."

5 minutes ago, you guessed that gerrymandering can rig a statewide election, and you won't concede you were wrong. Maybe think a bit more, before you offer your guesses.

I'll ask you what I asked Spence, and of course he didn't answer...

do you think I'm prolife because I hate women, because I'm racist, or because I have empathy for the baby?

Your side spends 100% of its time talking about the impact to the mothers (and that's a valid point, but it's not the only point), and 0% of your time talking about the baby. Because every single one of you know, that any discussion of that side of this, makes your position look barbaric.

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, if you could translate that to human english, I'd appreciate it.

Trump got 74,000,000 votes in 2020, which is the second-most any candidate has ever gotten (not enough, obviously). None of those 74M were average Americans?

Maybe your view of what's average, is a tad askew.

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

so you wouldn't be upset, if they gave Garland a hearing and voted him down? That's a sincere question.

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?
Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?
Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

So you need clarification?

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

Various things that have seemed exceedingly clear to you, have not been so.

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Louisiana Republicans have voted to advance a bill out of committee making abortion from the moment of fertilization a crime, in which the mother can be charged with homicide.

That makes every miscarriage a criminal investigation and it makes terminating an ectopic pregnancy murder.

Republican U.S. Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer says the fetus is worth losing the mother's life, says there's no exceptions.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would you worry

Since Roe was handed down 49 years ago, "pro-lifers" in the US have committed:
-11 murders
-26 attempted murders
-4 kidnappings
-42 bombings
-667 bomb threats
-100 butyric acid attacks
-189 arsons
-663 Anthrax /bioterrorism threats
-25,000+ acts of phone harassment or hate mail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.
So you need clarification?

Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.


Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm claiming that I didn't use the word "person." I specifically said "human being" because words have connotations as well as denotations. Generally, we use "human being" or "person" to connote something different. A "human being" connotes the intrinsic quality of a living being--a human. A "person" connotes the developed societal quality of that being. Generally, a person has a name, a personal societal identity, personal qualities that are developed over time as a distinctly autonomous human being who functions through society in uniquely recognizable ways.

That is why we generally don't call fetus's "persons." Doesn't mean we can't. But your use of it, in a legal context (child support) gives the "fetus" a connotative status that it has not yet achieved or developed.

But, to answer your question, "at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?"--yes, it can.

From Parker Bryan Family law:
"in some cases, parents may have divorced before their child was born, or they may not have been married in the first place. Both scenarios leave parents facing situations where one of them (usually the mother) is shouldering the financial responsibilities during pregnancy. In such cases, should the mother be receiving child support during her pregnancy and before the child is born? In some states, the laws have provided for such scenarios, making it a requirement that both parents must support their unborn child."

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As fences go up around the Supreme Court, a reminder they overruled a law that created 35ft buffer zones for abortion clinics because it “infringed on free speech”

But when it’s their own building they dont seem too worried. Huh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America...6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal "

Overturning Roe, and ending abortion, are two VERY different things. Do you not get that?

Ending Roe doesn't ban abortion. It sends the issue to the states. If 59% of the voters in a state feel strongly that they want abortion, they'll elect legislators who will allow it.

Many people think Roe was decided poorly. One's feelings about abortion, have nothing to do with whether or not Roe was decided correctly.

"But but abortion we care so much until they are Born"

There's no evidence democrats care more about people after they're born.

"Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions."

I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?

"Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion"

To the mom, sure. To the baby, not so much.

If it gets overturned, it's going to be harder to get one for many women, no doubt. Hopefully that will incentivize people to make better choices.

But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th"

When did I say that? January 6th upsets me more. Maybe not for the same reasons it upsets you, but it upsets me more.

The judges had their home addresses published on the Internet. That doesn't concern you? Alito had to cancel public appearances. Can you comment on that?

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so. Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings, thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood. There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

they never, ever, ever talk about it from the baby’s perspective. They know that any discussion of that perspective, makes their position look monstrous. So they avoid it. And pretend that every single
abortion is a result of rape or imminent death to the mother.

I love your mom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Picture says it all.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from.

You have belittled the notion of intention as the weakest form of argument. Here you quote (without quotes or attribution) an article by Charles I Lugosi promoting intention as highly significant. There is no record I know of by those who crafted the Amendment that the intention was to protect people from harm from other people. I assume that laws to do that were already in place in every state and implicit in various parts of the Constitution.

As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings.

Again, there were and are various laws in every state to protect "born" human beings. Unborn humans are not so universally protected. Nor are they mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so.

The 14th Amendment protects those who are born in this country or are naturalized citizens and refers to these people as "persons." It does not include any other persons. It does not mention the unborn neither as persons nor citizens. There may be a well grounded reason the SCOTUS has chosen not to define the unborn as persons. In any case, the 14th Amendment does not do so, nor does it mention the unborn, not even as citizens.

Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings,

I have not heard of this establishment of personhood.
Human beings? Yes. Persons? Too many connotations and denotations, especially legal to establish that. The unborn are simply not capable of engaging in the activities, legal or otherwise, including the rewards and punishments for "legal person" type activities, to be established as a "person." In law, definitions have to be precise, not vague.

thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It may strongly support Mr. Lugosi's interpretation, but the 14th Amendment, PER ITS TEXT (I am a textualist first) does not support his interpretation. It specifically refers to "All persons born or naturalized"--it doesn't mention the unborn nor say that the unborn are persons. And it says that life is protected by due process of law. It doesn't prescribe a specific federal law, but leaves the law to be defined by the states and the "equal protection" is under the laws of the states.

The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood.

How can the unborn meet the standards that make corporations "persons"? The unborn cannot engage in the activities that make corporations "persons."

There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The 14th Amendment does not prescribe a law that pertains to the unborn. Therefor, it clearly leaves that prescription up to the states.

Picture says it all.

lemme ask you, if abortion is restricted, yes that will be hard on moms no question. and your side makes that clear.

is there anything else that happens, when abortion is not chosen? other than moms having to endure something admittedly difficult, is there anything GOOD that happens as a result of child birth? Can you think of anything positive? Anything? A baby being born means absolutely nothing to you? Not worth mentioning? Not a syllable? that’s very telling, about how slanted this issue is framed.

As always, your side will only talk about the impact to the mom. and that’s an important part of this, but it’s not all of it. the impact to the baby is also part of this, and your side hates admitting that or considering it for a second.

Why are so many people
moving to red states, do you think? NH, TN, NC, SC, TX, FL? If those states are run by people
who are so barbaric, why are people
moving there?

When you live in a place with low taxes that put hundreds of dollars in your pocket a
month ( or more) yiu don’t need, or want, the state to provide some of those things.

Pre exiting condition coverage is a terrific idea, sincerely. that was a real winner for them, and they deserve the reward.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, especially when you continue to claim people are flocking to these states due to politics. I'm back to my life, but happy to get a rise out of you, so you can carry on.

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i asked you why they’re flocking there, that’s all. if the people
running those states are so barbaric, can you tell
me why people are are moving there?

and like a good liberal coward, you completely dodged my question about whether or not it’s a good thing for babies to be born, at least from the baby’s respective?

bright or not, i can ask you questions that you can’t answer. why does that say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.

ok. so you can log on, talk about how abortion restrictions are tough on women, and when i say “how about the baby” and you lib an insult and scurry off.

you have no response, because there isn’t a response that doesn’t make you look like a Nazi.

so you talk about the woman ( who’s obviously part of this), then when the other side talks you put fingers in your ears and tell LA LA LA LA.

must be exhausting to feel like you have to constantly dodge any challenge to what you believe.

you're saying it's "idiotic" to feel that an analysis of abortion should consider both the cost to th emother and the benefit to the baby.

I bet Hitler used the same argument, "hey, it's good for us, and there's nothing else to consider, right?"

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

"But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th"

When did I say that? January 6th upsets me more. Maybe not for the same reasons it upsets you, but it upsets me more.

The judges had their home addresses published on the Internet. That doesn't concern you? Alito had to cancel public appearances. Can you comment on that?


Stop being a drama Queen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stop being a drama Queen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the guy who never stops posting about january 6z.

easier to lob insults then to explain why it’s always OK when your side goes berserk when they don’t get their way, and the one time in your lifetime when republicans do it. you can’t go. a day without discussing it, 16 months later.

you ever going to explain how gerrymandering helps one win a statewide race?

or can you tell us why Alito is wrong on the law in thinking Roe should be overturned?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion
This country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the guy who never stops posting about january 6z.

easier to lob insults then to explain why it’s always OK when your side goes berserk when they don’t get their way, and the one time in your lifetime when republicans do it. you can’t go. a day without discussing it, 16 months later.

you ever going to explain how gerrymandering helps one win a statewide race?

or can you tell us why Alito is wrong on the law in thinking Roe should be overturned?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If Alito is correct should men be charged with murder for masturbation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
There are some faiths that require killing women who blaspheme the faith or are sexually promiscuous. Imposing those beliefs on all Americans is unconstitutional.

If people, persons, human beings, want to live in this country, they should obey its laws.

If women controlled their own bodies, the vast majority of abortions would not be needed.

If our laws would stipulate that women, or men, or persons, or human beings, must totally control their own bodies, should they be punished when they don't control their own bodies? When not controlling their bodies leads to harming other bodies? Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society.

Nobody is trying to impose those rules on all Americans.
Nobody is saying anyone is required to get an abortion

is country has a constitution that separates church and state.
Our law’s constitutionally should not be representative of a religious belief.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not responding to what I said. I didn't say anybody was trying to "impose those rules on all Americans" or that "anyone is required to get an abortion." I facetiously contrasted what some faiths require to what you said some faiths require when you said "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases. Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional"-- and I said that it also was unconstitutional. That was a mistake on my part because it afforded you the opportunity to skip over the rest of what I said, which was not facetious, but the serious stuff to which you did not respond.

And that serious stuff was a response to your framing the right to abortion as the right of women to control their own bodies. I pointed out that if women actually controlled their bodies, there would be no need for the vast majority of abortions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant it is easy to control her own body so that she won't get pregnant. And, BTW, the fetus is not her own body.

And I pointed out that the notion of wanting to control your own body isn't merely about abortion, and asked if their were societal obligations that accompanied this controlling your own body--if the right to control your own body should require penalties when you didn't control or willfully controlled your body in such a way that it harmed others. Or does controlling your own body mean you can do whatever you wish, without interference by laws and government and society. There are, of course, implications in that question that there might be penalties for harming the unborn because of not living up to your obligation to control your own body. But that would be a question for the people of various states to decide.

You avoided responding to that and went off on what nobody was "trying" or "saying."

And your bit about "The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies" provokes the question of who exactly are those people? I don't know of such people, or as you might put it "nobody is trying to oppose womens' right to control their own bodies." That's just your tricky, propagandistic way of framing the issue to create some dictatorial, authoritarian, fascistic, etc. characterization of the attempt to reject the power of the federal government to impose Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states where it belongs.

And then, of course, you had to throw in the separation of church and state, as if anti-abortion is a church thing. For some it may be. But the constitutional argument against it is not about religion. It is about the overreach of the federal government. It is about the federal government usurping yet another power from local government. Yet another piece of power it accrues to itself as it grows out of control of the people and into an unconstitutional authoritarian state.

If Alito is correct should men be charged with murder for masturbation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Semen is not a human being.

Semen is not a human being.

Nor is a fetus
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Semen is not a human being.

just ignore him. it’s not worth engaging someone that deranged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Texas governor says the state may contest a Supreme Court ruling on migrant education

Seem Abbot and other conservatives have heard the new song coming from the Supreme Court

You've got a friend in me ! And are going to flood the courts with their wish lists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tennessee Gov. Lee Signs Law Restricting Abortion Pill Mail Delivery

Yet Tennessee does not require a license or permit to own or purchase a gun and does not require owners to register firearms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans put out a memo to their senators advising them on how to respond.

It says, in part, according to Axios, which obtained the memo:

"Expose the Democrats for the extreme views they hold. Joe Biden and the Democrats have extreme and radical views on abortion that are outside of the mainstream of most Americans."
I am guessing the radical view is allowing abortion at all.


Republicans hard at work lying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has always been striking that the states most committed to ending abortion tend to invest the least in caring for expectant mothers and children after they are born.
Because it’s about control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As usual if you look into anything supported by the Republican Party you find it’s related to money
The shortage in the “domestic supply of infants” that Alito referred to prevents further growth in the billion plus private adoption industry.
White babies sell for more, so let’s get those uterus’s working
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans put out a memo to their senators advising them on how to respond.

It says, in part, according to Axios, which obtained the memo:

"Expose the Democrats for the extreme views they hold. Joe Biden and the Democrats have extreme and radical views on abortion that are outside of the mainstream of most Americans."
I am guessing the radical view is allowing abortion at all.


Republicans hard at work lying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong.

the radical view, is abortion late in pregnancy. americans don’t like that.

you’re correct that there’s not a big appetite to ban abortion. But most americans want some restrictions. Not die hard liberals though.

those are facts. Americans don’t want abortion banned, but they don’t want it unlimited, either

You posted a photo showing countries that ban abortion ( which is never going to happen here, and you failed to mention that naturally).

Dan Crenshaw posted a graphic yesterday, i have no idea if it’s correct, but it was a list of countries that allow elective late term abortions.

US
China
North Korea.

Now, you LOVE finding examples of individual republicans behaving horribly, and claiming all republicans are responsible for their actions. You constantly do that.

Will you apply that logic here? If you judge republicans by the company they keep, will you judge democrats the same way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong.

the radical view, is abortion late in pregnancy. americans don’t like that.

you’re correct that there’s not a big appetite to ban abortion. But most americans want some restrictions. Not die hard liberals though.

those are facts. Americans don’t want abortion banned, but they don’t want it unlimited, either

You posted a photo showing countries that ban abortion ( which is never going to happen here, and you failed to mention that naturally).

Dan Crenshaw posted a graphic yesterday, i have no idea if it’s correct, but it was a list of countries that allow elective late term abortions.

US
China
North Korea.

Now, you LOVE finding examples of individual republicans behaving horribly, and claiming all republicans are responsible for their actions. You constantly do that.

Will you apply that logic here? If you judge republicans by the company they keep, will you judge democrats the same way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Keep making things up Jim it shows how committed you are to being a conservative

Late term for conservatives is 30 seconds after sex


Abortions late in pregnancy are rare but but conservatives what you to think otherwise.. shocking

Again facts aren’t your friend

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

But keep moving the goal posts

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep making things up Jim it shows how committed you are to being a conservative

Late term for conservatives is 30 seconds after sex


Abortions late in pregnancy are rare but but conservatives what you to think otherwise.. shocking

Again facts aren’t your friend

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

But keep moving the goal posts

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i make up?

i never said late term abortions were common. i said liberals want them, and most americans don’t. i’m correct.

abortions after rape are also rare, but the left never stops talking about that.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i make up?

i never said late term abortions were common. i said liberals want them, and most americans don’t. i’m correct.

abortions after rape are also rare, but the left never stops talking about that.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Most Americans are liberals Jim and not trying to control a person private life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most Americans are liberals Jim and not trying to control a person private life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

most people you know are liberals. most americans are in the center. and most americans don’t like
late term abortions

liberals want to control people
as much as conservatives, that’s what you’re saying?

high taxes, more laws, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, take more of my money, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

most people you know are liberals. most americans are in the center. and most americans don’t like
late term abortions

liberals want to control people
as much as conservatives, that’s what you’re saying?

high taxes, more laws, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, take more of my money, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Spoke like a true believer


The center is liberal in your mind and the minds of the the current GOP and the uninformed MAGA universe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spoke like a true believer


The center is liberal in your mind and the minds of the the current GOP and the uninformed MAGA universe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i said most americans are in the center, then you say i think the center is liberal. so you’re saying i think most americans are liberal.

and that’s kooky gibberish. you’re desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When a Supreme Court Justice writes that abortion should be outlawed for the purpose of generating an increased “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking infants to adopt, we aren’t exaggerating by stating that they want you to be brood mares for the state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When a Supreme Court Justice writes that abortion should be outlawed for the purpose of generating an increased “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking infants to adopt, we aren’t exaggerating by stating that they want you to be brood mares for the state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Americans travel to China and Russia to adopt kids and have been for decades

People don’t want addicted babies when abortion was legal ! you think parents are going to want them now from women were forced to carry the baby to term . Will little to no Prenatal Care…

Oh I forgot since Amy adopted everyone should adopt , and l seriously doubt Abortion is the reason it’s hard to adopt children in the US . Or there are no children see below


While technically no longer referred to as orphans, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption pegs the number of children in U.S. foster care at a staggering 443,000, more than 123,000 of whom are considered to be waiting children available for adoption.


According to a report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Children adopted privately from the U.S. are most likely to be white (50 percent); those adopted internationally are least likely to be white (19 percent). The majority of children adopted internationally are Asian (59 percent).”

I’ve said it before this is religious ruling not based on sound legal reasoning it’s just written to sound like one .. now the right loves activist judges :kewl:

Americans travel to China and Russia to adopt kids and have been for decades

People don’t want addicted babies when abortion was legal ! you think parents are going to want them now from women were forced to carry the baby to term . Will little to no Prenatal Care…

Oh I forgot since Amy adopted everyone should adopt , and l seriously doubt Abortion is the reason it’s hard to adopt children in the US . Or there are no children see below


While technically no longer referred to as orphans, The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption pegs the number of children in U.S. foster care at a staggering 443,000, more than 123,000 of whom are considered to be waiting children available for adoption.


According to a report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Children adopted privately from the U.S. are most likely to be white (50 percent); those adopted internationally are least likely to be white (19 percent). The majority of children adopted internationally are Asian (59 percent).”

I’ve said it before this is religious ruling not based on sound legal reasoning it’s just written to sound like one .. now the right loves activist judges :kewl:



you’re saying that the reason americans go overseas to adopt, ISN’T because there aren’t enough babies here. It’s because the babies here, are “addicted” and are therefore of lower quality than babies that can be gotten elsewhere?

You will say anything?regardless of how made up it is, to advocate for liberalism.

There’s a years-long waiting list to adopt babies here. And there no large number of babies that go into orphanages or foster.

babies get adopted.

You don’t know anyone who has tried to adopt a baby, who you can ask, who can tell you how wrong you are?

You’re also obviously saying that women who have abortions are all irresponsible drug addicts who are such deadbeats that they can’t prevent their babies from being born addicted. You’re casting people
who get abortion, in a very very negative light. Your pals in the left wouldn’t care for that characterization.

“Americans only go overseas to adopt, because the quality of babies is superior to what’s available here.”

Congratulations, that’s really brilliant.

And if more babies are born here that need some help, i’ll gladly pay higher taxes to give them what they need.

dave thomas data is probably correct, there are a huge number of KIDS in foster care desperate to be adopted. But they aren’t babies. They are older children.

Older children, sadly, have a hard time getting adopted. Babies do not. those kids in foster care didn’t enter foster care as babies and stay there for years if they were available for adoption.

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it. I’ve asked you 5 times to tell us where in the draft opinion, Alito was wrong on the law?

Just because you don’t like the decision, doesn’t mean it was incorrectly decided based in the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim all but one of the 4 people I know who adopted babies went to China or Russia and all are white working class .. I also know one who’s a nurse and adopts Aka crack babies she has foster cared for

And they couldn’t afford a baby period . In the USA

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it

So now Jim you are a believer in evidence ? It’s odd you supported the questioning and the election laws being changed .. said it was a good thing

Based solely on Trumps lies and peoples lack of Trust in Voting Aka manufactured by the GOP and promoted via the minority .

So now people question the rational of the overturning of Roe . And how religious feelings seem to supersede 50 years of it being law , only since the newest 3 justices got on stage ,while the Majority of Americans feel the right to an abortion should remain ..

Your response is prove it because you agree with the ruling, is the same reason you supported the voter law changes! because you agreed with the rational not the evidence ..

The tyranny of the minority y

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim all but one of the 4 people I know who adopted babies went to China or Russia and all are white working class .. I also know one who’s a nurse and adopts Aka crack babies she has foster cared for

And they couldn’t afford a baby period . In the USA

you say this was a religious decision. Prove it

So now Jim you are a believer in evidence ? It’s odd you supported the questioning and the election laws being changed .. said it was a good thing

Based solely on Trumps lies and peoples lack of Trust in Voting Aka manufactured by the GOP and promoted via the minority .

So now people question the rational of the overturning of Roe . And how religious feelings seem to supersede 50 years of it being law , only since the newest 3 justices got on stage ,while the Majority of Americans feel the right to an abortion should remain ..

Your response is prove it because you agree with the ruling, is the same reason you supported the voter law changes! because you agreed with the rational not the evidence ..

The tyranny of the minority y

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok first you said babies in the usa didn’t get adopted because they were defective. Now you’re saying babes don’t get adopted in the usa because they’re too expensive.

which is it?

it’s very difficult to get a baby here. There are t enough of them. Maybe less abortions helps with that.

you’re correct they’re expensive. But there’s still a long waiting list for babies.

the demand for babies far outweighs the supply. that’s why people go offshore, which is also stupidly expensive.

you keep
saying the decision to reverse is wrong, or based on religion instead of the law. but you ofer zilch for support.

i’ve asked at least 5 times for you to back up your accusations. you got nothing.

Ruth bader ginsburg has said the scotus handles Roe incorrectly, that they went too far.

We get you don’t like it. But unfortunately for you, your wishes aren’t a basis for SCOTUS to make rulings, only the constitution.

what’s the minority doing? it’s going to the states, where we all get to decide. that’s the definition of a democratic republic.

9 unelected lawyers making huge decisions, that’s the tyranny of the minority.




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MSNBC host argues for
abortion, because adoption “not always a safe route for black and brown babies.”

that’s what she said. is abortion a safer route for them?

Brilliant.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-tiffany-cross-warns-adoption-not-always-safe-option-black-babies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most Americans are liberals Jim and not trying to control a person private life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ARE YOU #^&#^&#^&#^&ING SERIOUS,
“LIBERALS ARE NOT TRYING TO CONTROL A PERSONS LIFE”. ??????

THOSE COCKSUCKERS LOCKED DOWN THE COUNTRY THE LAST 2 YEARS WITH A BULL#^&#^&#^&#^& VIRUS, PUT THOUSANDS OF RESTAURANTS & OTHER BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS IN THE PROCESS, MANDATED USELESS #^&#^&#^&#^&ING MASKS, MANDATING USELESS VACCINES & BOOSTER SHOTS & FIRED THOUSANDS OF NURSES, POLICE & FIREMEN IF THE DIDNT GET THE SHOT
YA…. LIBERALS ARE NOT TRYING TO CONTROL A PERSONS LIFE
ITS A #^&#^&#^&#^&ING SHAME YOUR MOTHER WASNT AS BIG A SUPPORTER OF ABORTIONS AS YOU APPEAR TO BE.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/dxm777kfn45tnR4zYQ/200.gif
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A million Americans died from what you call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&
That’s one out of every 330
The biggest killer of cops and firemen in history is Covid
In South Florida in particular, 33 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty during the past 2 years. Three were killed by gunfire, one died in a car crash, one died due to an injury, and 28 died from COVID-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A million Americans died from what you call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&
That’s one out of every 330
The biggest killer of cops and firemen in history is Covid
In South Florida in particular, 33 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty during the past 2 years. Three were killed by gunfire, one died in a car crash, one died due to an injury, and 28 died from COVID-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



You go on & keep believing all that.
Millions as you say died from Covid.
Year in year out….. how many die from the flu ???
All of a sudden everyone dies of Covid but none of the flu ?

I’ll bet you get a hard on every time you pull into a gas station & pay $4-$5 for a gallon of gas or $6+ for diesel

Nor is a fetus
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the past two years, we have been told that we must follow the science. Much of the discussion about whether a fetus is a human being is not purely scientific. The following is a brief "biological" synopsis of when a human being starts becoming a human being.

A fetus does not all of a sudden become a human being only after it leaves its mother's body. A human being does not start becoming human or a "being" only after it is pulled from the mother's body. A human being doesn't switch from being non-human to being human only after it is no longer in the womb.

A human being starts becoming human at fertilization in a woman's fallopian tube creating a zygote.

The zygote is a biological "being." It is human by virtue of its human DNA--the same DNA that the "born" baby and developing adult that derives from a zygote will have for its entire life. (Not the same genetic code as the mother, but a unique DNA).

The zygote is an organism of the human species (Homo Sapiens). It is a human organism. It is alive--a living human organism. An organism is a "being." The zygote is therefor a living human being. It is the same organism as the grown adult, but at an earlier stage of life.

The next step in the stages of human life is the zygote developing into an embryo. The next is the embryo becoming a fetus. The next stage, as we all know, is being "born"--detached from the mother's body--a baby with the same distinct DNA as the zygote which was the first stage of its existence as a human being. A baby that is nearly exactly the same human organism that was in its mother's body before it was removed and "born."

From the "baby" stage, the human being keeps developing into childhood, adolescence, stages of adulthood until the mid twenties when the human body stops developing and begins a long path into senescence.

At no stage, other than DNA, does the human body remain exactly the same. It constantly changes from beginning to end. To claim that some midpoint time in a life is the point at which that life becomes human is not biologically scientific. It begins as a living human from conception (fertilization) and stays so until death.

Some biological (rather than philosophical, religious, ethicl, political) perspective articles:

https://secularprolife.org/2017/08/a-zygote-is-human-being/?msclkid=273a5eb9cf3311ec9112fe0fdf4d5e51

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html?msclkid=eeaa3831ce7b11eca77b2deb2f31c89 9

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

To be clear, I am not taking an absolute political, legal, or religious stand on abortion. But whatever arguments are made pro or con should at least consider whether a fetus is a human being, or not. A scientifically neutral definition can ground a basis for which legalities, moralities, values, ethics, philosophies can have at it.

Other than the religious, the other question is "when is it ok to impose involuntary servitude and dispense with any claim to bodily autonomy?"

The answer to that is essentially never. If the state can discard an individual's bodily autonomy, no other rights will survive.
No person though is entitled to another person's organs without their consent. Most parents give their lives to save their child. The government can't mandate you do so though. I'm not entitled to my genetic match's kidney even though I'll die without it.
A fetus, even if it was a human life, has no inherent right to live off the flesh of its parent. A parent may allow a fetus to live off its flesh, but the fetus doesn't have an inherent right to do so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ARE YOU #^&#^&#^&#^&ING SERIOUS,
“LIBERALS ARE NOT TRYING TO CONTROL A PERSONS LIFE”. ??????

THOSE COCKSUCKERS LOCKED DOWN THE COUNTRY THE LAST 2 YEARS WITH A BULL#^&#^&#^&#^& VIRUS, PUT THOUSANDS OF RESTAURANTS & OTHER BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS IN THE PROCESS, MANDATED USELESS #^&#^&#^&#^&ING MASKS, MANDATING USELESS VACCINES & BOOSTER SHOTS & FIRED THOUSANDS OF NURSES, POLICE & FIREMEN IF THE DIDNT GET THE SHOT
YA…. LIBERALS ARE NOT TRYING TO CONTROL A PERSONS LIFE
ITS A #^&#^&#^&#^&ING SHAME YOUR MOTHER WASNT AS BIG A SUPPORTER OF ABORTIONS AS YOU APPEAR TO BE.


Need a tissue ? You sound like a Snowflake .. and of course other things ….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Need a tissue ? You sound like a Snowflake .. and of course other things ….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s laughable to say that conservatives are the ones that want more government control. on some specific issues, yes. in general, obviously not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You go on & keep believing all that.
Millions as you say died from Covid.
Year in year out….. how many die from the flu ???
All of a sudden everyone dies of Covid but none of the flu ?

I’ll bet you get a hard on every time you pull into a gas station & pay $4-$5 for a gallon of gas or $6+ for diesel

53 thousand die from the flu years on avg in the US

And the global market sets oil and gas prices !

Wow you’re wicked smart and so well informed….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s laughable to say that conservatives are the ones that want more government control. on some specific issues, yes. in general, obviously not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Yes Jim seems the things they want to control tend to involve individual freedoms and not to expand them but to limit them .. unless it’s a gun


And all those nurse firemen and police who didn’t get the shot . And I know a few they had a choice the same choice you find acceptable with women who want an abortion

MOVE to a state that allows it ..


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Jim seems the things they want to control tend to involve individual freedoms and not to expand them but to limit them .. unless it’s a gun


And all those nurse firemen and police who didn’t get the shot . And I know a few they had a choice the same choice you find acceptable with women who want an abortion

MOVE to a state that allows it ..


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the things they want to control tend to involve individual freedoms and not to expand them but to limit them"

Usually to prevent innocent people from being hurt. And if Roe gets overturned, abortion only gets banned if people in a state want it that way. Again, that's democracy.


"unless it’s a gun"

I'm not anyone's idea of a gun guy. But unlike abortion, it's explicitly in the constitution.

"MOVE to a state that allows it .."

Why would one have to move to a pro-choice state, to get an abortion?

When I complain about the cost of living in CT, at some point every single liberal suggests I move to a state I like better. Again, I'm just using your logic.

You're not holding any cards here. None.

The left needs to come up with something besides fear-mongering, before the midterms.

How's the stock market doing?

Other than the religious, the other question is "when is it ok to impose involuntary servitude and dispense with any claim to bodily autonomy?"

The answer to that is essentially never. If the state can discard an individual's bodily autonomy, no other rights will survive.
No person though is entitled to another person's organs without their consent. Most parents give their lives to save their child. The government can't mandate you do so though. I'm not entitled to my genetic match's kidney even though I'll die without it.
A fetus, even if it was a human life, has no inherent right to live off the flesh of its parent. A parent may allow a fetus to live off its flesh, but the fetus doesn't have an inherent right to do so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to Blacks' Law Dictionary an inherent right is "An obvious guaranteed right just by the fact that one is a human being and not a right granted pursuant to another outside means or source."

So then, how do we apply a notion of autonomy to the human body? A human being inherently perpetuates its species by the union of male and female chromosomes through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This is an inherent "right" dictated, in the least, by the ingrained, biologically inherent capability to do so. Some will go beyond the mere biology and say that this is the inherent right and duty of human beings as created by a creator of life.

Without an expression of this inherent right, human beings would not continue to exist.

human bodily autonomy is only meaningful as such when it expresses itself as dictated by the potential of what a human body is not only capable of doing, but by the inherent bodily functions that drives its existence. Bodily autonomy is not merely a tabula rasa of infinite "rights," but an inherent "blueprint" of how a human body must function in order to exist and survive. There is no complete "autonomy" to do what a human being may desire. Human bodies are "trapped" by an internal biological design, a human engine that requires the body to develop through stages of existence in unelectable prescribed ways in which the body has no recourse to resist--if it wishes to continue to exist.

Strictly biological, scientific, human "bodily" autonomy is circumscribed by how the human body must function in order to exist--at least to exist as what we know is human. A pregnant woman's body functions inherently in basic ways that she does not have an ability to control. She has no "inherent right" of bodily autonomy" over what her biological blueprint dictates.

The "inherent right" to "bodily autonomy" that you speak of is not actually inherent. It is a constructed right. It is, as Black's Law Dictionary says, "a right granted pursuant to another outside means or source."

So the discussion, re abortion, is not really about an "inherent" right, but what right(s) a society wishes to create.

According to Blacks' Law Dictionary an inherent right is "An obvious guaranteed right just by the fact that one is a human being and not a right granted pursuant to another outside means or source."

So then, how do we apply a notion of autonomy to the human body? A human being inherently perpetuates its species by the union of male and female chromosomes through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This is an inherent "right" dictated, in the least, by the ingrained, biologically inherent capability to do so. Some will go beyond the mere biology and say that this is the inherent right and duty of human beings as created by a creator of life.

Without an expression of this inherent right, human beings would not continue to exist.

human bodily autonomy is only meaningful as such when it expresses itself as dictated by the potential of what a human body is not only capable of doing, but by the inherent bodily functions that drives its existence. Bodily autonomy is not merely a tabula rasa of infinite "rights," but an inherent "blueprint" of how a human body must function in order to exist and survive. There is no complete "autonomy" to do what a human being may desire. Human bodies are "trapped" by an internal biological design, a human engine that requires the body to develop through stages of existence in unelectable prescribed ways in which the body has no recourse to resist--if it wishes to continue to exist.

Strictly biological, scientific, human "bodily" autonomy is circumscribed by how the human body must function in order to exist--at least to exist as what we know is human. A pregnant woman's body functions inherently in basic ways that she does not have an ability to control. She has no "inherent right" of bodily autonomy" over what her biological blueprint dictates.

The "inherent right" to "bodily autonomy" that you speak of is not actually inherent. It is a constructed right. It is, as Black's Law Dictionary says, "a right granted pursuant to another outside means or source."

So the discussion, re abortion, is not really about an "inherent" right, but what right(s) a society wishes to create.

Now I see where the evangelicals are getting it from.
They’re not even pretending that rape is wrong any more. Outlawing abortion in all cases. Giving rapists custody rights. This is white and male supremacy being mainstreamed by the extremist Republican Party. Women are viewed as property. Plain and simple. They have no inherent rights but exist for the continued survival of the species and to maintain the domestic infant supply
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I see where the evangelicals are getting it from.

Are you saying the Evangelicals are getting it from Biology? From science? They say they're getting it from God? Are you saying God and science are the same thing?

They’re not even pretending that rape is wrong any more.

As far as I know, they never "pretended" that rape is wrong. Their biblical view has always viewed rape as a sin. Some Evangelicals have become more "liberal" about sex outside of marriage. But i don't know that any think that rape is not wrong.

Outlawing abortion in all cases. Giving rapists custody rights. This is white and male supremacy being mainstreamed by the extremist Republican Party.

These are not "inherent rights." They are constructed rights regardless of who or which party or philosophy, or religion, or board of ethics creates them. As are rights to control your body outside of its bodily biological functions. Transgender rights promoted by Progressives are constructed rights. Right to abortion is a constructed right. Constructed rights can be tailored so that human beings can have the right to do anything they wish, including murder. Or they can be tailored to prevent the destruction of human beings.

Women are viewed as property. Plain and simple. They have no inherent rights but exist for the continued survival of the species and to maintain the domestic infant supply
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "continued survival of the species" IS an inherent right.

Viewing a human being as the property of another human being is a constructed, not an inherent right. It's a form of slavery. Slavery has been a constructed right of most religions at some time in their history. And the constructed right of most forms of government as outright at some time of their history, or as implied as in being slaves to a job, or to lawful restrictions, or to societal mores, or to unwanted relationships.

Unfortunately, we have not advanced as a species to be able to adapt to self governing anarchy and still allow for "inherited rights" to flourish without being trampled on by human passions that emanate from the developing human "mind" to conjure up artful constructions and desires that go beyond being merely human bodies.

And many of those constructions strike us as beautiful or desirable or even necessary to combat or contain those destructive human penchants that evolve with our intellectual ability to manipulate our human essence and engineer nature itself. And so we create rights beyond inherited biological rights. We conceive so-called unalienable rights that we describe as lawfully sacrosanct and rise above the mere inherent biological rights of human beings.

Concerning abortion, which is a constructed right, how does the fact that a fetus is a human being affect you're view of abortion? What positive and negative consequences do you see as results of aborting human beings--the ramifications of selectively destroying the inherent rights of human bodies to generate more humans?

The Constitution doesn’t say that, it does say

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Constitution doesn’t say that, it does say

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a response to my post? What did I say that opposes the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution?

Is this a response to my post? What did I say that opposes the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution?

For Jews who can become pregnant, access to abortion services is a religious *requirement*, and has been for thousands of years. Surprised? Let's dig into some of the texts
Let's start with the Torah. In Exodus 21:22 we get a clear statement that a fetus is *not* a person: "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant person and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined..."
This stands in sharp contrast with the next verse, which states that "a life for a life, an eye for an eye..."

The Torah literally couldn't be more explicit: a fetus is not a human life.

In fact, in the Talmud (circa 600ce), we are told clearly that a fetus is not an independent life by none other than that the great Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who said that "a fetus is considered a part of the pregnant person's body, equivalent to their thigh."

The Mishnah (200ce)--in a section dealing with the death penalty--even says that if a pregnant person is set to be executed, you don't delay the execution unless they are literally in labor. Otherwise? The fetus is considered just another part of their body. (Arikhin 1:4)

Mishnah Oholot 7:6- "A person who is having trouble giving birth, they abort the fetus and take it out limb by limb, because existing life comes before potential life. If most of the child has come out already they do not touch it, for we do not push off one life for another"

Perhaps no idea is more central in classical Jewish legal texts thinking about abortion than that of the "rodef" / "the persuer", which Rambam--living a millennia ago--codified into law. (M.T. Shmirat Nefesh 1:9)

'Rodef' is a legal category in Judaism for someone/something on the way to kill a human being. Jewish law obligates us to stop a Rodef at any cost--up to and including taking their life. Thus, a pregnancy that endangers life is considered a Rodef and *must* be terminated.

This is what rabbis mean when we say that "access to abortion is a religious requirement for Jews." Because there are situations where Judaism doesn't just allow abortion, but in fact traditionally *requires* abortion (when the life of the pregnant person is threatened)

"But only when the pregnant person's life is in physical danger??!?" Nope! Not just literally their life, but also their well-being, their mental health, and all sorts of other explanations that encompass the vast majority of the reasons that folks pursue abortions.

All of which is to say: laws that limit or criminalize abortion aren't just violations of the human rights of every person who can become pregnant, but are also infringements on the religious liberty of every American Jew, and an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all.

Rabbi Daniel Bogard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Jews who can become pregnant, access to abortion services is a religious *requirement*, and has been for thousands of years. Surprised? Let's dig into some of the texts
Let's start with the Torah. In Exodus 21:22 we get a clear statement that a fetus is *not* a person: "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant person and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined..."
This stands in sharp contrast with the next verse, which states that "a life for a life, an eye for an eye..."

The Torah literally couldn't be more explicit: a fetus is not a human life.

The Torah is not a scientific, biological, treatise. The science of biology disagrees with it.

In fact, in the Talmud (circa 600ce), we are told clearly that a fetus is not an independent life by none other than that the great Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who said that "a fetus is considered a part of the pregnant person's body, equivalent to their thigh."

The Mishnah (200ce)--in a section dealing with the death penalty--even says that if a pregnant person is set to be executed, you don't delay the execution unless they are literally in labor. Otherwise? The fetus is considered just another part of their body. (Arikhin 1:4)

Mishnah Oholot 7:6- "A person who is having trouble giving birth, they abort the fetus and take it out limb by limb, because existing life comes before potential life. If most of the child has come out already they do not touch it, for we do not push off one life for another"

Perhaps no idea is more central in classical Jewish legal texts thinking about abortion than that of the "rodef" / "the persuer", which Rambam--living a millennia ago--codified into law. (M.T. Shmirat Nefesh 1:9)

'Rodef' is a legal category in Judaism for someone/something on the way to kill a human being. Jewish law obligates us to stop a Rodef at any cost--up to and including taking their life. Thus, a pregnancy that endangers life is considered a Rodef and *must* be terminated.

This is what rabbis mean when we say that "access to abortion is a religious requirement for Jews." Because there are situations where Judaism doesn't just allow abortion, but in fact traditionally *requires* abortion (when the life of the pregnant person is threatened)

"But only when the pregnant person's life is in physical danger??!?" Nope! Not just literally their life, but also their well-being, their mental health, and all sorts of other explanations that encompass the vast majority of the reasons that folks pursue abortions.

All of which is to say: laws that limit or criminalize abortion aren't just violations of the human rights of every person who can become pregnant, but are also infringements on the religious liberty of every American Jew, and an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all.

Rabbi Daniel Bogard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rabbi Daniel Bogard's religious opinion on abortion is interesting, but I don't see how it shows how my post was in opposition to the Constitutional Establishment of Religion clause. Nor is Bogard's opinion a scientific biological comment on "inherent rights" of human beings. It seems more, to me, an imposition of his constructed Jewish theology on those "inherent rights" of human beings. If you want to believe Jewish theology, you have the Declaration's non-scientific unalienable right to do so. But to impose it on the rest of us would be an imposition of governmental Judaism on the rest of us.

Rabbi Daniel Bogard's religious opinion on abortion is interesting, but I don't see how it shows how my post was in opposition to the Constitutional Establishment of Religion clause. Nor is Bogard's opinion a scientific biological comment on "inherent rights" of human beings. It seems more, to me, an imposition of his constructed Jewish theology on those "inherent rights" of human beings. If you want to believe Jewish theology, you have the Declaration's non-scientific unalienable right to do so. But to impose it on the rest of us would be an imposition of governmental Judaism on the rest of us.

It’s actually not just his.

Nobody is imposing abortion on anyone.
There’s no science in the Constitution, there’s a separation between church and state.

Once again the originalist twists the meaning to fit his beliefs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, you might be right, it might have been a conservative who leaked the draft. a brilliant conservative who foresaw that the draft would trigger the woke mob into showing their true colors, their disdain for democracy, their seething hatred for christianity, their willingness to incite and then overlook political violence every single
time it advances their cause.

i didn’t think more could happen that would make democrats look vile and incompetent before the midterms, but they pulled it off.

that plus the stock market.

if you’re going to convince judges, you don’t tell them why you like abortion. They don’t care about that. Tell them why the constitution says that the feds have the jurisdiction to prohibit state restrictions. That’s literally all that matters, and the left never discussed it.

if it gets overturned, you then have the opportunity to convince state legislators why abortion is vital. THEY care about public opinion. Not judges.

Take a middle school
civics class

And of course Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.

Anger is righteous only when it comes from the left.

Parents who speak up at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. Folks who go berserk at the home of judges where their children live, are righteous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s actually not just his.

Nobody is imposing abortion on anyone.
There’s no science in the Constitution, there’s a separation between church and state.

Once again the originalist twists the meaning to fit his beliefs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My posts that you initially responded to with "The Constitution doesn’t say that, it does say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" were not about the Constitution. You, in no way, responded to my posts with that irrelevant reply. You've gone off on a tangent of your own with this.

I was speaking about the biological scientific view of when human beings begin, and that a fetus is a human being, and also about the legal definition of an "inherent right" and ultimately what your thoughts, negative or positive, are on aborting a human being and what the ramifications of that are, societal or otherwise.

Quite simply the right of privacy is the basis of all rights
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite simply the right of privacy is the basis of all rights
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pure smokescreen.

No one has the right to hurt someone else, even in private.

ALL that matters, literally all that matters, is the status of the baby. Everyone agrees women can do what they want with their bodies, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else

It’s not about women’s rights, or healthcare, or any other dishonest nonsense. It’s about whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”

If you think the baby is a person, then you necessarily think abortion is infanticide. If you think the baby is no more of a person than a mole
or a wart, then you’d have no issue with abortion.

There’s a reason why liberals almost never bring up the only thing that actually matters. Liberals will
do anything to avoid discussing the only part of the debate that actually divides us.

I’ve seen ultrasounds of babies in the womb, and i know exactly what it is that i’m looking at.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, you might be right, it might have been a conservative who leaked the draft. a brilliant conservative who foresaw that the draft would trigger the woke mob into showing their true colors, their disdain for democracy, their seething hatred for christianity, their willingness to incite and then overlook political violence every single
time it advances their cause.

i didn’t think more could happen that would make democrats look vile and incompetent before the midterms, but they pulled it off.

that plus the stock market.

if you’re going to convince judges, you don’t tell them why you like abortion. They don’t care about that. Tell them why the constitution says that the feds have the jurisdiction to prohibit state restrictions. That’s literally all that matters, and the left never discussed it.

if it gets overturned, you then have the opportunity to convince state legislators why abortion is vital. THEY care about public opinion. Not judges.

Take a middle school
civics class

And of course Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.

Anger is righteous only when it comes from the left.

Folks who go berserk at the home of judges where their children live, are righteous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



No Jim the goal was a simple one to intimidate the justices from changing their position and not completely dismantle Roe.

disdain for democracy, seems you still agree with Jan 6th but suggest other wise

their seething hatred for christianity,
Here we go with the victim card and the bogus attacks on Christians
There’s more hate against Catholics from the Christian Right . Then anyone

their willingness to incite. Again spoken like a true cult members

Parents who speak up at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. More lies from your radicalized party


Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.
More faux outrage shocking the draft was leaked their decision made 99.9 % there’s nothing left to influence.. you are just a right wing parrot speaking nonsense

Of course the rights more upset over protester in front of a judges house then . Those in the capital trying to overturn an election or the text message that show how far your fan boy’s administration was committed to doing it. That’s what cults do

Did you know Alito quoted a medieval times
1250s judge Henry de Bracton ?

Is he mentioned in our constitution?





Alito’s opinion, after mocking the Roe decision for its “discussion of abortion in antiquity,” then provides a discussion of abortion in medieval times: “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has ‘struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated … he commits homicide.’ ”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pure smokescreen.

No one has the right to hurt someone else, even in private.

ALL that matters, literally all that matters, is the status of the baby. Everyone agrees women can do what they want with their bodies, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else

It’s not about women’s rights, or healthcare, or any other dishonest nonsense. It’s about whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”

If you think the baby is a person, then you necessarily think abortion is infanticide. If you think the baby is no more of a person than a mole
or a wart, then you’d have no issue with abortion.

There’s a reason why liberals almost never bring up the only thing that actually matters. Liberals will
do anything to avoid discussing the only part of the debate that actually divides us.

I’ve seen ultrasounds of babies in the womb, and i know exactly what it is that i’m looking at.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and the anti abortion need to learn what viability means rather then making up their own science

Let me help

The ability to survive or live successfully.

so at what point in a pregnancy Jim can a baby be removed from the womb and survive on its own. That’s viability

And a sonogram picture isn’t viability
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scotland urged to make at-home abortions permanent

As red states are peddling backwards

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-61392918
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and the anti abortion need to learn what viability means rather then making up their own science

Let me help

The ability to survive or live successfully.

so at what point in a pregnancy Jim can a baby be removed from the womb and survive on its own. That’s viability

And a sonogram picture isn’t viability
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) I know exactly what viability means. I just don't know why that's the barometer for who is a human being, and who isn't. If viability is the test for what's a human being, does that mean you don't think people who are in a coma are human beings? Or people on ventilators who are being tube fed? Using your logic, then they aren't human. Right? They can't be. See? You're not holding ANY cards. None.

(2) how do you define viability in a baby? You're going to say that after, for example, 5 months it's a human being? So please tell me, what happens at the stroke of midnight, on the last day before viability? You think one second it's not human, and then in the next second - POOF - the heart starts beating and the arms and legs pop out? The baby is never any different at any moment, than it was one minute before that.

There are only 2 significant moments where something changes instantly, conception and birth. So any ban in between those points is stupid, arbitrary, completely meaningless, devoid of any logic. And allowing abortion up until birth is so barbaric that most Americans oppose it. So we're left with conception.

A bill to grant security for the families of U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously passed the Senate Monday.

The Supreme Court Police Parity Act would provide police protection to the immediate families of the nine justices and other officers of the court, if the "Marshal determines such protection is necessary," the legislation says.


What happened to Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.

Guess that didn’t apply to SJC judges. Or Jenny Thomas would have been in violation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim the goal was a simple one to intimidate the justices from changing their position and not completely dismantle Roe.

disdain for democracy, seems you still agree with Jan 6th but suggest other wise

their seething hatred for christianity,
Here we go with the victim card and the bogus attacks on Christians
There’s more hate against Catholics from the Christian Right . Then anyone

their willingness to incite. Again spoken like a true cult members

Parents who speak up at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. More lies from your radicalized party


Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.
More faux outrage shocking the draft was leaked their decision made 99.9 % there’s nothing left to influence.. you are just a right wing parrot speaking nonsense

Of course the rights more upset over protester in front of a judges house then . Those in the capital trying to overturn an election or the text message that show how far your fan boy’s administration was committed to doing it. That’s what cults do

Did you know Alito quoted a medieval times
1250s judge Henry de Bracton ?

Is he mentioned in our constitution?





Alito’s opinion, after mocking the Roe decision for its “discussion of abortion in antiquity,” then provides a discussion of abortion in medieval times: “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has ‘struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated … he commits homicide.’ ”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"No Jim the goal was a simple one to intimidate the justices from changing their position and not completely dismantle Roe."

Which is a federal offense. But they won't be charged, because it's OK when liberals commit federal crimes in the name of liberalism.

"disdain for democracy, seems you still agree with Jan 6th but suggest other wise "

I guess you actually have brain damage, because I've said Jan 6 was stupid and they should be prosecuted for crimes they actually committed. Not made-up crimes.

It's you who have no principles, because you're opposed to a protest at a public place (capital) but you're Ok with protests at people's homes.

Fortunately for me, your side is showing it's true colors, and people will remember at midterms.

so at what point in a pregnancy Jim can a baby be removed from the womb and survive on its own. That’s viability


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please tell us how a newborn baby survives on its own? It can feed itself, keep itself warm?

A newborn needs someone else to do almost everything for him, to keep him alive. It's not remotely able to survive "on its own". So why is a newborn, then, a human being?

It's pathetically easy top destroy every argument you can make. You're just not holding ANY cards. None. I cannot lose this argument, not from a rational, logical perspective.

Please tell us how a newborn baby survives on its own? It can feed itself, keep itself warm?

A newborn needs someone else to do almost everything for him, to keep him alive. It's not remotely able to survive "on its own". So why is a newborn, then, a human being?

It's pathetically easy top destroy every argument you can make. You're just not holding ANY cards. None. I cannot lose this argument, not from a rational, logical perspective.


Your a simpleton..and just playing dumb hard to tell which .

you know exactly what I mean . viability has nothing to do with care after birth .. can’t it breath on its own with out major medical care. Jim.

Not can it make itself dinner .

But you showed me. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your a simpleton..and just playing dumb hard to tell which .

you know exactly what I mean . viability has nothing to do with care after birth .. can’t it breath on its own with out major medical care. Jim.

Not can it make itself dinner .

But you showed me. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is it written, that "viability" bestows human status on a baby? Who made that rule? It's literally impossible to know when a baby is viable.

And in any event, the current liberal view is that abortion is OK up until birth, way past viability.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't. And viability always seems to be earlier and earlier...as is the point when we think they feel pain.

Where is it written, that "viability" bestows human status on a baby? Who made that rule? It's literally impossible to know when a baby is viable.

And in any event, the current liberal view is that abortion is OK up until birth, way past viability.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't. And viability always seems to be earlier and earlier...as is the point when we think they feel pain.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't

More parroting right wing talking points. Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't

More parroting right wing talking points. Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if roe is overturned and states can do whatever they want, we will
see what the blue states do. i don’t see CA and IL and CT banning abortion after viability. i hope they do, but I don’t see it. No way in CT. More likely they’d allow abortion until kids are in kindergarten. They’re viewing abortion as a sacrament now. They’re all in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is it written, that "viability" bestows human status on a baby? Who made that rule? It's literally impossible to know when a baby is viable.

And in any event, the current liberal view is that abortion is OK up until birth, way past viability.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't. And viability always seems to be earlier and earlier...as is the point when we think they feel pain.

The viability requirement is totally made up, "interpreted," in order to get past the fact that a fetus is a human being. The fetus is absolutely viable for its stage of life. It is perfectly suited to live in the environment that biological reality requires it to live in until birth. A born infant could not survive if it was placed back into the environment from which it flourished as a fetus. Nor could an adult human being survive in a sac of amniotic fluid without some form of help to breath. From conception to birth, a human being is as viable in its given environment as much as born humans are in their environments.

And fetus's do "breath" in the manner available to them while immersed in amniotic fluid. And they prepare for breathing outside of their fluid environment--"By 10–12 weeks of gestation, developing babies begin taking “practice” breaths."

The fetus is not only "viable" in its environment, it continuously makes preparations for its future birth and the new environment by constantly developing its parts and functions. It is actually designed by nature, if not some metaphysical creator, to do so on its own--with the protection and nourishment provided by the mother's body, which also internally develops itself, prepares for, the ability to carry, protect, and nourish developing human beings inside of her.

The processes of pregnancy and fetal development are both biologically self actuating. They are not products of willful human construction. They are ineluctable and can only be stopped by some form of violence, accident, disease, or willful intervention.

Sure boys
You should be the judge of something that can never happen to you.
Because as JD Vance says pregnancy through rape is "inconvenient" for women, but those women should still be forced to carry the pregnancy and if they don't they should be punished criminally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure boys
You should be the judge of something that can never happen to you.
Because as JD Vance says pregnancy through rape is "inconvenient" for women, but those women should still be forced to carry the pregnancy and if they don't they should be punished criminally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then follow your own advice and shut up.

BTW, it can happen to boys now. They can be women now. They have control of their own bodies.

Then follow your own advice and shut up.

BTW, it can happen to boys now. They can be women now. They have control of their own bodies.

that’s a desperate argument from someone who knows he’s losing.

What none of them have done, is said why it’s constitutionally wrong to overturn it. They just say why they want it, which is an argument to make with state legislators if it goes to the states.

Court decisions are not supposed to be decided based on who wants what. Liberal judges tend to do that, but they’re not supposed to. all that matters to the judge, is what the constitution says and means. that’s why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Many, many people think roe was poorly decided, even Ginsburg said they made mistakes

If an overwhelming majority of americans want abortion, that side has nothing to worry about, they’ll
get it at the state level.

“I want it, so give it to me, or else!” isn’t a legal argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here are more Republican ethics and morality on display

, the Michigan state senator, a Democrat, read an email accusing her of "grooming" children. The email was sent by a fellow senator, Republican Lana Theis, who was soliciting funds from her supporters for her reelection campaign.

In that email, Theis wrote that children are "under assault in our schools" by what she called "progressive mobs trying to steal our children's innocence."
She accused me by name of grooming and wanting to sexualize kindergartners,"

On his Fox News program, Tucker Carlson claimed that California teachers are trying to "indoctrinate schoolchildren" about sexual and gender identity. "They're grooming 7-year-olds and talking to 7-year-olds about their sex lives," he said.

On her Fox News show, Laura Ingraham accused the Walt Disney Co. of "pushing a sexual agenda" on children. "This isn't programming. This is propaganda for grooming," she said.

And U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance of Ohio defended the term on Fox News, saying, "If you don't want to be called a groomer, don't try to sexualize 6-, 7-year-old children."

And of course if you’re pro choice you are pro Murder.

Love this one The viability requirement is totally made up,

That’s the conservative answer to anything they disagree with .. but if they agree then they will accept anything that’s made up. See above examples of open the Bible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here are more Republican ethics and morality on display

, the Michigan state senator, a Democrat, read an email accusing her of "grooming" children. The email was sent by a fellow senator, Republican Lana Theis, who was soliciting funds from her supporters for her reelection campaign.

In that email, Theis wrote that children are "under assault in our schools" by what she called "progressive mobs trying to steal our children's innocence."
She accused me by name of grooming and wanting to sexualize kindergartners,"

On his Fox News program, Tucker Carlson claimed that California teachers are trying to "indoctrinate schoolchildren" about sexual and gender identity. "They're grooming 7-year-olds and talking to 7-year-olds about their sex lives," he said.

On her Fox News show, Laura Ingraham accused the Walt Disney Co. of "pushing a sexual agenda" on children. "This isn't programming. This is propaganda for grooming," she said.

And U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance of Ohio defended the term on Fox News, saying, "If you don't want to be called a groomer, don't try to sexualize 6-, 7-year-old children."

And of course if you’re pro choice you are pro Murder.

Love this one The viability requirement is totally made up,

That’s the conservative answer to anything they disagree with .. but if they agree then they will accept anything that’s made up. See above examples of open the Bible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a women’s family center in Wisconsin was firebombed this week. mobs are gathering outside theorists homes of scotus justices. And liberals are disrupting catholic masses. the liberal way - give me what him want, or I’ll throw a tantrum.

Viability isn’t a made up concept. What is made up, is suggestingbthatvsokeonebisnt human unless they are viable.

I’ll ask again, how would you define it? no 2 babies are identical, they don’t reach viability at the same time, so how would you define it?? at what point in pregnancy would you ban elective abortions?

i keep asking, you keep
dodging…

a michigan state senator who no one has ever heard of, that’s a great example wayne.

you criticize tucker carlson for going after CA teachers, but you didn’t offer a syllable about why he was wrong. what if he was right?

Oh! and the new press secretary said they trump stole the 2016 election from hilary. so it’s ok when democrats lie about elections being stolen?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a women’s family center in Wisconsin was firebombed this week. mobs are gathering outside theorists homes of scotus justices. And liberals are disrupting catholic masses. the liberal way - give me what him want, or I’ll throw a tantrum.

Viability isn’t a made up concept. What is made up, is suggestingbthatvsokeonebisnt human unless they are viable.

I’ll ask again, how would you define it? no 2 babies are identical, they don’t reach viability at the same time, so how would you define it?? at what point in pregnancy would you ban elective abortions?

i keep asking, you keep
dodging…

a michigan state senator who no one has ever heard of, that’s a great example wayne.

you criticize tucker carlson for going after CA teachers, but you didn’t offer a syllable about why he was wrong. what if he was right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Jim try some reading out side your bubble

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

But I understand you live in the world of alternative facts

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529


Why would I suggest Tucker was right .. how is that even a topic a rational person would entertain

But a cult-member like your self you’re willing to entertain the idea

I would respect people if their stance was just we don’t like the concept of abortion.. but that’s not it the anti Abortion crowd is more about virtue signaling.

Which is just my view of them . I thought I would rationalize it the way Conservatives do.. base it on my feeling ,

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Ya know the thing liberals are accuse of all the time

They care about the unborn until. It’s born than it’s time to support the next unborn child and the cycle continues.. but these morality zealots , have no intention of stopping with abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim try some reading out side your bubble

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

But I understand you live in the world of alternative facts

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529


Why would I suggest Tucker was right .. how is that even a topic a rational person would entertain

But a cult-member like your self you’re willing to entertain the idea

I would respect people if their stance was just we don’t like the concept of abortion.. but that’s not it the anti Abortion crowd is more about virtue signaling.

Which is just my view of them . I thought I would rationalize it the way Conservatives do.. base it on my feeling ,

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Ya know the thing liberals are accuse of all the time

They care about the unborn until. It’s born than it’s time to support the next unborn child and the cycle continues.. but these morality zealots , have no intention of stopping with abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery"

OK, I said it twice, and you didn't grasp it. I'll try to use smaller words.

I know what viability means. But who says viability = being a human being?

Is that really going too fast for you?

"Why would I suggest Tucker was right"

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong. Is he wrong for criticizing CA teachers? It's NEVER OK to criticize CA teachers?

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery"

OK, I said it twice, and you didn't grasp it. I'll try to use smaller words.

I know what viability means. But who says viability = being a human being?

Is that really going too fast for you?

"Why would I suggest Tucker was right"

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong. Is he wrong for criticizing CA teachers? It's NEVER OK to criticize CA teachers?

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"often consider" is not a committed, definitive, statement. It implies that they often don't consider. Not a scientifically conclusive disposition. Nor are most doctors research biologists or embryologists. Doctors practice medicine on the basis of scientific theories, they are not who create the theories. They are trained how to treat natal and pre-natal malfunctions and recommend how to keep those functions healthy. They are not the ones to decide what a human being is. They are the ones who medically treat humans.

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is a fetus viable in the womb? Of course it is. Do doctors treat humans. Yes. Do doctors treat mammals other than humans? No. Do doctors decide what a human being is? No. Do doctors treat fetuses? Yes. Who scientifically decide what or who is human? Biologists, embryologists. Do they consider the fetus to be a human being? Yes.

Is a human being viable on Saturn. No. Does that mean that human beings who travel to other planets on which they are not viable are not human beings there? No. They are still human beings there even though they are not viable without technological help. Fetuses are viable in their mother's womb. Their mother is a human being. They are viable inside of her with the help she was designed to assist them. They are viable when they leave their mother's body and are born. They are viable, as nature designed, from conception to birth and beyond. Throughout the whole process, during all the different stages with their different conditions, they are viable, and they are human beings with a unique genetic human code which they have and keep from conception to death. They belong to the species homo sapiens. They do not ever, from conception till death, belong to any other species. They are human. They are beings. They are human beings.

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if it’s normal to say you need to be viable
to be human, explain your view on people in comas.

you can’t win this, because there’s zero logic to your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if it’s normal to say you need to be viable
to be human, explain your view on people in comas.

you can’t win this, because there’s zero logic to your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

explain your view on people in comas.




If that’s the logic I am up against! I surrender .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

explain your view on people in comas.




If that’s the logic I am up against! I surrender .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said viability is the prerequisite for being a human being, did you not?

Let’s just stick to babies then. How do you know when a unborn baby is viable? is it the same stage for every baby?

it’s something that obviously cannot be determined with any kind of accuracy. It’s an unknown, a mystery. whatever day you’d pick, makes zero sense, because the baby is no different than it was the day before. nothing spectacular happens in any one day.

if it’s “my body my choice” why should that right be forfeited after viability? it’s still a decision regarding the woman’s body.

too late to surrender,, let’s let it play out in november.

Do you realize you’ve never obverse a syllable about why it’s constitutionally incorrect to overturn Roe and let states decide?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun.

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because I'm going by that pesky old document called the constitution.

The constitution lists things that are the jurisdiction of the federal government, and it also says that things not on that list, are up to states to decide.

I didn't just say "leave it up to the states", and make that up out of this air.

Using your "logic", why not leave the choice to rape children, up to individual people?

Not only can you not win this, you can't avoid humiliating yourself.

Many states will decide to leave this choice up to the mom. Other states, where most citizens don't like abortion, will restrict it.

This is a concept you're clearly struggling with and puzzled by, it's called "democracy". In democratic republic, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes others get what they want.

You seem to be under the impression that "democracy" means "always whatever the left wants".

I live in CT, I'm used to not getting what I want and accepting it. CT will not only continue to offer abortion, they'll probably make a tourist industry around it. And I accept that, because I realize that I happen to live in a place where the vast majority of voters are far left. I don't like it, but it's not unfair.

You can't grasp that.

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.
Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

show me where any of them
said they’d never overturn Roe, or any other precedent.

saying “it’s currently settled law and i respect that”, is nowhere near the same thing as saying “i would
never overturn a precedent.”

none of them ever tel you in advance how they’d rule on future hypothetical cases. That started with Ginsburg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

The Catholic Justices did not "proclaim" that the federal government can outlaw abortion. Their opinion is that the matter is left up to the states--which has nothing to do with Catholicism.

And Imams have more expansive duties than SCOTUS judges.
But, just as those judges don't have the power to legislate (which Progressive judges either don't understand or just don't care and do it anyway) Imams don't create laws. Nor do the people of Islam.
Their law has already been written. Whoever their "representatives" are, they can't create fundamental laws--just procedural laws like speed limits, etc.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law......

"The truth is that "settled law" is just a euphemism that jurists and legal scholars use to refer to Supreme Court precedent that is indeed binding - but only until a majority of the justices decide that it should be overruled." So a judge can say something is "settled law" in the way the terms is used to mean that it is binding. But it is necessary that any law can, and must, be overturned if it was badly, unconstitutionally decided, no matter how "settled" it has become.

and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

and if facts matter, which i doubt, Gorsuch is Protestant. And Sotomayor is also catholic, but that’s ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then rest easy. You don't have to exert yourself with daily complaints, accusations, insinuations, diatribes, lies, and disinformation on the forum. Rest easy. Social justice will win and your children will live in a much better world. A lot of children won't have that chance, but eff them.

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because the left NEVER speaks i’ll of those who disagree with them. Never.

The gop midterms will be about nothing but actual results. Crime, interest rates, gas prices, inflation, mess at the border, Russia on the move, unavailability of baby formula, record high drug overdoses, stock markets tumbling,

None of those things were this bad before Biden took over.

The commercials write themselves. Split screen with cheap gas on one side, $5 gas on the other.

The supreme court leak was a huge political gift. could very well be what saves the left, but not if 45% of Hispanics or more republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course you do, shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see no reason why saying “The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans. Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November” (which is not even racist) should result in bloodshed. Unless there was something extremely wrong with the person who shed the blood.

Should there be bloodshed every time a Democrat politician says similarly negative things about the Republican Party? Should it be considered "racist" whenever Democrats do so?

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gunman is bat$hit crazy. Crazy people have used the Constitution, the Bible, Das Kapital, Dave Chappel, the Koran, abortion rights, hatred of minorities, hatred of whites, hatred of women, hatred of men, Communism, socialism, social justice, hatred of Christianity, hatred of their mother, hatred of their father, hatred of themselves, etc., to do bat$hit crazy things. It's bat$hit crazy to say that all those things, or people like Tucker Carlson, are responsible for bat$hit crazy people doing bat$hit crazy things.

Sometimes, often, you seem to be bat$hit crazy.

You can hear the killer's arguments coming from the mouths of plenty of Republican Senate candidates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gunman is bat$hit crazy.

Coverage of mass shootings in this country almost always goes to the "lone wolf" trope, especially when the shooter is white. It's so important in this case to resist that framing, and be clear that the shooter is a white supremacist. And that his position is no longer fringe.

The clearest evidence that the strain white supremacy that was recently fringe is now mainstream is nearly 50% of Republicans agree with 'great replacement theory' which says white people are being deliberately and systemically replaced by minorities.

Tucker Carlson, Fox News in general, Brietbart, the MAGA crowd, the whole right-wing ecosystem that is essentially the mainstream GOP now spouts this stuff, which they know will spark violence.

So it's extremely important to not let the media or anyone run with a story of a lone wolf. He put out a manifesto. He drove for 3.5 hours. He had body armor. He was planned and deliberate in his white supremacist terror. Not mentally ill, or any of the excuses so often used.

And his case is not unique. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue to the awful Atlanta Spa mass shooting the right is growing more and more violent. And 'great replacement theory' is a key motivator of these shootings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Over at white outrage HQ newsmaxs . They are all outraged this shooting has been labeled a hate crime

The excuses range from 2 whites were killed , or why isn’t black on black murder a hate crime, and Thinning the herd

And my favorite

Let's review;
Manifesto-check
Known to be a whacko-check
Illegally purchased gun-check
Too young to own gun-check
Didn't care about laws-check
Told people his plans-check
No one bothered to stop him-check

Seems to be a set up-check Mid term false flag operation


But but baby formula .

PS which is controls by 4 companies

But it’s some how a government issue ? Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Coverage of mass shootings in this country almost always goes to the "lone wolf" trope, especially when the shooter is white. It's so important in this case to resist that framing, and be clear that the shooter is a white supremacist. And that his position is no longer fringe.

The clearest evidence that the strain white supremacy that was recently fringe is now mainstream is nearly 50% of Republicans agree with 'great replacement theory' which says white people are being deliberately and systemically replaced by minorities.

Tucker Carlson, Fox News in general, Brietbart, the MAGA crowd, the whole right-wing ecosystem that is essentially the mainstream GOP now spouts this stuff, which they know will spark violence.

So it's extremely important to not let the media or anyone run with a story of a lone wolf. He put out a manifesto. He drove for 3.5 hours. He had body armor. He was planned and deliberate in his white supremacist terror. Not mentally ill, or any of the excuses so often used.

And his case is not unique. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue to the awful Atlanta Spa mass shooting the right is growing more and more violent. And 'great replacement theory' is a key motivator of these shootings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the kind of crazy rhetoric that can lead to violence. Hopefully, you are fringe--though, you are more mainstream Progressive than the shooter is mainstream Republican.

Over at white outrage HQ newsmaxs . They are all outraged this shooting has been labeled a hate crime

The excuses range from 2 whites were killed , or why isn’t black on black murder a hate crime, and Thinning the herd

And my favorite

Let's review;
Manifesto-check
Known to be a whacko-check
Illegally purchased gun-check
Too young to own gun-check
Didn't care about laws-check
Told people his plans-check
No one bothered to stop him-check

Seems to be a set up-check Mid term false flag operation


But but baby formula .

PS which is controls by 4 companies

But it’s some how a government issue ? Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who, exactly, said thinning the herd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who, exactly, said thinning the herd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim do some foot work go pull up newsmax and click on the comments of the story.. there’s 5 thousand of them and counting. and see for yourself what’s being said. it s a white nationalist convention..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the kind of crazy rhetoric that can lead to violence. Hopefully, you are fringe--though, you are more mainstream Progressive than the shooter is mainstream Republican.

Remember when Trump celebrated a known war criminal? Remember when the whole right celebrated Rittenhouse? These are all steps leading up to an unapologetic embrace of killers like the one in Buffalo. Woulda been unthinkable not long ago, but now ... it's thinkable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim do some foot work go pull up newsmax and click on the comments of the story.. there’s 5 thousand of them and counting. and see for yourself what’s being said it a white nationalist convention..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s funny. because you asked
me to provide a link into
my claim!

oh, it was a comment on a newsmax story! well that speaks for app the GOP.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Support for abortion rights has reached a record high (60%) and nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose the Supreme Court overturning Roe, according to a new @NBCNews poll.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now polls matter?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember when Trump celebrated a known war criminal? Remember when the whole right celebrated Rittenhouse? These are all steps leading up to an unapologetic embrace of killers like the one in Buffalo. Woulda been unthinkable not long ago, but now ... it's thinkable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember the attempt to frame Rittenhouse. He was right to be celebrated, the way he stood up to the bat$hit crazy lefties who tried to kill or do serious damage to him, and the way he stood up to the prosecution that must have known their case against him was BS meant to satisfy the leftist social justice mob.

Sane people do not kill a bunch of people because of what you ask if I remember.

The bat$hit crazy Antifa's and BLM's and Critical Race theories practiced in public schools woulda been unthinkable in this country not long ago, but now they're a fact.

And trying to frame a sitting President as a seditious conspirer against this country with an anti-American foreign government woulda been unthinkable here not long ago, but now is a fact.

Impeaching a President twice in his one term merely in order to claim he was impeached twice woulda been unthinkable here not long ago, but now is a fact.

I remember the attempt to frame Rittenhouse. He was right to be celebrated, the way he stood up to the bat$hit crazy lefties who tried to kill or do serious damage to him, and the way he stood up to the prosecution that must have known their case against him was BS meant to satisfy the leftist social justice mob.

Sane people do not kill a bunch of people because of what you ask if I remember.

The bat$hit crazy Antifa's and BLM's and Critical Race theories practiced in public schools woulda been unthinkable in this country not long ago, but now they're a fact.

And trying to frame a sitting President as a seditious conspirer against this country with an anti-American foreign government woulda been unthinkable here not long ago, but now is a fact.

Impeaching a President twice in his one term merely in order to claim he was impeached twice woulda been unthinkable here not long ago, but now is a fact.

So, vigilantism is now ok in America, the radicalization of the Boston bombers by consumption of jihadist propaganda & resulting terror attack is different than the radicalization of the Buffalo shooter by white supremacy champions like Carlson? Or do we not call it terrorism if the murderer is white?
Next you roll people who stand against fascism, millions of legitimate protesters and CRT into an impossibility.

Let me get this straight…you oppose Critical Race Theory because it makes you out to be a White Supremacist but you believe in Great Replacement Theory because you’re worried about preserving White Supremacy?

Is this a sneak peek of the 2024 GOP platform?

Well I guess you just need to stand back and stand by
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, vigilantism is now ok in America, the radicalization of the Boston bombers by consumption of jihadist propaganda & resulting terror attack is different than the radicalization of the Buffalo shooter by white supremacy champions like Carlson?

Here you go again. Your usual. Stating what you assume are facts because you assume so. I have not seen credible evidence that Carlson is a white supremacy champion. This claim that the replacement theory is about race, that it's racist, is nonsense. It, at least for Tucker, and for me, is about political power--votes--not about race. That's why the Dems have been less than mildly favorable towards immigration, legal or not from Europe, especially Eastern Europe like Poland because they typically vote Republican. And why they are vociferously for legal or illegal immigrants from south of our border who have overwhelmingly voted Democrat (except Dems are not so big on immigrants from Cuba, who tend to vote Republican).

The "Replacement" theory has been noted and championed by Dems and non-whites long before Carlson spoke on it. A few examples:

Peter Beinart wrote in the Atlantic (a left leaning publication) that "Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base."

“The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon, a far leftist publication, declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”

Walter Williams, a BLACK economist said " Carlson is correct on why the Democrats want to make illegal immigrants citizens (the lust for political power)"

Democrat former HUD Secratary once said "In a couple of presidential cycles, you’ll be on election night, you’ll be announcing that we’re calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It’s changing. It is going to become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth, of folks from outside of Texas.

Or do we not call it terrorism if the murderer is white?
Next you roll people who stand against fascism, millions of legitimate protesters and CRT into an impossibility.

Uhhh . . . I stand against fascism. I think Progressivism is fascist. are you rolling folks like me into an impossibility? Don't know WTF you're talking about.

Let me get this straight…you oppose Critical Race Theory because it makes you out to be a White Supremacist but you believe in Great Replacement Theory because you’re worried about preserving White Supremacy?

I oppose CRT because it is racist hogwash. It makes you out to be a White Supremacist. Are you. It essentializes race. Race is irrelevant for me, other than being a concept.

Is this a sneak peek of the 2024 GOP platform?

Well I guess you just need to stand back and stand by
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No doubt you will frame it that way. You already have. I don't need to stand back or stand by.

Liz Cheney says GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism


Let's hear the excuses on How shes Wrong , :kewl:

Gov. Ricketts: Nebraska Will 'Do More to Protect Preborn Babies' If Roe Overturned


How the goal posts keep moving

Gov. Ricketts: Nebraska Will 'Do More to Protect Preborn Babies' If Roe Overturned


How the goal posts keep moving

But he can't do it (not for long) if his constituents WANT it, or they vote him out. Do you have ANY idea how our government works.

And if you're going to move the goalposts, he can do it all day as far as I'm concerned, if he's moving them to protect the unborn.

And shouldn't you be OK with more protections, as far as viable babies are concerned? You're insisting a baby is a human being at viability, doesn't that mean you think abortion is murder after viability?

Liz Cheney says GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism


Let's hear the excuses on How shes Wrong , :kewl:

Liz Cheney is on the outs. She's wrong.

Explain why a white nationalist would be in favor of school choice, would get black unemployment to the lowest ever (and would celebrate that fact, while democrats were crying over that fact), would pass criminal justice reform, would increase funding for black colleges?

I have no idea what's in Trumps heart. But his policies did more for American blacks, than any president in my lifetime, by far.

Make no mistake the sentence in Nebraska will last longer for the rape victim than the rapist.

Host Dana Bash then asked the Nebraska governor if that would apply to cases of rape or incest.

“They’re still babies, too,” Ricketts said. “Yes, they’re still babies.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But he can't do it (not for long) if his constituents WANT

Jim do you hear you’re self

Same thing is happening in Russia it happen in Germany in the 40s is happening now in America

Just because your constituents want discrimination rigged elections. Bans on gays and Transgender I guess it’s ok to you ? and if you think a white nationalist would be in favor of school choice, would get black unemployment to the lowest . ever . Really Jim you’re part of the problem you are in denial. The GOP is not the same as it once was! Your boy saw to that ..

At least Liz has the honesty to admit these Truths.. maybe it’s Time other so called Republicans should do the same. But they won’t until their mob turns on them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But he can't do it (not for long) if his constituents WANT

Jim do you hear you’re self

Same thing is happening in Russia it happen in Germany in the 40s is happening now in America

Just because your constituents want discrimination rigged elections. Bans on gays and Transgender I guess it’s ok to you and if you think Explain why a white nationalist would be in favor of school choice, would get black unemployment to the lowest ever you’re part of the problem you are in denial. The GOP is the same as it once was!

At least Liz has the honesty to admit these Truths.. maybe it’s Time other si called Republicans should do the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who’s banning gays, exactly?

you didn’t explain why a white supremacist would
be in favor of school
choice and other things that help blacks?

trump is an anti semite? you know his daughter and her husband are jewish, right? w”

how come liz cheney did t say exactly who the racists are?

all you got, is baseless charges of racism.

hey, here’s a case where democrats were caught trying to gerrymander district lines in NY. It appears it isn’t only the gop that kicks their ball onto the fairway when it suits them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/draft-of-ny-redistricting-map-absolutely-brutal-for-dems
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP is not the same as it once was! Your boy saw to that ..

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

correct. the GOP no longer sits there politely while democrats call us racists and homophones and xenophobes. That’s what Bush, McCain, and Romney did. Now, if the left throws a cheap
elbow, we throw one back.

I know the left isn’t used to getting a dose of their own medicine. Better get used to it.

If the gop is the party of white supremacists, why do polls show Hispanics are making a meaningful
shift to the right?

The most important number in november, by far, is the % of hispanics that vote for republicans. If the polls are remotely correct, and maybe they aren’t, the hispanic block could be making a big shift to the right. That would be a catastrophe for your side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as to the tragedy where 10 were murdered by a loathsome racist in buffalo.

Chicago is averaging 11.3 murders per week so far in 2022 ( 204 murders through May 15).

These ten victims will
get a million times more press coverage. Because unlike garden variety urban violence, this shooting is a political
winner for the left.

i’m not saying the. Buffalo shooting shouldn’t be covered - it should. But the holocaust that’s happening i. our cities shouldn’t be swept under the rug, but it is. Because that story doesn’t help democrats win electiions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Christian hate-preacher Greg Locke told the people in his Tennessee tent church today, "You cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat in this nation!"

He later threatened Democrats watching him, "You ain't seen [an] insurrection yet."

If this guy was a Muslim Imam in a Middle Eastern Country, we'd already be dropping a cruise missile on his ass.

Religious nuts, foreign OR domestic, engaged in active war against the United States are all the same.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Christian hate-preacher Greg Locke told the people in his Tennessee tent church today, "You cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat in this nation!"

He later threatened Democrats watching him, "You ain't seen [an] insurrection yet."

If this guy was a Muslim Imam in a Middle Eastern Country, we'd already be dropping a cruise missile on his ass.

Religious nuts, foreign OR domestic, engaged in active war against the United States are all the same.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This vicious hate filled post is the kind of rhetoric that spurs bat$hit crazies to kill folks and make violent protests.

This vicious hate filled post is the kind of rhetoric that spurs bat$hit crazies to kill folks and make violent protests.

i agree with that preacher, i can’t see any devout christian voting democrat at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226825]So, vigilantism is now ok in America


Sounds like you condone thousands of thugs looting stores & other businesses, burning cities to the ground.

i agree with that preacher, i can’t see any devout christian voting democrat at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Jesus is trending, a reminder that the bible says Jesus was a brown-skinned Jewish man who fed the poor, housed the homeless & welcomed the stranger (yes, even the illegal ones!)

If you’re going to call yourself “Christian”, then act like him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226825]So, vigilantism is now ok in America


Sounds like you condone thousands of thugs looting stores & other businesses, burning cities to the ground.

No, it sounds like I believe in the rule of law, not someone with a gun being judge and jury.
The difference is important
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1226860]

No, it sounds like I believe in the rule of law, not someone with a gun being judge and jury.
The difference is important
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rittenhouse believes in the rule of law. Self defense is legal. He was not convicted of breaking any law.

Yet, you seem to be a judge and jury about him being a vigilante. You sound like an authoritarian, not like a believer in the rule of law.

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226862]

Rittenhouse believes in the rule of law. Self defense is legal. He was not convicted of breaking any law.

Yet, you seem to be a judge and jury about him being a vigilante. You sound like an authoritarian, not like a believer in the rule of law.

If you travel across state borders out of your normal residence, bring a weapon and claim to be defending you’re a vigilante.
Spin it as you see fit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=detbuch;1226864]

If you travel across state borders out of your normal residence, bring a weapon and claim to be defending you’re a vigilante.
Spin it as you see fit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't bring a weapon across state lines. The weapon was stored in his friend's house in Kenosha, not in his home in Illinois. And he legally possessed it at the time of the shooting. And he had a part time job as well as a friend and relatives in Kenosha so spent a lot of time there. It was not unusual or unexpected that he was in Kenosha.

You're the one doing all the spinning. I'm strictly speaking within the bounds of the law. It might be more accurate to say that you are lying. Not unusual for you to do.

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1226865]

He didn't bring a weapon across state lines. The weapon was stored in his friend's house in Kenosha, not in his home in Illinois. And he legally possessed it at the time of the shooting.

You're the one doing all the spinning. I'm strictly speaking within the bounds of the law. It might be more accurate to say that you are lying. Not unusual for you to do.

he can’t stop
lying, because the truth doesn’t tell his story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1226860]

No, it sounds like I believe in the rule of law, not someone with a gun being judge and jury.
The difference is important
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



You believe in rule of law ???????
Are #^&#^&#^&#^&ing brain dead ??????
Where is the “rule of law with all these cities being burnt to the ground ???????
This #^&#^&#^&#^&ing administration makes police & law enforcement STAND DOWN while these thugs loot & destroy businesses & cities.
You should do yourself a favor & eat some lead !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should do yourself a favor & eat some lead !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are a classless POS.

Maybe you should eat some lead - we'll find someone else to plow our streets.

Another low for this forum. John you should be proud.

You are a classless POS.

Maybe you should eat some lead - we'll find someone else to plow our streets.

Another low for this forum. John you should be proud.

Everything Pete has ever said, is OK with you. But you tattle about the conservatives. Politically selective outrage, is fake outrage.

John didn't do anything.

i agree with that preacher, i can’t see any devout christian voting democrat at the moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden and I do. I left the Rep. party a long time ago.

I prob. go to church more than 95% of the people who were ever registered on this forum (not that just going to church is definitive).

Everything Pete has ever said, Has he ever said anything so vile as what RR says?is OK with you. But you tattle about the conservatives. Politically selective outrageHow is this - go fu ck youself. , is fake outrage.[COLOR="red"]

John didn't do anything.He lets it go on

nm

Biden and I do. I left the Rep. party a long time ago.

I prob. go to church more than 95% of the people who were ever registered on this forum (not that just going to church is definitive).

Biden "calls" himself a devout Catholic. Saying that, and being one, aren't the same thing.

Many people who say they are Catholics, vote democrat. I'm talking about actual, true believers. Among that group, I don't see how they can vote democratic, abortion, casual sex, meaningless marriages, gender being a choice, tolerance of everything as long as it feels good.

I guess I should have said Catholics, not Christians, I don't know anything much about other religions. I can't see how anyone who is Catholic, could even think about voting for a democrat, unless all you care about is the environment I guess. The social policies embraced by the DNC today, aren't compatible with Catholicism, they just aren't.

And for sure I'm not saying Republicans are all good Catholics. I'm only talking about what each party currently believes.

Catholic catechism has "binding beliefs" and "non binding beliefs". Binding beliefs means what it says, you cannot be Catholic and not agree with the binding beliefs. Opposition to abortion is one of them.

It's very simple. Biden and Pelosi say they are Catholic on Sundays, because they want Catholic votes. Then Monday-Friday, they bash Catholicism. It's pretty phony when you think about it.

nm

I don't know what nm means.

He lets it go on. He also lets Pete say some pretty outrageous stuff, which interestingly doesn't bother you.

How come you only get offended when conservatives say offensive things?

And I don't believe that anyone can support the R party based on their social policies that conflict w/the bible. The Ds have a big prob. when it comes to abortion (even though it is not mentioned ever in the Bible).

heal the sick - what is the R's policies? Did they support the ACA or offer up any alternatives?
don't close your heart against the poor - The R's policies are to cut social spending.
When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich getting into heaven and compares it to a camel going through an eye of a needle that show the Bible doesn't hold the rich in high regard. The Rs policies benefit the rich.

Neither party should/can claim they uphold the teachings of the Bible.