ah, it appears you are the one who doesn’t understand late term abortion.

the late term abortion doesn’t avoid carrying the baby to term. the baby is already at term, hence the words “ late term”. the baby is killed in the womb, then the mom gives birth to a dead baby. so again, what’s the medical benefit to the mom? her body still goes through the trauma of childbirth, just that the baby is dead.

it’s not me who doesn’t understand. the bull was about caring for
babies after they survived abortion, in other words, it was about preventing (in some cases, not all) infanticide.

you’re smug for someone who’s wrong 99 percent of the time, kind of like the previous potus. emulating your
man crush. good for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this shouldn't surprise you...the american left is just returning to it's progressive eugenic roots...they think, talk about and rationalize infanticide quite a bit....it's what they believe despite efforts to deflect...it's why they stand and applaud expansion of abortion through legislation that would have been thought unthinkable just a few years ago..it's what happens when leftists "think" too much :rotf3:....

democrats and spence can claim one thing, defend and deflect...but the trend is clear, a very troubling direction for them.....incrementalism


democrats should propose a 2 year trial period so new parents can decide whether or not they really want to keep the thing:kewl:


A few years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”

quotes from the editors of one of the world’s most prestigious bioethics journals :

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

“In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth’ abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child.”

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be.”

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”

They write that adoption isn’t the necessarily the answer because “we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

And the ability or disability of the newborn is not the issue because “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”

Princeton University’s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “person.” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.” In other words, to Singer, a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel.

In a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide, Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion: “The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.”

Singer is frequently quoted in New York Times, where he is also a recurring contributor.


Singer has an "impressive resume" and is probably regarded as a "highly educated" "critical thinker"

What will the right go after next if they are successful in banning abortion in America ? Yet Ireland just approved abortion in 2018 where 78% of citizens claim to be catholic .. so here in America it’s just political.. a faux outrage from the right imposing there belief systems on others. I wonder how those wo support the ban on abortion

Would respond to a ban on alcohol by Muslims Oh wait I have all ready seen the memes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i know, right? those zany republicans, thinking that infanticide is wrong!

wdmso, a large
majority of democrats, are also opposed to late term
abortion. that’s not just a republican v democrat issue.

as to the alcohol ban by
muslims...obama ruled that muslim truck drivers could
not be forced to transport alcohol, because you can’t be forced to abandon your religious beliefs at work...that’s what the obama administration said.

how, then, does a christian baker not have the same right?

you take your time with that, and have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, i forgot about Israel, the democrats have decided that they’ve had just about enough of the jews.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

only the right tries to hide discrimination in the cover of religious freedom... you guys have been doing it for years ... I dont care what a church and its members decide its their church ... but when that religion influences or becomes state or federal policy that's where I have an issue ...



Ask yourself what party demands freedoms for themselves and not others Republicans

as to the alcohol ban by
muslims...obama ruled that muslim truck drivers could
not be forced to transport
your so clueless its no longer funny .... once again Facts get in the way of your BS

//www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mairead-mcardle/eeoc-awards-240k-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-refusing-deliver-alcohol


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ob...ivers-lawsuit/

Here is a shocker Jim, your point was missed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, read my post. I specifically said that the Obama administration ruled that Muslim truck drivers can not be forced to abandon their religion at work (I agree 100% with that ruling. But why then, are Christian bakers forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work?

Whatever you thing you caught me in, you didn't. I know full well what protections the Obama administration gave to the Muslim truck drivers. My question is, why do they have more rights than the Christian baker.

I told you to take your time, maybe you rushed it. So take all the time you need, and let me know why the Christian baker doesn't get the same protections as the Muslim truck driver.

And how!!

Jim: Obama said Muslim truck drivers can't be forced to abandon their religion at work. Why don't Christian bakers get the same right?

WDMSO: Jim you are so clueless. Obama said that Muslim truck drivers can't be forced to abandon their religion while at work. Ha! Take that, Jim! In your face!

I know full well what protections the Obama administration gave to the Muslim truck drivers. why are you posting BS again please show me where you got that ...




no time needed ... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker and a court in favor of the muslims where's your argument ?

and once again your comparing 2 separate incidents employer and worker and owner and customer but you love to see everything thru the same lens

That federal statute is not applicable to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa or Kim Davis cases, as they didn’t involve a relationship between an employer and an employee, so neither was related to worker protections under the Civil Rights Act.

"why are you posting BS again please show me where you got that ..."

Just because YOU aren't aware of something, doesn't make it BS. We could fill the Pacific Ocean with things that neither you nor I are aware of.

Here you go. When Obama was president, two Muslim truck drivers were fired for refusing to deliver alcohol. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sued the truck/distributor company, and got a big cash settlement for the truck drivers.

Here is what the lawyer for the EEOC said about the case...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate"

Please read that statement carefully. That is a statement made by the Obama administration. How can that same protection possibly not apply to the Christian baker who believes that working for a gay wedding violates his beliefs? Why does the Muslim have religious liberty that the Christian doesn't have? The lawyer used the term "everyone". Are Christians part of that everyone, or not?

I agree 100% with what the EEOC did in this case. Where I disagree with liberals, is that I happen to think that the Bill of Rights applies the same way to Christians, as it does to Muslims.

What do you think?

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

Very simple the two are not the same no matter how hard you try to suggest that they are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No two situations are exactly identical. I never said they were.

That's a cop out. Please explain why the Muslim truck drivers are entitled to stay consistent with their religious beliefs while at work, but the Christian baker is not.

You're right, they are different. In one case, the injured party represents a group sympathetic to your side. In the other case, the injured party doesn't. And that's what matters.

The Obama official said that "everyone" is entitled to religious freedom at work. He didn't say "everyone who is Muslim truck driver forced to transport alcholol".

You are coming across as someone unable to admit that his side is ever wrong about anything.

He won’t answer, due to not knowing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My gut tells me he knows full well, he just can't bring himself to say it out loud.

Trump is a weasel. And I happen to believe the GOP is wrong on gay marriage and the death penalty. I also believe the GOP is hypocritical to attack Obama on the debt, and not say a word about Trump's debt.

See? You cane criticize your own side without dying. Spence, Pete, WDMSO, they can't do it, not once, not ever. Paul can.

This particular issue, is stunning. The EEOC says that "everyone" can cling to their religious beliefs at work, and they sued on behalf of the Muslim truckers, but they don't care about the Christian baker.

"Everyone" means very different things, to different people I guess.