RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Quite simply the right of privacy is the basis of all rights
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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