Oso planning to go pro
Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.
How perfectly cruel of you.
*FetusWhat about women who were raped? Should they have to carry that out to full term. Technically that’s a viable pregnancy.Ectopic pregnancy? Technically speaking it’s viable, the fetus can still grow. Who cares about the woman that will die carrying it to full term though, right?And before you say, “oh that’ll never happen” bullcrap. Some states will absolutely use those technicalities and say those count as viable pregnancies.
Don’t argue with racist dirtbags
I’ve never killed a baby so I’ll take that side every time. What I am concerned about is abortions that may have to take place as a result of health of the mother, rape or incest. Outside of that, you make a sexual decision, you live with it. Period. Or, move. My body my choice except for vaccines. All lives matter except for unborn ones. Etc., etc.
When you have nothing to say, scream racism. Works every time. The ultimate Trump card and sign of a fundamentally flawed argument.
They're not babies you doofus. No one is killing babies, and if they are, it's murder. A clump of cells that can't live on it's own isn't a baby.Again, take your puritanical Fundemental Christian Extremism and move to a country that was founded upon it. This one certainly wasn't.
Your posting history is a clear indication of your racism.
A born baby can't live on its own also. It also needs its mother or others for its existence.
You’ve never killed an intruder yet you love to tell everyone how manly you are and how you’d blow a person’s head off to protect your family all the time.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
1. It doesn't have to be either/or2. Pastor Barnhart is a man of religion, so his opinions are automatically thrown out by many here
+100
That is a nice little quote we have seen before. Again, who says people aren't also being concerned and helping those other groups.
When a guy posts racist drivel, that makes him a racist
Your love affair with the "Stare Decisis" is misplaced. SD is not law and it is not codified anywhere. It is a doctrine or guide that has evolved over centuries to provide clarity and consistency to prior rulings on the same issue. While SD has a virtual binding effect on lower courts and on intermediate appellate courts, it is not absolute when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The US SC can re-visit its own prior decisions anytime it has the proper case before it.In 1896 the US SC in Plessy v. Ferguson held that " separate but equal" was permitted and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution ( public accomodations----separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites). The adherence to "Stare Decisis" caused that to be the law for 58 years and resulted in mandated separate schools; separate restrooms; separate hotels; etc. For segregationists and other Democrats, Plessy was the gift that kept on giving.Until 1954 when the US SC realized the grave error they had made, and in Brown v Board of Education, held that separate schools were inherently UNEQUAL, thereby implicitly overrulind Plessy. This opened the door for school and other integration. Stare Decisis be damned.So under your position, SD should prevent today's court from overruling Roe, and the 1954 Court should have been prevented from overruling Plessy because of SD. Or in other words, keep aborting and keep Blacks in separate train cars. Unless you're a rank hypocrite, today's SC decision overturning Roe is completely reconcilable with Brown.And Stare Decisis has little, if nothing, to do with it.
All I know is that from the day I heard my wife and I were expecting a child I had unconditional love for that child. Imo, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing a Mom see her new child the first time. It brings tears to my eyes every time I see a picture of Mom and their child. That 100% sums up my feeling on the topic.
Up next, gay rights. Some Americans are monsters.