Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

So their parents hold the rights over their life between the ages of conception and majority?

I see where you're going, so lets just put a quick end to it.

Is child abuse illegal?

How about sexual abuse?

Does the penalty depend on the age of the child?

If yes why is that?

Because little person owns their own life?

I've no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: JinMI

Now it's back to the states, where she said:

No man. Again, that's not what she said.
You even bolded it!

in a process that included state legislatures and the courts

Then you just go and start gaslighting again.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Nice try. I'm not moving away from anything. It's just really hardfor you to admit that your beloved SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right from The People that The Peopleenjoyed for 50 years. They didn't just take it from women, they took it from the men too, they took it from families too.

“Shall not be infringed” like other stuff?

But you've got a bunch of legislators that can't decide when the woman's life becomes more important than the fetus' life, and doctors are afraid to pull the trigger.

Sounds like cooler heads need to prevail; compromises reached; in order to avoid this mush mouth current way of conducting abortions.

I propose that the best way to reach that goal is for people to stop being self centered and stop vilafing the "other".

But what do I know; maybe it is better for this issue to be left in the perpetual gray area, always argued over, walls put up, hatreds formed... who actually cares about those mothers and those doctors when they can be rightest in an argument.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Now it's back to the states, where she said:

No man. Again, that's not what she said.
You even bolded it!

in a process that included state legislatures and the courts

Then you just go and start gaslighting again.

No?

I'll do it again then maybe you'll hear it better? IDK

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

Then you just go and start gaslighting again.

Only in your world can a presentation of facts and quotes from someone else, whom I believe you agree with, could this be construed as gaslighting.

Or it's yet another term you don't fully understand as that seems to also be part of your MO.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

So their parents hold the rights over their life between the ages of conception and majority?

I see where you're going, so lets just put a quick end to it.

Is child abuse illegal?

How about sexual abuse?

Does the penalty depend on the age of the child?

If yes why is that?

Because little person owns their own life?

I've no idea what you're talking about.

carewemust asked who onws the life of the little person; my answer was that perhaps the little person owns their own life.

You proced to argue that the parent holds the rights over the little person; until it opened the door to sanctioning a mothers right to abort that little person that the mother supposedly owned.

But now I think we are closer to agreeing that the little person owns their own life.

a reply to: Degradation33

The only thing that changed was a reinterpretation of liberty with the mothers being deemed less important than that of the fetus... by a ridiculously conservative Supreme Court

That's exactly it.

So ridiculously conservative that Alito actually felt it appropriate to cite a 1600's witchcraft trials judge just to prove how deeply rooted and religious ingrained the sentiment of a woman's place is.

a reply to: dandandat2

Ah, gotcha.

This argument starts to get messy and muddy when we start talking about ownership.

Staying on what you are trying to argue, I brought up child abuse laws to why your position is untenable.

What is consistently ignored in these discussions is any part of a father even if they were just a "donor" so to speak.

a reply to: JinMI

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

State legislators aren't being included. They're in charge! The right has been revoked from The People and the liberties the rights bestowed handed over to legislators.

That's not what Ginsburg was hoping for.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dandandat2

What is consistently ignored in these discussions is any part of a father even if they were just a "donor" so to speak.

Agreed.

But people can't even have an honest discussion about the rights of a mother and the rights of a child. Bring up the rights of a father just makes the issue that much harder to discuss.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

State legislators aren't being included. They're in charge! The right has been revoked from The People and the liberties the rights bestowed handed over to legislators.

That's not what Ginsburg was hoping for.

How do legislators gain their power?

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dandandat2

What is consistently ignored in these discussions is any part of a father even if they were just a "donor" so to speak.

Agreed.

But people can't even have an honest discussion about the rights of a mother and the rights of a child. Bring up the rights of a father just makes the issue that much harder to discuss.

As I said earlier, this boils down to a 3 sided opinion that are vastly different views.

Religious, legal and political.

Which revolves around the question of when is a fetus a human. Usually I ask the question of will this fetus be anything other than human as clarification.

But yes, this discussion will never reach a conclusion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

State legislators aren't being included. They're in charge! The right has been revoked from The People and the liberties the rights bestowed handed over to legislators.

That's not what Ginsburg was hoping for.

Tell me Sookie, are state legislatures different from federal legislatures?

Why would RGB mention state legislatures by name if she didn't mean state legislatures?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Degradation33

The only thing that changed was a reinterpretation of liberty with the mothers being deemed less important than that of the fetus... by a ridiculously conservative Supreme Court

That's exactly it.

So ridiculously conservative that Alito actually felt it appropriate to cite a 1600's witchcraft trials judge just to prove how deeply rooted and religious ingrained the sentiment of a woman's place is.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly where that man's head is. Somewhere in a distant reality where they still burn witches.

But Goodie Footstool was just overcome with ergot poisoning from the LSA Bread.

Alito, in his draft opinion, invokes “eminent common-law authorities,” including Hale, to show how abortion was viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act. “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’” Alito wrote.

Even before “quickening” — defined by Alito as “the first felt movement of the fetus in the womb, which usually occurs between the 16th and 18th week of pregnancy” — Hale believed an abortion could qualify as homicide. “Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman ‘with child’ a ‘potion’ to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was ‘murder’ because the potion was given ‘unlawfully to destroy her child within her,’” Alito wrote.

Flimsy precedence and justification for making a primarily religious decision, IMO.

Isn't this also the Judge that ruled women can't be raped by their husbands? Why not just cite Ragnar Redbeard if you want to cite the most misogynistic person ever.

Why don't you just go ahead and write " nanny nanny boo boo"? It would look the same as your childish jabs.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: BlueBaby
See, your comment is unreasonable and without thought. Thoroughly childish. How about getting real, act like an adult, not a name calling child with nothing to input but bs.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: BlueBaby

I'm a Democrat, and I don't lie

If true, you would be the only one ever.

Not my fault the truth hurts you.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: carewemust

Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

trump just alienated a yuge segment of Evangelicals because he isn't for a total ban. I wonder if Catholics feel the same way.

trump isn't stupid, he know this roe-wade ban isn't helping the GOP at all.

www.seattletimes.com...

Wow, sometimes we do things that aren’t politically driven, simply what’s right.

Imagine that.

No wait, you can’t imagine that lol.

Everything the lefties do is for power and $. And to tear apart society.

Partial and post birth abortion. Child mutilation for the trans gang. Child grooming and drag shows for kindergarteners, to appease the pedos. Open borders to keep the flow flowing, for child trafficking and the child sex trade.
What a nasty, unredeemable bunch.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: carewemust
4.) President Joe Biden is pro-LifeChoice: content.time.com...

He is an abortion supporter and should be officially excommunicated from the church. Technically, he has excommunicated himself. All a Catholic has to do is support abortion and they are 'excommunicated' on their own. But I'd like to see it official from the Bishops office. Maybe that would shake him up enough that he'd wake up a little.

The Catholic Church is changing how it views what the Bible says. The Church now says Men who boink other Men will no longer be condemned. Same for women. LGBTQ is acceptable, according to the Pope's revised interpretation of the Holy Book.

Source: www.reuters.com...

They use Jesus as a prop and want to say "Jesus loved everybody regardless" blah blah. Totally ignoring the well documented vengeance and wrath of God against these sex obsessed freaks.

What happened to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

What happened to giving life a chance, ever notice all the people for abortion, have already been born?

Why don't they abort themselves, if they're so for it?

originally posted by: BlueBaby
Why don't you just go ahead and write " nanny nanny boo boo"? It would look the same as your childish jabs.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: BlueBaby
See, your comment is unreasonable and without thought. Thoroughly childish. How about getting real, act like an adult, not a name calling child with nothing to input but bs.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: BlueBaby

I'm a Democrat, and I don't lie

If true, you would be the only one ever.

Not my fault the truth hurts you.

What’s childish about calling you out?

Try harder because if this is the best you got, you’re in trouble.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

You understand that this is where we are NOW, right?

State legislators aren't being included. They're in charge! The right has been revoked from The People and the liberties the rights bestowed handed over to legislators.

That's not what Ginsburg was hoping for.

Tell me Sookie, are state legislatures different from federal legislatures?

Why would RGB mention state legislatures by name if she didn't mean state legislatures?

The operative word here is "included". RBG never recommended that women's rights be stripped from them and then handed over for legislators to manage.