Jewish couple was rejected as foster parents because of their religion. The future Project 2025

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
it is for all women's constitutional rights to do with their bodies as they will .

Again ... there are no medical procedures listed in the Constitution and therefore abortion is not a 'Constitutional right'.

Yes, by not allowing women to have dominion over their bodies they become slaves. I believe the 14th Amendment would then apply.

Why didn't they argue The 14th during The Supreme Court cases? 😃

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

Trump lies and gaslights to get votes. Remember building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? That worked like a charm didn't it?

He did build walls until Democrat Congress cut off the funding. And Mexico was chastised with the new trade agreements. 😊

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lapidoth

originally posted by: quintessentone
Don't be fooled.

“We proudly stand for families and Life,” states the new platform’s brief section on abortion. “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” (The odd capitalization reflects, as has been reported, that Trump personally edited the document.) In other words, the platform maintains that embryos are people with constitutional rights and must be protected under the law. This idea is the core of a radical anti-abortion movement that seeks to bestow “personhood” rights on fertilized eggs.

www.msn.com...

I am a fertilized egg. At what point did I become a person? When is a human not a person?

A fertilized egg with canine DNA is a what? A frog? A cat? No. It is a dog. A fertilized egg with human DNA is a human. And the argument people are trying to make is that there is a point in which a human crosses a threshold of nonperson to person, but no one can agree on when that is, exactly. Probably because it’s an inane, moot, non-answerable question, because a human is a person and a person is human and DNA code determines whether a person is human or not and that happens at fertilization.

The problem is not that this is true. The problem is the inconvenience this creates when we must carry out the implications of this truth along its full trajectory.

Why is the only way to deal with this issue is to take away a woman's right to make decisions about her body?

Roe vs Wade was overturned while Biden was President. 😀

Correct. Which is why it will be a major referendum this election cycle.

It is nearly all the country will be talking about through November, and past it. It's a yuge deal for women who are losing their hard earned rights.

We'll see who they blame.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lapidoth

originally posted by: quintessentone
Don't be fooled.

“We proudly stand for families and Life,” states the new platform’s brief section on abortion. “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” (The odd capitalization reflects, as has been reported, that Trump personally edited the document.) In other words, the platform maintains that embryos are people with constitutional rights and must be protected under the law. This idea is the core of a radical anti-abortion movement that seeks to bestow “personhood” rights on fertilized eggs.

www.msn.com...

I am a fertilized egg. At what point did I become a person? When is a human not a person?

A fertilized egg with canine DNA is a what? A frog? A cat? No. It is a dog. A fertilized egg with human DNA is a human. And the argument people are trying to make is that there is a point in which a human crosses a threshold of nonperson to person, but no one can agree on when that is, exactly. Probably because it’s an inane, moot, non-answerable question, because a human is a person and a person is human and DNA code determines whether a person is human or not and that happens at fertilization.

The problem is not that this is true. The problem is the inconvenience this creates when we must carry out the implications of this truth along its full trajectory.

Why is the only way to deal with this issue is to take away a woman's right to make decisions about her body?

Roe vs Wade was overturned while Biden was President. 😀

Correct. Which is why it will be a major referendum this election cycle.

It is nearly all the country will be talking about through November, and past it. It's a yuge deal for women who are losing their hard earned rights.

We'll see who they blame.

YES!!! Let the economic and social misery go undecided !!!! Set the priorities and let the bankruptcies preside !! 😀😊

a reply to: quintessentone

My question was, is it someone you care about the opinion of.


Is this too difficult a question?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lapidoth

originally posted by: quintessentone
Don't be fooled.

“We proudly stand for families and Life,” states the new platform’s brief section on abortion. “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” (The odd capitalization reflects, as has been reported, that Trump personally edited the document.) In other words, the platform maintains that embryos are people with constitutional rights and must be protected under the law. This idea is the core of a radical anti-abortion movement that seeks to bestow “personhood” rights on fertilized eggs.

www.msn.com...

I am a fertilized egg. At what point did I become a person? When is a human not a person?

A fertilized egg with canine DNA is a what? A frog? A cat? No. It is a dog. A fertilized egg with human DNA is a human. And the argument people are trying to make is that there is a point in which a human crosses a threshold of nonperson to person, but no one can agree on when that is, exactly. Probably because it’s an inane, moot, non-answerable question, because a human is a person and a person is human and DNA code determines whether a person is human or not and that happens at fertilization.

The problem is not that this is true. The problem is the inconvenience this creates when we must carry out the implications of this truth along its full trajectory.

Why is the only way to deal with this issue is to take away a woman's right to make decisions about her body?

I said nothing about a woman’s choice to end the life of a human.

I said the truth is often inconvenient.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
it is for all women's constitutional rights to do with their bodies as they will .

Again ... there are no medical procedures listed in the Constitution and therefore abortion is not a 'Constitutional right'.

Yes, by not allowing women to have dominion over their bodies they become slaves. I believe the 14th Amendment would then apply.

Why didn't they argue The 14th during The Supreme Court cases? 😃

They did the first time around to get Roe v Wade in place and it worked. You know the rest of what happened. If Biden tweaks the Supreme Court in the right way, women's 14th Amendment rights to liberty and dominion over their own bodies will become an inalienable right or rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
it is for all women's constitutional rights to do with their bodies as they will .

Again ... there are no medical procedures listed in the Constitution and therefore abortion is not a 'Constitutional right'.

Yes, by not allowing women to have dominion over their bodies they become slaves. I believe the 14th Amendment would then apply.

Why didn't they argue The 14th during The Supreme Court cases? 😃

They did the first time around to get Roe v Wade in place and it worked. You know the rest of what happened. If Biden tweaks the Supreme Court in the right way, women's 14th Amendment rights to liberty and dominion over their own bodies will become an inalienable right or rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

just as long as nobody worries about the rights the life inside the mother has. But who knows, maybe 47th trimester abortions will be a thing soon.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

Trump lies and gaslights to get votes. Remember building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? That worked like a charm didn't it?

He did build walls until Democrat Congress cut off the funding. And Mexico was chastised with the new trade agreements. 😊

Trump still ran up the national debt by $7.8 trillion in only 4 years of taxpayer money, on what?

www.politifact.com...

Didn't the GOP via Trump recently not allow a border bill to go through so Trump has a reason to garner votes?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

It is the stance of someone that counts in the Christian community, therefore you should care what he and other Christians of true faith have to say.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Justices are going to be tweaked by Biden, stay tuned.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
it is for all women's constitutional rights to do with their bodies as they will .

Again ... there are no medical procedures listed in the Constitution and therefore abortion is not a 'Constitutional right'.

Yes, by not allowing women to have dominion over their bodies they become slaves. I believe the 14th Amendment would then apply.

Why didn't they argue The 14th during The Supreme Court cases? 😃

They did the first time around to get Roe v Wade in place and it worked. You know the rest of what happened. If Biden tweaks the Supreme Court in the right way, women's 14th Amendment rights to liberty and dominion over their own bodies will become an inalienable right or rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

just as long as nobody worries about the rights the life inside the mother has. But who knows, maybe 47th trimester abortions will be a thing soon.

Taking away a woman's right to have dominion over her body is not the right way to solve this issue. GOP offers women nothing except slavery.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Justices are going to be tweaked by Biden, stay tuned.

No they aren't. 😀

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Justices are going to be tweaked by Biden, stay tuned.

Do elaborate.

I always enjoy hearing how sitting administrations try to violate separation of powers.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Justices are going to be tweaked by Biden, stay tuned.

Do elaborate.

I always enjoy hearing how sitting administrations try to violate separation of powers.

Again, as I have to continually repeat things here, "stay tuned".

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
it is for all women's constitutional rights to do with their bodies as they will .

Again ... there are no medical procedures listed in the Constitution and therefore abortion is not a 'Constitutional right'.

Yes, by not allowing women to have dominion over their bodies they become slaves. I believe the 14th Amendment would then apply.

Why didn't they argue The 14th during The Supreme Court cases? 😃

They did the first time around to get Roe v Wade in place and it worked. You know the rest of what happened. If Biden tweaks the Supreme Court in the right way, women's 14th Amendment rights to liberty and dominion over their own bodies will become an inalienable right or rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

just as long as nobody worries about the rights the life inside the mother has. But who knows, maybe 47th trimester abortions will be a thing soon.

Taking away a woman's right to have dominion over her body is not the right way to solve this issue. GOP offers women nothing except slavery.

and pretending that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is paramount, but not when you are talking about the unborn seems a bit disingenuous. That clump of cells is a person. It's amazing that we have gone from the original intent of the 14th amendment, to fighting hard for the right to kill. There are reasons abortions have to happen. And if they were safe and rare, as the argument started out being, I doubt there would be much push back. But now that it's just a form of birth control for lazy women who didn't have the time to deal with their "problem" in a timely fashion, the entire idea has been perverted.

It does make it easier to not believe in God, as I doubt he is happy about this, but the good news for all is God doesn't need you to believe in him to exist.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: quintessentone

Why didn't they argue the 14th again then?

Did any dissenting opinions from The Justices say anything that you are saying?

The case is over.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Justices are going to be tweaked by Biden, stay tuned.

Do elaborate.

I always enjoy hearing how sitting administrations try to violate separation of powers.

Again, as I have to continually repeat things here, "stay tuned".

So you don't know.

Go figure......

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

It is the stance of someone that counts in the Christian community, therefore you should care what he and other Christians of true faith have to say.

I already said I didn't even know who that person is.

And it would appear that you also do not care what they have to say.

But want me to care.



I'm curious, do you bother thinking before you post?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

It is the stance of someone that counts in the Christian community, therefore you should care what he and other Christians of true faith have to say.

I already said I didn't even know who that person is.

And it would appear that you also do not care what they have to say.

But want me to care.



I'm curious, do you bother thinking before you post?

Here's another Christian slant on Trump.

"At the present moment, our movement is divided," said Mike Evans, who helped mobilize evangelical support for Trump in 2016, in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

"The average evangelical Christian is a faith-based person. Donald Trump does not personify biblical values. So, although they very much admire his policies, they honestly don't admire the person," Evans continued, per The Jerusalem Post. "He does not have the support of the evangelicals that he did."

www.businessinsider.com...

I absolutely think, you just don't like the thoughts. Here are other thinkers...

Many Christian leaders and thinkers decried the attack on the Capitol, but few went as far as Moore; he laid the blame squarely at the feet of a man many evangelicals believe to be their hero: President Trump. “This week we watched an insurrection of domestic terrorists,” Moore wrote, “incited and fomented by the President of the United States.” When asked about that statement during an interview from his book-lined Brentwood, Tenn., home office a week later, he doubles down. “He called them to the rally. He told them that the future of our country was at stake, that the election had been stolen from him and that weakness could not be an answer,” Moore says. “And after the attack took place with our Vice President under siege, with people calling for him to be executed, the President continued to attack the Vice President on Twitter. It’s indefensible.”

“It’s–it’s been lonely,” says Moore of his stance. “But I think many people have experienced that sort of loneliness over the past four or five years. I don’t know a single family that’s not been divided over President Trump, and politics generally. I don’t know a single church that hasn’t been.” Moore’s opinions are not new. He has been a Never Trumper since at least 2015 and scoffs at the notion put forward by many evangelical leaders that Trump converted to Christianity just before being elected. “It is not a position that I find rational,” he says. “Especially when Mr. Trump has been very clear about his own spiritual journey, or lack thereof.”

Moore thinks reports of the death of American Christianity are overblown. But as increasing numbers of Americans tell pollsters that they are not affiliated with any kind of religion, and in the wake of Trump, he wants the church to take a harder look at its priorities. “The biggest threat facing the American church right now is not secularism but cynicism. That’s why we have to recover the credibility of our witness,” he says. It’s one thing to dismiss the teachings of his faith as strange and unlikely, he notes, but “if people walk away from the church because they don’t believe that we really believe what we say, then that’s a crisis.” This is what he fears will be the legacy of an era in which people of faith put so much faith in a President. “There is an entire generation of people who are growing cynical that religion is just a means to some other end.”

time.com...

Don't get fooled again.