-->
@ILikePie5
This was possible because of one person: Donald John Trump
lol right, because no other republican president in this era would have appointed pro life justices.
You are obviously on his payroll.
Supreme Court has overturned Roe V Wade
Posts
Total:
168
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you were in a burning building, would you rather save a plate of 15 embryo's or 1 toddler. You can only save one (of the two)
-->
@Vader
The overturning was on embryonic and biological grounds, not biblical ones.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
lol right, because no other republican president in this era would have appointed pro life justices.You are obviously on his payroll.
I would’ve said the same thing if the President was any other Republican cause news flash: the President nominate Supreme Court Justices.
And believe it or not, I haven’t given a penny to his campaign nor received anything. Someone’s clearly salty.
-->
@Vader
In Christianity it does, but that does not Christianity should not be the law of the land
Please point me to where “Christianity” or “religion” are mentioned in the opinion. I’ll wait.
-->
@Greyparrot
@badger
Ah, you're trying to bait me into being your friend. No thanks.
Badger’s dating Parrot. Two love animals
-->
@ILikePie5
Badger is based as fuck
-->
@ILikePie5
Didn't Bush accidentally appoint a liberal judge?
-->
@Greyparrot
Didn't Bush accidentally appoint a liberal judge?
You mean John Roberts? Yup.
If I haven't stated my opinion, I am Pro-choice.
The reason is because in the previous period, the fetus is no more than just a collection of organic matter no less living than a brain tumor. I am literally saying that because there is nearly no way that a fetus 1 week old can keep itself living outside the mother after being pulled out, at least practically. You don't feed the fetus something so that they keep on living on its own without the mother or some specialized liquid(and if anything, the wider utilization of this liquid is better than outlawing abortion in all terms).
Unless a fetus can sustain life external of the mother, without the usage of specialized liquid, in Earth's atmosphere, there is no meaningful reason to call it "alive". As a result, aborting a fetus before it can be sustained as such is not even murder. It is as murderous as poking a corpse. Surely you can hook corpses with gas, tubes, wires, etc and they may or may not be able to open their eyes with the littlest amount of consciousness, but it would be again meaningless to declare a corpse alive.
To declare the expunging of something never even reaching the "alive" stage as a murder is simply absurd.
Let's just say, before the fetus has a heartbeat, that is when it cannot be considered alive due to there being nearly no way of otherwise keeping it alive. Any abortion before that simply should not be considered murder due to them never being alive even.
The law recognizes life only after birth, you don't give a 2-week old embryo a certificate for existing. fetuses can do nearly nothing in the womb, why is this even an issue?
-->
@ILikePie5
I would’ve said the same thing if the President was any other Republican
Then this was clearly the result of the republican party's positioning, not the work of one man.
-->
@Vader
Every cell of pregnant woman is an organism of her body ergo the fetus/baby is also an organism of the pregnant mother to be.
All else is
false or false narrative. Virtual rapists { immoral perverted thinkers }
thrive on creating a false narrative regarding truth, and sticking their virtual noses in womens bodily business without their consent. Sic-n-head.
All of this stems from patriarchal religious non-sense Sad :--(
-->
@ILikePie5
Souter too.
-->
@Double_R
Then this was clearly the result of the republican party's positioning, not the work of one man.
Donald Trump is the face of the GOP, and his nominees directly led to this. Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy were fairly liberal on social issues. Even John Roberts is liberal on Roe. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are clearly very conservative on social issues. So actually yes, Trump is responsible for the decision. God knows who people like Romney would’ve chosen.
-->
@Greyparrot
Wayyyy ahead of you
-->
@ILikePie5
I beat you!
-->
@Vader
2. I do not consider this a W. I am pro life, however, our government should have no say in what a person can do with their bodies. It is simply not anyone's decision besides that person. To deny person that liberty violates the freedoms promised in our constitution. I would much rather have a government that let things happen that a government that is actively restricting peoples liberties
well stated
-->
@3RU7AL
A cat has more rights to life than a human fetus. Our government serves cats clearly.
-->
@thett3
there would be a majority on the Supreme Court that respected the law and the constitution, which clearly is silent on abortion.
nobody ever argued that "abortion" is explicitly protected under the constitution
the argument accepted by the court was "a right to privacy"
specifically regarding "birth control" - which was extended to include "abortion"
-->
@Greyparrot
A cat has more rights to life than a human fetus. Our government serves cats clearly.
animals are property and should be treated as property
until an "animal rights" amendment is added
-->
@3RU7AL
My cat, my choice. Except it isn't. When I have a right to set my cat that I own on fire, then we can extend the same rights to women to do what they want to their fetuses with razor blades and vacuums.
Clearly the cat wants to die in my eyes, and euthanasia on demand with implied consent should be a constitutional right for both fetuses and cats. And also old people that we don't like.
-->
@Greyparrot
well, one of the key points is that the cat and the geriatric are not physically inside your body
-->
@3RU7AL
I would rather a cat or an old person be inside my body where I can't smell the thing. Or have a cat claw my face while I am sleeping. That is a direct assault on my body, and the state should allow me to cut up my cat and vacuum up the remains freely. It is my right.
My choice, my cat.
-->
@Greyparrot
allow me to cut up my cat
just like you can with a cow or a pig
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly.
SPCA needs to be abolished in a free society.
My cat, my choice.
Not to randomly appear but--
its almost like Greyparrot thinks kids (and by internal logic fetuses) are property of the mother - instead of thinking about it as literally APART of the mother. A separate consciousness does not exist for a while.
On a separate note, I just wanted to leave a comparison to the sort of thinking that a fetus WILL BECOME a baby.
A pedophile would love that argument, I mean that child WILL BECOME an adult, right?
Its almost like time changes things and the properties which they hold changes as time goes on.... hmmm, as if, I mean- IT COULDN'T BE???
I am just arguing that a cat should have less rights to life than a human fetus. Not more.
Abolish SPCA; and I don't want to see anymore of their goddamn fundraising commercials.
-->
@Vader
in science as well
-->
@Theweakeredge
Every cell of pregnant woman is an organism of her body ergo the fetus/baby is also an organism of the pregnant mother to be.