Even Conservatives are buying into liberal lies!

[nomadic5]

It's incompatible with democracy.

Next

to one who loves LIES

yeh, sure

 

[Arlette]

to one who loves LIES

yeh, sure

You want a theocracy - move to Iran or Afghanistan.

 

[nomadic5]

You want a theocracy - move to Iran or Afghanistan.

dumb

Are you like 12 years old?

 

[Arlette]

dumb

Are you like 12 years old?

The Constitution is clear on the subject

 

[francoHFW]

LOL

You want data to confirm tht Republicans are greedy swine?

I don't think you'll find much... Perfect chump of

You may not care if your neighbors murder their children

Some of us do.

And OUR view should be law. Children should be protected. The only laws most people seem to agree on are the ones tht PROTECT

human beings, esp the most vulnerable/helpless among us..

haterdoop. Perfect ignoramus chump of the greedy idiot lying GOP...change the channel, idiot. 40 years of giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates have given us the worst inequality, upward mobility, poverty and homelessness ever anywhere in the modern world by far, moron. What you know is hateful divisive un-American GARBAGE

 

[nomadic5]

haterdoop. Perfect ignoramus chump of the greedy idiot lying GOP...change the channel, idiot. 40 years of giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates have given us the worst inequality, upward mobility, poverty and homelessness ever anywhere in the modern world by far, moron. What you know is hateful divisive un-American GARBAGE

I didn't understand this post so I will just say that... sounds like gibberish.

Why shouldn't children be protected from murderers, even if the murderers are th parents. Why should parents have the freedom to murder when no one else does? (a freedom most sane people are not exactly fighting to have or preserve.)

But I guess I am just too reasonable for y'all libs.... which is why you resort to gibberish as seen above... spitting nails because you can' argue

 

[francoHFW]

I didn't understand this post so I will just say that... sounds like gibberish.

Why shouldn't children be protected from murderers, even if the murderers are th parents. Why should parents have the freedom to murder when no one else does? (a freedom most sane people are not exactly fighting to have or preserve.)

But I guess I am just too reasonable for y'all libs.... which is why you resort to gibberish as seen above... spitting nails because you can' argue

40 years of giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates have given us the worst inequality, upward mobility, poverty and homelessness ever anywhere in the modern world by far. Duhhh, ignoramus.

 

[initforme]

Discourage people from having kids. Abortion goes away

 

[whitehall]

Maybe rational society finally realizes that abortion as birth control is an abomination to humanity. The next thing we have to iron out is the definition of rape. That's a good thing for society.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think mostly of the abortion issue.

Libs said there has to be abortion for rape victims and etc

But rape, for one, rarely results in a pregnancy (violent rape, not date rape). And even if a woman does get pregnant from rape, how is doing a violent action in her womb that kills her child going to HELP her over the trauma? She could give the child upfor adoption, make a child-less couple very happy and then go on with her life--GUILT FREE.

you don't commit murder to solve social problems... not in a civilized society.

But even Conservatives here at this forum have said pro-abortion things. They have been brainwashed. It is either murder or it isn't.

Which is it?

Everyone has to answer that Q

and everyone has to stand before God some day and answer for all their decisions, including how they promoted abortion --or did not..

The problem is that government enforcing the laws causes disparity in holding only the FEMALE partner responsible for the cause of the unwanted pregnancy, while doing nothing to hold the MALE partner responsible.

It's interesting to see the argument come up that forcing women to give birth is a form of "involuntary servitude."
The way I would clarify this: the MALE PARTNER is responsible for forcing that on the female partner by
having sex when pregnancy isn't consented to. The govt should hold both parties responsible, not just criminalize or punish the female partner.

The complaint and responsibility should at least be equally with the male partners (having sex when the
consequences of pregnancy are not consensual) without which the pregnancy and abortion would not occur.

 

[nomadic5]

The Constitution is clear on the subject

too bad you're not clear

on much of anything.

And I've learned in all my years following news (not fake news) that libs don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution

unless it can be used to support some dumbass lib cause or another, which means all they care about is their dumbass lib causes like murdering the unborn.

They are on their way to Hell... but apparently, they don't love themselves much

 

[nomadic5]

The problem is that government enforcing the laws causes disparity in holding only the FEMALE partner responsible for the cause of the unwanted pregnancy, while doing nothing to hold the MALE partner responsible.

It's interesting to see the argument come up that forcing women to give birth is a form of "involuntary servitude."
The way I would clarify this: the MALE PARTNER is responsible for forcing that on the female partner by
having sex when pregnancy isn't consented to. The govt should hold both parties responsible, not just criminalize or punish the female partner.

The complaint and responsibility should at least be equally with the male partners (having sex when the
consequences of pregnancy are not consensual) without which the pregnancy and abortion would not occur.

What your comments seem to ignore is thefact that ONLY women can do anything about a pregnancy

whether abort or not abort. The man has NO say in that.

So yeh...

 

[Arlette]

too bad you're not clear

on much of anything.

And I've learned in all my years following news (not fake news) that libs don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution

unless it can be used to support some dumbass lib cause or another, which means all they care about is their dumbass lib causes like murdering the unborn.

They are on their way to Hell... but apparently, they don't love themselves much

The establishment clause is written in plain English. Read it

 

[nomadic5]

The establishment clause is written in plain English. Read it

I've read it. Few things vis a vis American history are more misunderstood than the separation of Church and state issue.

Jefferson wanted the Church to be free of govt interference. He never once said that the state should have ZERO input from Churches or theologians. There is to be no establishment of a STATE religion. Churches impacting govt policy is NOT establishing a particular religion. Too bad you libs

1) don't get that or 2) pretend you don't

If YOU knew our history you would know that we started out as a very Christ-centered nation.

 

[Arlette]

I've read it. Few things vis a vis American history are more misunderstood than the separation of Church and state issue.

Jefferson wanted the Church to be free of govt interference. He never once said that the state should have ZERO input from Churches or theologians. There is to be no establishment of a STATE religion. Churches impacting govt policy is NOT establishing a particular religion. Too bad you libs

1) don't get that or 2) pretend you don't

If YOU knew our history you would know that we started out as a very Christ-centered nation.

The establishment clause is not misunderstood. You just don't like it.

 

[nomadic5]

The establishment clause is not misunderstood. You just don't like it.

Go read the Founders' documents. You show by what you say that you have yet to do that

 

[Arlette]

Go read the Founders' documents. You show by what you say that you have yet to do that

There is no need for that. According to you the founders wanted a theocracy and just forgot to write it down.

 

[Arlette]

Go read the Founders' documents. You show by what you say that you have yet to do that

You are a theocrat and would prefer our country become a theocracy. Fine. That's your opinion. Just don't lie about what the founders intended because they were very explicit when they penned the establishment clause in the first amendment. There is no legal foundation for a theocracy and the notion lacks public support despite the best efforts from Jesus huffers