Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
If that works in your mind...run with it!So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
That's close to the truth I see.
If that works in your mind...run with it!So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
That's close to the truth I see.
It has always bothered me, the down right hatred of the unborn that a woman causes!If that works in your mind...run with it!So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
That's close to the truth I see.
Really I'm thanking you. Not too many folks abandon an ideology for what they believe is correct.
Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
It has always bothered me, the down right hatred of the unborn that a woman causes!If that works in your mind...run with it!So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!Yup, no bias like you say.
Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.
Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one.
In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.
That's close to the truth I see.
Really I'm thanking you. Not too many folks abandon an ideology for what they believe is correct.
Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.
Which is why I gave you my opinion.And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
And I gave you mine....Duh!Which is why I gave you my opinion.And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Duh.
How nice for you.And I gave you mine....Duh!Which is why I gave you my opinion.And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Duh.
Because I can!How nice for you.And I gave you mine....Duh!Which is why I gave you my opinion.And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
Read more at washingtontimes.com
Duh.
So why were pissing and moaning about mine?
Ah, so basically just text-based masturbation then.Because I can!How nice for you.And I gave you mine....Duh!Which is why I gave you my opinion.And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing. This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.
Duh.
So why were pissing and moaning about mine?
Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.
They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.
Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.
Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.
But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.
Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.
There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.
Big government gets to declare murder is murder.
Big government also didn't make the gal have sex.
(Personally I'm against outlawing abortion on my small government beliefs but I'll argue).
