Liberals On Abortion

[alang1216]

Yeah, um, that's not the same as "there's no tissue, only baby". Dumbass. Once again, pro-lifers understand that "tissue" and "baby" are not mutually exclusive terms used to denote total opposites . . . something they covered in primary school, and which you CLEARLY need to go find an 8th grader to explain to you.

Every baby is tissue, not every tissue is baby. That is what pro-choicers understand but 'zygotes are persons too' types do not.

Simple enough for you?

 

[alang1216]

Add to that the fact that if they get what they want and the Supreme Court over rules Roe V Wade it sends the issue back to the states. There will always be at least one state that keeps abortion legal and safe. That state is mine...

BOOM!!! And isn't that the best and most constitutional way to deal with most if not all domestic issues? Shouldn't state laws serve the needs and reflect the values of their citizens rather than one-size-fits-all WashDC edicts? What works for NY should not be imposed upon New Mexico just because they both start with "New."
People will live where the laws, society, and lifestyle best suit them without big, greasy, central gov't interference.

You make a good point but it may not be appropriate in all cases, we could still have Jim Crow in the South for example.

Would it shock you to know that rational people - people besides you, then - actually REACT to things happening around them, rather than blindly and stubbornly continuing on their way in total oblivion to the world and other people and facts?

I get that you want to believe the childishly simplistic tropes from 3rd grade - apparently the last time you sat in an actual classroom and listened - that "North = non-racist angels" and "South = evil racists forever", and only the benevolent federal government forcing people to do the right thing is responsible for all good things which have ever happened. The real world is a bit different.

From the end of the Civil War until the1960's life for Southern Blacks improved little that I could see. Were there no 'rational' people in the South?

How many years must some people exist,
Before they're allowed to be free?
- bob dylan

 

[Cecilie1200]

If said 'tissue' were found on Mars, headlines would be "Life Found On Mars."

If a bacteria were found on Mars headlines would be "Life Found On Mars." What's your point?

Pretty sure it's that your estimation of what constitutes "life" is full of shit. And you yourself just underscored that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have.

It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property.

The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.”
From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life





“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

And based on the above, every conservative and every right-thinking Liberal is pro-life.





As nearly every abortion is for convenience and nothing more, “one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power” identifies the new breed of Liberal as no more than the old fashioned Fascist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[SAYIT]

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

Anti-choice SJWers do not want compromise or a discussion of the facts. They want to use alternative facts, like your accusation of supporting infanticide.

43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.

• 24 states ban abortion between 13 and 24 weeks LMP.
  • 2 states ban abortion at 20 weeks LMP (18 weeks postfertilization in state law).
  • 17 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
  • 5 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
• 18 states impose a ban at viability.
• 1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (25 weeks LMP onward)

State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

Your premise - that all or even most "Anti-choice SJWers do not want compromise or a discussion of the fact'" - is common anti-lifer BS. Many on this thread are having the very discussion you falsely claim they do not want.

Most Americans - including both pro-life and pro-choice - approve of the right to1st trimester abortion and oppose them thereafter according to a Gallup 2018 poll:

• Six in 10 Americans broadly support abortion rights in first trimester
• Support shrinks to less than one-third in second trimester, further in third

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

Strawman fallacy.

It appears you were unable to find any fallacies.

Must be that the real Liberal who penned this is far brighter and principled than you are, C_Chamber_Pot.



Did you find yourself reflected in this item?

Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Actually, the reason you can't have a rational argument is that you're babbling utter nonsense and thinking that sprinkling it with "scientific" words - which you badly misuse - will somehow make it intelligent.

Pro-lifers don't "claim there is no tissue, only baby". Unlike you, most pro-lifers actually understand what the word "tissue" means in a biological sense, and don't believe that using a different word will somehow automatically mean a different, and mutually exclusive, thing.

"Tissue/Baby demarkation [sic]"? Yeah, pseudo-scientific phrases like this which you invented on the fly are exactly what's standing between you and a rational argument. This literally means nothing.

Likewise, no pro-lifer has ever said "A set of chromosomes is the same as an adult human being", because again, pro-lifers aren't as dirt-ignorant as you are to believe that there's just a set of chromosomes floating around somewhere all by themselves. You're so desperate to denigrate and dismiss unborn children as nothing more than a glob of phlegm you hawked up on the sidewalk that you're incoherent.

First the "Tissue/Baby demarkation" phrase comes from DGS49 and it is a rational description, one he took from Justice Blackmun. If you don't like it take it up with them.

My "set of chromosomes is the same as an adult human being" statement is a rephrasing of statements I've heard many pro-lifers say. They usually phrase it as a fertilized egg is a 'person' because it's DNA is unique. Same difference.

So let me get this straight. You're trumpeting something as "science" based on an agenda-driven LAWYER . . . and another poster to this board? Do you have any idea where either of them got their medical degree from? No? So that's complete and utter shit, and dismissed.

Moving on.

I'm taking it up with YOU, you drooling Neanderthal, because YOU took it upon your massively ignorant self to make an argument based on this nonsensical tripe, and then to defend it as "a rational description", as if you would recognize one of those if it fell on your empty head. So if you have nothing better than "It sounded good to me, but don't expect me to EXPLAIN it!" then we can consider you to have put on your dunce cap and waved the surrender flag.

Your "set of chromosomes" argument - assuming one is generous enough to even call it that - is a badly-incorrect and woefully ignorant attempt to rephrase something you heard and were too pig-stupid to understand. The way they usually phase it is NOT "same difference", you utter mouthbreathing retard. They phrase it differently because IT'S DIFFERENT.

That's it. Get the fuck off my screen. Life is too short to talk to non-sentient lower life forms, and you don't deserve to be acknowledged by real humans.

 

[night_son]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

Add to that the fact that if they get what they want and the Supreme Court over rules Roe V Wade it sends the issue back to the states.

There will always be at least one state that keeps abortion legal and safe.

That state is mine.

The people of my state voted on it in the early 90s. The ballot initiative issue was whether to keep abortion safe and legal in my state no matter what any judge or congress does. The initiative passed with a good margin. I voted with the majority.

There are organizations in America that we women started and fund privately. We have organizations that do nothing but fund abortions. They also provide funds for transportation and lodging. We women have done this quietly. We stopped depending on our society to support reproductive freedom so we have taken matters in our own hands and have been doing it for decades. I personally have been donating to those organizations since the 80s.

So all a person has to do is travel to another state to get their legal abortion.

Then there's the Ireland solution. Coastal states can have medical ships that go out to international waters to perform perfectly legal abortions.

These far right wing radical extremists might be able to make abortion illegal in their states but they can't do that to all the states and women won't stop having abortions.

Abortion cruise?

Abortion was illegal in Ireland for a very long time.

During that time women died needlessly. Even women who were there on vacation from other nations.

The women in Ireland took matters in their own hands. They started a medical ship that took women out to international waters to have totally legal abortions. It went on for decades.

The far right wing radical extremists can pass all the anti women and anti reproductive freedom laws they want. It will never stop abortion.

All they're doing is causing women to die needlessly and ruining countless lives.

"Abortion in Ireland is regulated by the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Abortion is permitted during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality. Abortion services commenced on 1 January 2019 following its legalisation by the aforementioned Act, which became law on 20 December 2018. This law followed a constitutional amendment approved by a referendum in May 2018. This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas (parliament) to legislate for the termination of pregnancies.[1][2][3] The constitutional amendment was signed into law on 18 September 2018.[4]"
Abortion in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia


The new Irish investigation…died of sepsis not due to pregnancy….Ireland changed the law to allow abortion based on misreading the facts.

"The death of Savita Halappanavar led to protests in 2012 calling for changes to Ireland's abortion laws and a highly public investigation by the Health Service Executive. After a miscarriage had been diagnosed, she was denied an abortion because the foetus's heart was still beating.[47][48][49] She developed sepsis and died. The HSE enquiry found that her death was a result of inadequate assessment and monitoring and a failure to adhere to established clinical guidelines, and made several recommendations, including legislative and constitutional change.[50]"
Ibid.


There was no need for a change in the law.

Pro-aborts advancing their agenda through dishonesty. Wait, let me find my shocked face and put it on.

Some of them, the pro-death crowd on this message board at least, double down on their inhuman position on this issue just to antagonize the rest of us and troll for our reactions, our outrage--for kicks. This behavior makes realistic discussions on the issue both next to impossible and not worth engaging in. For others, for those who are either absolutely blinded by the ideology or indoctrinated fully into it, there's also really no point in engaging with them in debate in hopes their minds can be changed, because they cannot . . . at least not on a mob level where the voice of the ideologue driven hive mind is always self-justifying whatever immoral behavior because "everyone else" is doing it too.

So why then bother to respond to these threads at all? Well, at this point--at least in my own case--the motivation is purely reactionary and does serve to alleviate aggravation over the matter in a somewhat constructive way; a sort of therapy, if you will. You must also remember that we live in "upside-down world" now where most all that has always been considered Right and good is now malicious (or bigoted), and all that was taboo (for good reason), malevolent and even downright human evil, is now redefined as just and morally acceptable and quite popular, to boot. Personally, I do believe the pro-death crowd, the argument for argument's sake segment of them in particular, do indeed know the difference between right and wrong, but choose wrong, verbally at least, mostly out of fear of offending prevailing ideology and also because their social sciences programming sort of triggers and keeps them morally in the dark, confused.

A side note on morality. Moral relativists such as the pro-death activists, for example, believe by and large for some reason that if a person has not lead a flawless life of the moral exemplar, has not been an unblemished beacon . . . a moral paragon, he or she is then unable to take moral stances on issues such as abortion without being branded an instant hypocrite. The moral relativists' greatest mistake is in their belief that people are either flawless moral paragons or lost sinners, with no in-between shades being possible. So either one lives a morally perfect life (which no one can) or one surrenders all to the darkness of absolute sin encouraged by all forms of media and entertainment and academia of our modern Age. What they fail to comprehend is that a person can be a devout Christian and still be flawed. Of course, they also miss that without fundamental, overarching moral tenets or rules of good and bad behavior, their own moral codes breakdown immediately, both philosophically and in real world practice.

 

[WillPower]

So how about you abortion lovers wake up one morning to read everybody in Canada is dead.....37M gone. And then you read everybody in Australia is dead....24M gone. 61,000,000 people....that's how many babies you've murdered thanks to Roe v Wade......you're HITLER x 10

 

[Taz]

Actually everyone of you running around celebrating the more babies murdered the better. Should've been aborted themselves. You don't deserve to enjoy a life.

Nobody is celebrating that kind of thing, you're delusional.

Explain lighting up the new world trade center, celebrating the passing of infanticide.

Explain wtf you're talking about first.

W hen new York passed abortion up to birth. They celebrated by lighting up the new world trade center in pink. You really don't know what your party represents, do you?

Celebrating mass murder, yet Americans think themselves better than the Nazis.

You mean like the invasion of Iraq?

 

[SAYIT]

From the end of the Civil War until the1960's life for Southern Blacks improved little that I could see. Were there no 'rational' people in the South?

How many years must some people exist, Before they're allowed to be free? - bob dylan

In case you didn't realize it, your perception that "life for Southern Blacks improved little" is just opinion that serves your narrative... not fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Not many abortions were performed before Roe silly. So that likely means once abortion is illegal, few will happen.

Okay, now I am convinced you are stupid. I mean, do you actually believe that?

A little history lesson for you. Before Roe, Abortion was commonplace. Doctors performed them, wrote something else down on the charts, and then insurance signed off on it. Easy-peasy.

Here's a big hint for you. Look up the birth rates before and after Roe. The numbers are the same in 1974 as they were in 1972.

Your line of thinking goes like this...since a few women will seek abortions even if it were illegal, we might as well keep it legal.

WTF!

No, my line of thinking is, that if you have a law that you can't possibly enforce, and that most people don't want to be the law, you can't enforce it.

We've had 45 years of glorious, legal abortion. Women of child bearing age in this country have never known a time when they couldn't end an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[JoeB131]

“Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have.

It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

And he was so proud of himself that he went right home and raped Sally Hemmings, because that bitch was his property!

Just to put it all in the proper perspective, I'm sure she'd have loved to be able to abort a few of Jefferson's rape babies.

 

[BlindBoo]

Abortion is legalized murder. It is far past the time it was outlawed.

And surely you support a vast socialist/government support networks and programs to help support and raise all those unwanted children, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have.

It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

And he was so proud of himself that he went right home and raped Sally Hemmings, because that bitch was his property!

Just to put it all in the proper perspective, I'm sure she'd have loved to be able to abort a few of Jefferson's rape babies.

As is the case with so very many of your hate-filled posts, there is no proof of this anti-American meme.

"The media was swept up by the story. It’s so compelling, so seductive, to a society consumed by racial matters, that even the Wall Street Journal, which has diligently maintained a critical eye on the claims of Thomas Jefferson’s paternity, had inadvertently stamped its imprimatur onto the tale. Much to the distress of some of the editors, the statement "DNA testing would reveal that our nation's third president had almost certainly fathered several [slave] children,” slipped by in a Leisure & Arts section book review, demonstrating just how deeply ingrained the “myth of Tom and Sally” has become ["Poisoned Quills" March 8, 2006, p.D14].

In such an environment, Annette Gordon-Reed could make almost any sensational claim --- on the narrowest or most twisted of evidence --- about a relationship between Thomas Jefferson and a female slave on his plantation, and be assured that she would find an excited reception and little scrutiny, particularly as the book’s publishing schedule also coincided with the election of a popular president of mixed heritage. Rare is the full-length article on The Hemingses of Monticello that fails to draw any number of connections to President Barak Obama, and Gordon-Reed has both written and made public addresses on the genuine significance of Americans electing an African-American president.

As for the sticky matter of how she moves back and forth at will between point "A" (does not prove) and point "B" (fathered everybody), despite any meaningful change in the physical evidence, Gordon-Reed is content in the knowledge that even if more people catch on to the shenanigans, she will always find a welcoming audience. The members of the various awards committees certainly don’t appear to have noticed this. Or, perhaps, if some did, it was of no particular concern to them."

- See more at: Annette Gordon-Reed and the Jefferson DNA Myth | History News Network



Is there anyone....including yourself.....that you don't hate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is legalized murder. It is far past the time it was outlawed.

And surely you support a vast socialist/government support networks and programs to help support and raise all those unwanted children, right?

By changing the subject, are you admitting that gipper's post is correct and accurate?

Seems so.


Why are you unconcerned about the issue of murder?

Perhaps this is why:

...real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

 

[Leo123]

Abortion is legalized murder. It is far past the time it was outlawed.

And surely you support a vast socialist/government support networks and programs to help support and raise all those unwanted children, right?

By changing the subject, are you admitting that gipper's post is correct and accurate?

Seems so.


Why are you unconcerned about the issue of murder?

Perhaps this is why:

...real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

"Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is legalized murder. It is far past the time it was outlawed.

And surely you support a vast socialist/government support networks and programs to help support and raise all those unwanted children, right?

By changing the subject, are you admitting that gipper's post is correct and accurate?

Seems so.


Why are you unconcerned about the issue of murder?

Perhaps this is why:

...real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

"Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder"

This thread, Leo, goes further: it marks them as homicidal psychopaths.

 

[BlindBoo]

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

Anti-choice SJWers do not want compromise or a discussion of the facts. They want to use alternative facts, like your accusation of supporting infanticide.

43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.

• 24 states ban abortion between 13 and 24 weeks LMP.
  • 2 states ban abortion at 20 weeks LMP (18 weeks postfertilization in state law).
  • 17 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
  • 5 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
• 18 states impose a ban at viability.
• 1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (25 weeks LMP onward)

State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

Your premise - that all or even most "Anti-choice SJWers do not want compromise or a discussion of the fact'" - is common anti-lifer BS. Many on this thread are having the very discussion you falsely claim they do not want.

Most Americans - including both pro-life and pro-choice - approve of the right to1st trimester abortion and oppose them thereafter according to a Gallup 2018 poll:

• Six in 10 Americans broadly support abortion rights in first trimester
• Support shrinks to less than one-third in second trimester, further in third

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The "Most Americans" you speak of are not what I call SJWer's either. SJWer's are not rational and resort to spewing the same lie, time after time regardless of how many time their lie is debunked. We've had the discussion and a compromise was reached. This is a fight to continue or undo that compromise.