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.
You seem to now be wondering aimlessly through this discussion V...it IS going to be taken up with the SC, that is why it was so important that I get you [or anyone] to claim "SAYS WHO" was the SC...so when the decision is overturned/reversed you will no longer want pretend their decision is the correct one as you do now.Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.
Capable but unwilling. I saw nonsense reports like this in college. If it were A Tale of Two Cities, the beginning might read "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, but does not necessarily reflect the view of the author". To be fair, if others on the USMB back you up, I will read and assess the report.You sound like Trump. Cannot read beyond a few sentences? Don’t like details, yet you like to make childish conclusions?The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdfView attachment 269109Facts or link please.Who?
Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.
The Gender Gap report has been sponsored by the World Economic Forum for a dozen years.
Here are words you missed:
“The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a framework for capturing the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. This year’s edition of the report benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity on a scale from 0 (disparity) to 1 (parity) across four thematic dimensions—the subindexes Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.”
The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. USA has over 80% men in Congress and never a woman President.
If you think the report is bogus, go ahead and show us how, but first READ the relevant sections and provide statistical or conceptual evidence. Are you capable of that?
Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
I see the privacy argument has gone by the waysideFrank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
SAYS WHO?Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
SAYS WHO?Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never willSAYS WHO?Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
You may be right, but that still doesn't make or prove abortion is a constitutional right...never did never willSAYS WHO?Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
Says me and my family. And, we are comforted by the fact that no woman has ever been incarcerated and convicted of anything for getting an abortion, and it will not happen in the future, either. But if the SC overturns Row Vs Wade, and if California then outlaws abortion, and if the over the counter drugs available in Europe that induce abortion at home become unavailable, be sure to send me a PM. As for the privacy issue, I really don't give a rat's ass. We are pro-choice, and that is here to stay.
Not one of your posts were relevant to the constitutionality of abortion, they were just about what you wanted.You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
Interesting. But, irrelevant to me.
That's a worthy plea, but it should be amended/emended to recognize that the sanctimony has changed hands and realized that the last line makes it nothing more than a name calling rant borne out of frustration, otherwise it is a fine description/example of the need for mercy and understanding." Private Property Of The Mother "
* Pleading For Exception From Exploitation *
The histrionics from sanctimonious puritans seeking a uniform fetish to quell their anxiety about mortality as they plead contentions for innocence , fail to recognize that the realism is less than compelling for those of us who have lived among their damned dirty apes .
Not one of your posts were relevant to the constitutionality of abortion, they were just about what you wanted.You're mistaken, Vandal'shandle. The truth is right and correct always. Aborting a baby is bad for humans, in particular, women. The truth that cannot go away is the truth that a fetus does not have his mother's DNA except for bits and pieces, same with the father. Some of those DNA markers cross over and give a child a trait never before seen in his line or in rare cases, no one elses. Crossing over DNA may be how great diversity is found throughout nature.I'll post tomorrow, I'm too tired to post right now with a persistent cough, lowgrade fever, and new meds from the doctor waiting to be picked up when my car gets out of the repair shop tomorrow or the Tuesday. 'Evening.Sounds like the legal argument your making for abortionThere is an old saying down South, where I came from, Frank. It has to do with counting unhatched chickens.
lol...Says who?, this is what I mean about pretending...first you sight the SC as the ones who say it is a matter of privacy and then claim you don't care what they say...you have any objections to pro-lifers who take that same stance?But, nevertheless, it really makes no difference to me. As I have already explained. The right to an abortion is here to stay, regardless of what the SC does. That works just fine with me...
Frank, you can not bait me on this, because the pro-lifers have permanently lost this battle. Speaking for the females in my family, including my wife, daughter, and granddaughter, nobody in America is going to control their bodies. It really is as simple as that. I have already explained why, and feel no need to repeat it. I really don't care if they are in denial about having lost the fight.
Interesting. But, irrelevant to me.
always a way around the constitution and the law eh bro?...do the rights of the females in your family also help you to keep the minority population down?Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.
always a way around the constitution and the law eh bro?...do the rights of the females in your family also help you to keep the minority population down?Fine with me, as long as it is available. if all else fails, we simply go back to the 1960's, when there were no abortions, and millions of D & C's.
And the title of this thread does not even mention the constitution. Seriously, I don't know what is the bug up your ass.
gee, that must be the real reason you didn't answer the question...the lame deflection was introducing the female members of your family as hapless victims while really just playing emotional politics, you don't have to answer, but that doesn't mean everyone here cannot see how you feel about keeping the minority population down.Failed attempt at deflection.
gee, that must be the real reason you didn't answer the question...the lame deflection was introducing the female members of your family as hapless victims while really just playing emotional politics, you don't have to answer, but that doesn't mean everyone here cannot see how you feel about keeping the minority population down.Failed attempt at deflection.
