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.
No one's saying that, but it could happen that way in which would be furthering the tragedy of open abortion unregulated consequences of state's choosing such a thing like that. We have to start somewhere, and this would be much better than us having to deal with a federal government forcing the abortion processes into every state by mandate, and this while it is being controlled by those who would back it or direct it to do such a thing.So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.
I'm surprised that your brain has enough matter to think at all. lolI'm surprised that no Republican has suggested allowing fetuses to carry firearms. Fetuses exercising their 2nd Amendment rights would stop abortions toot sweet.
No one's saying that, but it could happen that way in which would be furthering the tragedy of open abortion unregulated consequences of state's choosing such a thing like that. We have to start somewhere, and this would be much better than us having to deal with a federal government forcing the abortion processes into every state by mandate, and this while it is being controlled by those who would back it or direct it to do such a thing.
Irrelevant.
I agree, but we must get the Fed's out of it before it can be stopped, because the Fed's are a disaster anymore, and they have become a loose cannon depending on who is controlling it. Breaking it down hopefully is the begining of the end for out of control abortion's being promoted or stood up for at a federal level.Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.
That's not the job of SCOTUS. That's the job of legislatures. So now they need to do their jobs.I would think that a Libertarian publication would support.....Liberty as in minimal government interference in personal choices
Yes baffle them with bullsht!BackAgain joins the fray
NFBW2207191519
BackAgain #2,434 Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
NFBW: Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519
Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up call.Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.
You got your states right move onBackAgain joins the fray
NFBW2207191519
BackAgain #2,434 Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
NFBW: Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519
Wrong. What it guarantees is the right to life.BackAgain joins the fray
NFBW2207191519
BackAgain #2,434 Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
NFBW: Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519
It wasn't Stacey that made that choice.Many men are doing LIFE in prison for murdering unborn babies.
How do vile Leftists explain that? They cannot begin to and dare not even try.
Scott Peterson murdered Stacey and Conner, his unborn son.
No it wasn't.It was Scott's "choice," wasn't it Leftists, sick, evil Leftists.
That didn't enter into the calculus of overturning Roe v Wade.Should we now consider pigs to human? Maybe you should refine your definition of what it means to be human.
That isn't occurring to the cradle to grave mindset.That didn't enter into the calculus of overturning Roe v Wade.
But feel free to engage your state and federal representatives and convince them because they will be the ones writing the laws.
They seem to want to rehash Dobbs v Jackson more than anything else. Seems like a waste of time as that ruling did not rule on the legality of abortion only that abortion isn't a constitutional right.That isn't occurring to the cradle to grave mindset.