I figured you knew what she had said. She said, "Roe v Wade was a states issue. Whether pr not it's legal, it's the state's right to decide."
RBG
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
when it can survive on it's own, it should be considered wrong. That's around 22 weeks.
Congratulations for being able to use the quote function. Someday when you grow up I hope you can find a reason to use it.
I’m glad you expressed your opinion. Now you know what freedom of choice feels like.
I am not confused at all idiot. Child, infant, baby, fetus....all forms of a developing life.
Do you notice how cleverly the Left always shifts the terminology on this issue from what it (abortion) really is into something more sanitized? They never even call it abortion. Look at their most commonly used descriptions and homogenized phraseology:
"Women's health"
"Women's reproductive rights"
"Sexual independence"
"Control over her own uterus"
"Right to control their own bodies"
"a Woman's mental health"
" a Woman's Right to choose" (choose what...to murder an innocent baby?)
" Women's health care choices"
"protecting access to Pap smears and mammograms"
I'm sure there are dozens more and I don't care to look them all up. Point is (murder...ie: abortion) is called anything and everything else except that or exactly what it is by the Left.
They don't even realize it, but their refusal to call it out for what it is (infanticide when talking about full term pre-borns or even newborns) is tacit admission they are fully aware of exactly what it is and they refuse to call it what it is because they can't defend it.
Who's against "women's health"? Who wants to take away a woman's right to "choose"? See, this is how they try to stifle the debate over what is really going on...the random slaughtering of innocent babies strictly for personal convenience of the un-wanting Mother...which again they cannot and will not defend.
"Oh, I'm 'Pro choice' but I don't want to impose my will onto someone else"
Translation: I'm actually pro murder, but unlike my fellow Chinese Communist Socialist brethren, I don't really think we should force Women to kill their own babies especially if they're little girls...I just want women to make that choice for death themselves"
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
And I think that the NY law was simply making what the interpretation of Roe v Wade already gives in case it's overturned. I tend to agree with you that it should be limited to end of second trimester except in cases where the mother or baby is at significant risk if the pregnancy goes to term.
Yes they are.![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
I might add, that YOU Sir, are the board's resident thread revivalist! I'm sure to get a rib tickling laugh at whatever you dredge up from the archives to remind most Leftists of their ageless & timeless buffoonery. [thumb2]
One thing Leftists can NEVER answer. Even if a "Zygote" or "Embryo" is not considered a full person in their minds, why does it still have to be killed before it can be aborted? If it isn't alive or human...what else is it?
Dead and a Pinata?
All “alive”
You rush into a burning building...in one corner is a crying newborn...in the other corner is 1,000 viable zygotes in a cooler. You can only save one...the baby or the cooler. Who you saving?
Last edited:
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Firefighters who rush into a burning building where human lives are at risk don't try to pick and choose to save one or the other. They try and save who they can...usually that's anyone or everyone.
This analogy which was spewed in a previous debate over this same issue is flawed on its premise because in theory if it's possible to save at least one, it's logically possible to save all.
What specifically allows only one life to be saved but prevents others from being rescued if their chances for survival are equal given the parameters of the analogy? If both parties have an equal chance to live, logically both can also be saved. If their risks for survival are equal no matter which choice is made, logically a choice can be made that both have equal chance to survive, therefore an honest attempt can be made to rescue both given they both have an equal chance at survival no matter which is chosen.
Edit* If the fire is burning too intensely on one side of the building preventing at least one party from being saved, then logically both cannot be saved so it's not an either or proposition at that point. So then you save the one you can.
This analogy which was spewed in a previous debate over this same issue is flawed on its premise because in theory if it's possible to save at least one, it's logically possible to save all.
What specifically allows only one life to be saved but prevents others from being rescued if their chances for survival are equal given the parameters of the analogy? If both parties have an equal chance to live, logically both can also be saved. If their risks for survival are equal no matter which choice is made, logically a choice can be made that both have equal chance to survive, therefore an honest attempt can be made to rescue both given they both have an equal chance at survival no matter which is chosen.
Edit* If the fire is burning too intensely on one side of the building preventing at least one party from being saved, then logically both cannot be saved so it's not an either or proposition at that point. So then you save the one you can.
Is Cps attempt to say that sperm is "alive" to win an argument as bad as cuntry's gambit to claim to be both black and white to win an argument?
I guess you need to study up on ms. Ginsberg. She said it, I didnt. She said that abortion was a states issue and R v W was wrongly decided. It was not a federal issue according to her. Look it up. I don't think you can legislate morality.
The Left doesn't call it (abortion) murder but at least they recognize a zygote, embryo, fetus, or full term baby still always has to be killed first before it's aborted.
(Unless it's fully born, then they whack it...but that's still not murder to them...it's simply protecting a woman's "mental health")
It would be in states that said you couldn't just like you can't grow and sell marijuana in some state. Some states have capital punishment, some dont. Pretty simple
But I thought abortion is murder? Read that on here a few times. Should some states just legalize murder? You sound like you’d be ok with that.
Have you heard me say I was against it? My only condition is that it happen before 20-22 weeks.
Apologies then.
I will say that abortions that occur after that period are not “convenience” abortions. There is either something wrong with the baby or the mother’s health is at risk. That’s a convo between the dr and the patient and I really don’t think the government should be involved with that.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
RECRUITING UPDATE West Virginia has offered a transfer portal player- Latest: Keenan Cummings
-
-