Those are some long fingersJack Bauer said:
Dobbs v. Jackson
32,644 Views |
638 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Cobretti
Now we know her brain damage came from her nose-picking.BUbearinARK said:Those are some long fingersJack Bauer said:
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Please keep posting...
We don't appreciate how sophisticated our knowledge was in the past. Here's "Lectures on Ectopic Pregnancy and Pelvic Haematocele" published in 1888.
— robert michaels (@rmsgeek) July 2, 2022
This probably won't matter to a demagogue.https://t.co/eKWl6sXcnm pic.twitter.com/MkaRv6Yc5n
Left: lets go after <checks notes >...adopting couples as the enemy in this country.
We Will Adopt Your Baby pic.twitter.com/IP4YC54YYa
— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) July 2, 2022
Jack Bauer said:
Left: lets go after <checks notes >...adopting couples as the enemy in this country.We Will Adopt Your Baby pic.twitter.com/IP4YC54YYa
— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) July 2, 2022
Luke turned out to be a huge ******.
Looks like Jinx's family was in Dallas...
“F— them kids”
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) July 3, 2022
Photos by @AldoButtazzoni from the abortion rights protest in Dallas, Texas on Saturday: pic.twitter.com/x1KnpNlsCJ
Spectacularly well said.Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Quote:
The only argument that matters is when a person is a person. I will admit I don't know the answer, but I'm not really interested in whether you think you know or not, because I know nobody has a good argument.
Do you believe that Roe was rightly decided?
The original Roe? No, because at its core the court decided it couldn't figure out the rights of the fetus, so it ignored any potential rights, and went with the known rights of women. Given that this was the right to life, that was highly inappropriate. In effect, ignoring it was the same as saying it doesn't exist for any fetus. Which the opinion said they couldn't decide.
The court should have handed down a decision that said it did not know whether abortion should be legal, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical need. Then, people would have had the power to weigh in on the rights fetuses have in their states, only necessary abortions would be protected at the federal level.
50 years later, we'd be in much better harmony, people having had the time to rebuild their lives in states that align with their beliefs.
The idea that one day, a woman can abort a dying baby that will also kill her, and the next she can't, is pretty awful. But that's what happens when the Supreme Court gives you a right. Any it gives, it can take away.
Federalism is designed to defray the tensions of the unsolvable problem. Let's let it do its magic.
LOL
Vasectomies are up 900% since the Roe reversal. Liberal men getting “fixed” gives me great hope for the future of our country.
— Will (@notBilly) July 1, 2022
Jack Bauer said:
Left: lets go after <checks notes >...adopting couples as the enemy in this country.We Will Adopt Your Baby pic.twitter.com/IP4YC54YYa
— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) July 2, 2022
The sudden shift toward hatred of adoptive families is the first thing that has legitimately astounded me from the left in ages.
— Gregg Kite ((Regener8d)) (@Regener8dRadio) July 2, 2022
I used to think nothing surprised me anymore. I'm starting to worry we've only scratched the surface of the depravity we're going to see around this. https://t.co/p5tWbq6oJa
Jacques Strap said:Jack Bauer said:
Left: lets go after <checks notes >...adopting couples as the enemy in this country.We Will Adopt Your Baby pic.twitter.com/IP4YC54YYa
— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) July 2, 2022The sudden shift toward hatred of adoptive families is the first thing that has legitimately astounded me from the left in ages.
— Gregg Kite ((Regener8d)) (@Regener8dRadio) July 2, 2022
I used to think nothing surprised me anymore. I'm starting to worry we've only scratched the surface of the depravity we're going to see around this. https://t.co/p5tWbq6oJa
The reasons given for abortion aren't the reasons most women have them. They simply want the right to murder their babies if they choose. They want to be god.
The notion that someone, anyone, would take away one of the lies they tell to justify their murder to a less evil world, just sets them off. If people step up to adopt, then "I don't want to bring the baby into a situation of poverty/etc." goes away. They want the fig leaf for their regularly scheduled murders.
Massive win-win in that case.whiterock said:
LOLVasectomies are up 900% since the Roe reversal. Liberal men getting “fixed” gives me great hope for the future of our country.
— Will (@notBilly) July 1, 2022
The only people getting vasectomies due to Dobbs are the same flaky, weak men that would have either abandoned their children or raised them to be the same kind of weak, useless crybabies they are.
This is 1000% INCORRECT concerning the Catholic Church.J.B.Katz said:
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
Please do me a favor and not post what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches formerly. The posts have been incorrect and offensive to those, like me, that take my Catholic faith seriously.
Finally, I am happy to discuss the evils of abortion using logic and reason alone and never mention God, church, the bible or the ten commandments.
She knew that before typing a single word.Coke Bear said:This is 1000% INCORRECT concerning the Catholic Church.J.B.Katz said:
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
Jacques Strap said:Jack Bauer said:
Left: lets go after <checks notes >...adopting couples as the enemy in this country.We Will Adopt Your Baby pic.twitter.com/IP4YC54YYa
— Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) July 2, 2022The sudden shift toward hatred of adoptive families is the first thing that has legitimately astounded me from the left in ages.
— Gregg Kite ((Regener8d)) (@Regener8dRadio) July 2, 2022
I used to think nothing surprised me anymore. I'm starting to worry we've only scratched the surface of the depravity we're going to see around this. https://t.co/p5tWbq6oJa
I will eat your Roast.
- KKM
D!
- KKM
D!
Go Bears!
it's actually a terrible argument for them to make.Canada2017 said:She knew that before typing a single word.Coke Bear said:This is 1000% INCORRECT concerning the Catholic Church.J.B.Katz said:
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
I saw a short video last week where a pregnant woman was walking around at a pro-choice demonstration with words in magic marker written on her belly "not a life." When interviewed, she calmly attacked pro-life as an effort by the religious right to impose their faith on others. She then mentioned in passing, almost as an afterthought, that she was Jewish, and that in her faith life begins with first breath (actually alluding to Torah averse).
It was completely lost on her that A) she was wrong about the pro-life position being a religiously inspired position, and B) that she was actually the one demanding that her religious beliefs be adopted by others.
In reality, it doesn't matter what are your views on pro-life vs pro-choice. Freedom means one can adopt a position on any grounds one chooses and it simply doesn't matter. Secular or religious, logical or emotional, etc..... That's what liberty looks like. It's only when we start to say "you lot over there, you Christians, you cannot take a position on which might be influenced by your faith...." that we start stepping thru the portal of tyranny.
The point all these people is missing is that this ruling is not about abortion. It just said that the States determine. She should be in Montgomery, Oklahoma City or Jackson demonstrating. Those are the places that have arguments with here.whiterock said:it's actually a terrible argument for them to make.Canada2017 said:She knew that before typing a single word.Coke Bear said:This is 1000% INCORRECT concerning the Catholic Church.J.B.Katz said:
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
I saw a short video last week where a pregnant woman was walking around at a pro-choice demonstration with words in magic marker written on her belly "not a life." When interviewed, she calmly attacked pro-life as an effort by the religious right to impose their faith on others. She then mentioned in passing, almost as an afterthought, that she was Jewish, and that in her faith life begins with first breath (actually alluding to Torah averse).
It was completely lost on her that A) she was wrong about the pro-life position being a religiously inspired position, and B) that she was actually the one demanding that her religious beliefs be adopted by others.
In reality, it doesn't matter what are your views on pro-life vs pro-choice. Freedom means one can adopt a position on any grounds one chooses and it simply doesn't matter. Secular or religious, logical or emotional, etc..... That's what liberty looks like. It's only when we start to say "you lot over there, you Christians, you cannot take a position on which might be influenced by your faith...." that we start stepping thru the portal of tyranny.
Indeed. That's what angers them so. They now will have to actually win moral arguments to achieve their agenda.RMF5630 said:The point all these people is missing is that this ruling is not about abortion. It just said that the States determine. She should be in Montgomery, Oklahoma City or Jackson demonstrating. Those are the places that have arguments with here.whiterock said:it's actually a terrible argument for them to make.Canada2017 said:She knew that before typing a single word.Coke Bear said:This is 1000% INCORRECT concerning the Catholic Church.J.B.Katz said:
The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.
I saw a short video last week where a pregnant woman was walking around at a pro-choice demonstration with words in magic marker written on her belly "not a life." When interviewed, she calmly attacked pro-life as an effort by the religious right to impose their faith on others. She then mentioned in passing, almost as an afterthought, that she was Jewish, and that in her faith life begins with first breath (actually alluding to Torah averse).
It was completely lost on her that A) she was wrong about the pro-life position being a religiously inspired position, and B) that she was actually the one demanding that her religious beliefs be adopted by others.
In reality, it doesn't matter what are your views on pro-life vs pro-choice. Freedom means one can adopt a position on any grounds one chooses and it simply doesn't matter. Secular or religious, logical or emotional, etc..... That's what liberty looks like. It's only when we start to say "you lot over there, you Christians, you cannot take a position on which might be influenced by your faith...." that we start stepping thru the portal of tyranny.
Nearly all of the big progressive victories occurred in courtrooms rather than Congress. Those days are over.
J.B.Katz said:The idea that a fetus's rights supercede those of the woman carrying the fetus is religious. It's the formal view of the Catholic Church and of many evangelical congregations.Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Quote:
The only argument that matters is when a person is a person. I will admit I don't know the answer, but I'm not really interested in whether you think you know or not, because I know nobody has a good argument.
Do you believe that Roe was rightly decided?
The original Roe? No, because at its core the court decided it couldn't figure out the rights of the fetus, so it ignored any potential rights, and went with the known rights of women. Given that this was the right to life, that was highly inappropriate. In effect, ignoring it was the same as saying it doesn't exist for any fetus. Which the opinion said they couldn't decide.
The court should have handed down a decision that said it did not know whether abortion should be legal, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical need. Then, people would have had the power to weigh in on the rights fetuses have in their states, only necessary abortions would be protected at the federal level.
50 years later, we'd be in much better harmony, people having had the time to rebuild their lives in states that align with their beliefs.
The idea that one day, a woman can abort a dying baby that will also kill her, and the next she can't, is pretty awful. But that's what happens when the Supreme Court gives you a right. Any it gives, it can take away.
A Jewish congregation is challenging Florida's prohibition on abortion in that it violates their freedom of religion, as Jewish religious teaching views life as beginning at birth.
The bottom line is that no court and no law should eliminate a woman's personal agency. Laws that require a woman to cede control of her body to the state, with the state government mandating her healthcare decisions for the duration of the pregnancy, violate her human rights.
Forcing women and children to bring a pregnancy resulting from rape to term is recognized internationally as a human rights violation. It's what the Taliban did to Yazidi women (some of whom they also forced to take birth control pills so they could be raped without getting pregnant).
Even scarier is the idea that the views on contraception of a minority of religious people might be imposed on everyone with the force of law. If people opt for permanent sterilization in response to such prohibitions, will the next state move be to outlaw those options?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107722531/some-jewish-groups-blast-the-end-of-roe-as-a-violation-of-their-religious-belief
That's not true. There is more or less a hierarchy of rights, the natural right to life superceding all others. No mother has the right to kill any person, no matter what. So the only question is when is a person a person.
Not sure we can come to agreement on that because it has been debated for 50 years with no real answer.
The crux of issue is that both sides are a million miles apart, unwilling to compromise and pandering to the extremes.
You have:
1) No abortion ever, regardless of reason - lots of people on this board fit this, not shocking given its a board for a conservative Christian school.
2) Abortion up to the day the baby comes out and starts breathing - see also the video everyone is talking about
Then there is what probably 90% of the entire population could get behind which is something like the availability of abortion up to the 15th or 18th week. This is a situation where there is a compromise whereby the vast majority of the electorate can be pacified. Yes, the church folks will lose...and the abortion folks will lose...because *THAT* is compromise.
While we are on topic; condoms for free (everywhere), birth control for free (without the need for parental consent), Plan B available for free (without the need for parental consent) are all reasonable forms of government spending which would help reduce the demand for abortion services. I recognize just how unpopular that will be here (see also: point 1) but until the church going crowd recognizes that their Betty Sue is kissing boys at 13 and not 30 all of those are needed.
The crux of issue is that both sides are a million miles apart, unwilling to compromise and pandering to the extremes.
You have:
1) No abortion ever, regardless of reason - lots of people on this board fit this, not shocking given its a board for a conservative Christian school.
2) Abortion up to the day the baby comes out and starts breathing - see also the video everyone is talking about
Then there is what probably 90% of the entire population could get behind which is something like the availability of abortion up to the 15th or 18th week. This is a situation where there is a compromise whereby the vast majority of the electorate can be pacified. Yes, the church folks will lose...and the abortion folks will lose...because *THAT* is compromise.
While we are on topic; condoms for free (everywhere), birth control for free (without the need for parental consent), Plan B available for free (without the need for parental consent) are all reasonable forms of government spending which would help reduce the demand for abortion services. I recognize just how unpopular that will be here (see also: point 1) but until the church going crowd recognizes that their Betty Sue is kissing boys at 13 and not 30 all of those are needed.
Congress must act to codify Roe and the filibuster should not stand in the way.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 6, 2022
But right now, we don’t have the votes to change the filibuster. That means we need to elect more Democratic senators and reelect our House majority in November to get this bill to my desk.
Barely rating as a concern for most people. This will energize the Pro-Lifers more than the pro-baby killers.Cobretti said:Congress must act to codify Roe and the filibuster should not stand in the way.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 6, 2022
But right now, we don’t have the votes to change the filibuster. That means we need to elect more Democratic senators and reelect our House majority in November to get this bill to my desk.
Biden is no more of a Catholic than Pol Pot .
somebody doesnt know how codifying works.. *cough* constitutional amendment *cough*Cobretti said:Congress must act to codify Roe and the filibuster should not stand in the way.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 6, 2022
But right now, we don’t have the votes to change the filibuster. That means we need to elect more Democratic senators and reelect our House majority in November to get this bill to my desk.
You would think a dude who was in congress for like 40 years would know this.. oh yeah, its an intern with no clue who posts this crap
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath against Massachusetts crisis pregnancy centers
Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren: “We need to put a stop” to crisis pregnancy centers “right now.” pic.twitter.com/PzhBe21AGk
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 6, 2022
Jack Bauer said:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath against Massachusetts crisis pregnancy centersDemocrat Senator Elizabeth Warren: “We need to put a stop” to crisis pregnancy centers “right now.” pic.twitter.com/PzhBe21AGk
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 6, 2022
How are intrastate crisis pregnancy centers a federal matter? Unreal. But whatever she wants to campaign on.
I think it's more accurate to say, "Someone is trying everything to scare people into voting a certain way this fall." I don't think they are worried about the technicalities of passing legislation with this tweet.4th and Inches said:somebody doesnt know how codifying works.. *cough* constitutional amendment *cough*Cobretti said:Congress must act to codify Roe and the filibuster should not stand in the way.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 6, 2022
But right now, we don’t have the votes to change the filibuster. That means we need to elect more Democratic senators and reelect our House majority in November to get this bill to my desk.
You would think a dude who was in congress for like 40 years would know this.. oh yeah, its an intern with no clue who posts this crap
The popular left "gotcha" is to call pro-lifers pro-birth and stating they don't care about the children once they're born. It's obviously a hollow talking point as there are thousands of right/religious run pregnancy centers, affordable daycares, post birth service centers for single mothers, etc. The left makes this baseless claim while shamelessly attacking these very institutions put in place to help mothers and couples in need. It's gaslighting and infuriating when they aren't called out on it by the complicit media.Jack Bauer said:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath against Massachusetts crisis pregnancy centersDemocrat Senator Elizabeth Warren: “We need to put a stop” to crisis pregnancy centers “right now.” pic.twitter.com/PzhBe21AGk
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 6, 2022
Sic Everyone.
Not shocking that even after asking twice, I'm still waiting on Jinx to respond to this basic question. She abandoned thread rather than give a straight answer.FormerFlash said:
Blah blah blah. Answer the question. Are you morally fine with the woman with "not yet a human" written on her pregnant belly aborting that child the day before birth?
Sic Everyone.
FormerFlash said:Not shocking that even after asking twice, I'm still waiting on Jinx to respond to this basic question. She abandoned thread rather than give a straight answer.FormerFlash said:
Blah blah blah. Answer the question. Are you morally fine with the woman with "not yet a human" written on her pregnant belly aborting that child the day before birth?
She has stated before that abortion is a person's choice up to full term. To answer that question requires that she either abandon that position and admit the obvious fact that there's a little human in there or advocate that a person has the right to kill another for any reason they want or no reason at all. It is a logically and morally untenable position.
And cannot use the "my body, my choice" argument and not support abortion up to the point of birth. Otherwise, it is a specious argument. Interestingly, the decision has forced the Left to acknowledge they never believed in "safe, reasonable, and rare" and actually want fourth trimester abortions all along.D. C. Bear said:FormerFlash said:Not shocking that even after asking twice, I'm still waiting on Jinx to respond to this basic question. She abandoned thread rather than give a straight answer.FormerFlash said:
Blah blah blah. Answer the question. Are you morally fine with the woman with "not yet a human" written on her pregnant belly aborting that child the day before birth?
She has stated before that abortion is a person's choice up to full term. To answer that question requires that she either abandon that position and admit the obvious fact that there's a little human in there or advocate that a person has the right to kill another for any reason they want or no reason at all. It is a logically and morally untenable position.
Shop Meghan Markle's 'Woman Power' necklace to support Planned Parenthood https://t.co/laBaFzuNQW pic.twitter.com/IaftcFBpXa
— Page Six (@PageSix) July 7, 2022
eu parliament votes 324-155 to condemn us supreme court overturning roe v wade pic.twitter.com/27njiMkEVm
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) July 7, 2022
Lol we bailed your ass out alllll the time. F off. No one cares what the EU thinks.
Cobretti said:eu parliament votes 324-155 to condemn us supreme court overturning roe v wade pic.twitter.com/27njiMkEVm
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) July 7, 2022
