Roe-Wade Woman’s right of choice

[bgreene]

Woman’s right of choice headed back into Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Decision to uphold likely due by June 2022

[Destroyer]

Woman’s right of choice headed back into Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Decision to uphold likely due by June 2022

This is one of those items that can be argued either way. Personally, I think aborting a baby without a valid reason (Incest, rape, health) is murder. Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been murdered by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I know others will disagree with me and they are welcome to their opinion, just as I am welcome to mine. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS rules. Even if they strike it down, it really changes nothing. It would simply give it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs, as to whether or not to allow abortions.
.

[bgreene]

This is one of those items that can be argued either way. Personally, I think aborting a baby without a valid reason (Incest, rape, health) is murder. Sadly, more than 62 million babies have been murdered by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I know others will disagree with me and they are welcome to their opinion, just as I am welcome to mine. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS rules. Even if they strike it down, it really changes nothing. It would simply give it back to the states, where it rightfully belongs, as to whether or not to allow abortions.
.

Who’s going to ADOPT the 60-70 million adopted babies each year - you destroyer ?
How many unwanted babies have you adopted ?

The majority of these tend to be from lower income situations - meaning more strain on our welfare system to pay and support . You willing to pay a lot more to support all these children ??

My position is most everyone is pro life yes…….but pro CHOICE is the issue as currently the law of our land .

[scook]

Yes, but killing someone because they are inconvenient is in all other cases murder under the law and in this case certainly murder in the moral sense. Where an abortion is is the equivalent to self defense - in the cases of rape, incest or an actual life or serious health threatening issue for the mother, there’s room for exceptions.

It’s not an honest discussion of the issue to leave out the absolute fact that an abortion kills at least one baby.

It’s a tragedy that babies are being borne to mothers who shouldn’t be having them and can’t give them a decent upbringing. My daughter has done years of work with that population and it’s heartbreaking to experience it. That problem has been hugely promoted by probably well intended permissive, supportive government programs that make irresponsible behavior much easier to get away with. The notion that all carrots and no stick works is foolish beyond imagination, yet liberal policies continue to accelerate down that path.

It would also be helpful if adoption wasn’t an absolutely cruel, punishing, insanely expensive process. Our family has had significant experience with that, and I can only say that the system is unconscionable and abusive in the extreme.

[bgreene]

Yes, but killing someone because they are inconvenient is in all other cases murder under the law and in this case certainly murder in the moral sense. Where an abortion is is the equivalent to self defense - in the cases of rape, incest or an actual life or serious health threatening issue for the mother, there’s room for exceptions.

It’s not an honest discussion of the issue to leave out the absolute fact that an abortion kills at least one baby.

It’s a tragedy that babies are being borne to mothers who shouldn’t be having them and can’t give them a decent upbringing. My daughter has done years of work with that population and it’s heartbreaking to experience it. That problem has been hugely promoted by probably well intended permissive, supportive government programs that make irresponsible behavior much easier to get away with. The notion that all carrots and no stick works is foolish beyond imagination, yet liberal policies continue to accelerate down that path.

It would also be helpful if adoption wasn’t an absolutely cruel, punishing, insanely expensive process. Our family has had significant experience with that, and I can only say that the system is unconscionable and abusive in the extreme.


The question of when LIFE starts ….when just a clump of cells with genetic potential ? Before a brain and heart form or afterwards ?
I am pro choice - not pro recklessness but remain pro choice.

For those against - I ask again - will YOU adopt these unwanted babies ?
Sixty to Seventy million per year - what would happen to the population ?
Who would care for this soon MAJORITY of people ? You ? Me ?
The answer is obvious

[Destroyer]

The question of when LIFE starts ….when just a clump of cells with genetic potential ? Before a brain and heart form or afterwards ?
I am pro choice - not pro recklessness but remain pro choice.

For those against - I ask again - will YOU adopt these unwanted babies ?
Sixty to Seventy million per year - what would happen to the population ?
Who would care for this soon MAJORITY of people ? You ? Me ?
The answer is obvious

Correction please. Roe V Wade was enacted in 1973. So that's 62 million since then, not per year as you just stated.

So 62 million divided by 48 years equals 1,291,666 per year. Less than the 2 million illegal immigrants that have entered the US this year since Biden took over. Maybe if we stopped feeding them and started feeding unwanted babies we could solve 2 problems at the same time?

[bgreene]

Correction please. Roe V Wade was enacted in 1973. So that's 62 million since then, not per year as you just stated.

So 62 million divided by 48 years equals 1,291,666 per year. Less than the 2 million illegal immigrants that have entered the US this year since Biden took over. Maybe if we stopped feeding them and started feeding unwanted babies we could solve 2 problems at the same time?

Yes correct - approx 1 million abortions per year in our country.
So question remains - would YOU adopt any of these unwanted babies ?
Do YOU want to pay more taxes to support these unwanted babies ?
In a decade that’s approx 10 million who would then also grow up to have babies - many born into poverty situations

Regardinf immigration - your reference to the number of illegal aliens entering our country is based on the number APPREHENDED - most all sent back each year to Mexico.

https://www.borderreport.com/hot-topics/immigration/u-s-officials-come-across-nearly-2-million-unauthorized-migrants-in-fy-2021/

[scook]

No doubt, unwanted babies with, probably in most cases, incompetent mothers and no fathers present are a serious problem. Unmarried, teenage girls having babies is, I believe, the best predictor of poverty.

My daughter ran a nonprofit for a few years that took in, housed and worked with girls between around 14 and 24 who were pregnant or had recently given birth. She considered it a great success that no baby was born addicted to drugs on her watch, but even many of the girls she helped went back to their former lives.

It would help if the adoption process wasn’t an abusive excruciating process. Our family members probably have $80,000+ in an adoption and the first two attempts failed because the mothers kept the babies (the first one, they were in possession if the baby and the social worker came and took him back) - a lot of friends chipped in a lot of money to finally get it over the finish line. It took years, and was an emotionally draining experience - it’s amazing that any children ever get adopted.

I don’t think it can be assumed that the unwanted baby production rate would stay linear if abortions became less available. With abortions of convenience easily available, there’s not much perceived cost to getting pregnant, though the psychological professionals that I know say there are usually significant effects further along. There would probably be a fair amount of deterrent if the availability diminished. Protecting people from natural consequences encourages bad behavior, whatever the venue.

I agree that it’s a big problem, but I don’t agree that killing innocent children is a morally acceptable way to solve it. It’s difficult to imagine any creative solution with the fact that any government participation has to make it through the political process where the current majority seems to be tripping over itself to remove the consequences of nearly all bad behavior and spray free stuff on people to the point of actively discouraging them from going back to jobs. I do think creative problem solving is possible, but it’s hard to see it happening given the current political situation.

[bgreene]

No doubt, unwanted babies with, probably in most cases, incompetent mothers and no fathers present are a serious problem. Unmarried, teenage girls having babies is, I believe, the best predictor of poverty.

My daughter ran a nonprofit for a few years that took in, housed and worked with girls between around 14 and 24 who were pregnant or had recently given birth. She considered it a great success that no baby was born addicted to drugs on her watch, but even many of the girls she helped went back to their former lives.

It would help if the adoption process wasn’t an abusive excruciating process. Our family members probably have $80,000+ in an adoption and the first two attempts failed because the mothers kept the babies (the first one, they were in possession if the baby and the social worker came and took him back) - a lot of friends chipped in a lot of money to finally get it over the finish line. It took years, and was an emotionally draining experience - it’s amazing that any children ever get adopted.

I don’t think it can be assumed that the unwanted baby production rate would stay linear if abortions became less available. With abortions of convenience easily available, there’s not much perceived cost to getting pregnant, though the psychological professionals that I know say there are usually significant effects further along. There would probably be a fair amount of deterrent if the availability diminished. Protecting people from natural consequences encourages bad behavior, whatever the venue.

I agree that it’s a big problem, but I don’t agree that killing innocent children is a morally acceptable way to solve it. It’s difficult to imagine any creative solution with the fact that any government participation has to make it through the political process where the current majority seems to be tripping over itself to remove the consequences of nearly all bad behavior and spray free stuff on people to the point of actively discouraging them from going back to jobs. I do think creative problem solving is possible, but it’s hard to see it happening given the current political situation.

Your families efforts are to be appreciated and respected .

As for “ murder “ question remains if not more correctly “ stopping a human from forming “
when the reality is cells alone with DNA but no brain, no heart within the legal limit.

As for “no consequences “ from what I’ve read, abortion is NOT a pleasant experience NOT a procedure a woman enjoys .
We also have many laws against assorted crimes - yet crimes are committed every day - hasn’t stopped based on consequences.

[Destroyer]

Your families efforts are to be appreciated and respected .

As for “ murder “ question remains if not more correctly “ stopping a human from forming “
when the reality is cells alone with DNA but no brain, no heart within the legal limit.

As for “no consequences “ from what I’ve read, abortion is NOT a pleasant experience NOT a procedure a woman enjoys .
We also have many laws against assorted crimes - yet crimes are committed every day - hasn’t stopped based on consequences.

Just throwing this out there for consideration....

What if we took some of that 1.75 Trillion infrastructure bill that is now expected to actually be between 3-5 trillion dollars and established centers where unwanted children could be brought up in a loving, if somewhat sterile environment. Like an orphanage.

The cost of raising them keeps being brought up, but I wonder how much of that is real? I'm sure some of that is valid, but I wonder how much is real and how much is hyperbole? What did we do before 1972? (Besides the illegal abortion doctors) My point is there always seems to be money for pet projects that the taxpayers have to pay for, so why not this?

[bgreene]

Just throwing this out there for consideration....

What if we took some of that 1.75 Trillion infrastructure bill that is now expected to actually be between 3-5 trillion dollars and established centers where unwanted children could be brought up in a loving, if somewhat sterile environment. Like an orphanage.

The cost of raising them keeps being brought up, but I wonder how much of that is real? I'm sure some of that is valid, but I wonder how much is real and how much is hyperbole? What did we do before 1972? (Besides the illegal abortion doctors) My point is there always seems to be money for pet projects that the taxpayers have to pay for, so why not this?

Good luck
Question remains - since you’re against women’s right to choose - will you adopt ?
I’m guessing no so what right do you or others have to force the issue ?
Those against often all “ high and mighty “ on this issue but that’s where it ends

[Destroyer]

Good luck
Question remains - since you***8217;re against women***8217;s right to choose - will you adopt ?
I***8217;m guessing no so what right do you or others have to force the issue ?
Those against often all ***8220; high and mighty ***8220; on this issue but that***8217;s where it ends

First, I'm not against women's rights. I'm for infant's rights. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

My "right" is that it's wrong not to speak out. (Read my signature at the bottom of this post) It's immoral to kill defenseless babies because they are inconvenient, and if you cannot understand that simple logic then I truly feel sorry for you. It explains a lot though. You must be empty inside.

To answer you other question, I've been blessed with 3 children, so there was and is no reason for me to adopt. But in my younger days we also had several foster kids living with us over the years.

How many kids have you adopted? Have you ever provided a loving home as a Foster Parent? Why not?

.

[bgreene]

First, I'm not against women's rights. I'm for infant's rights. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

My "right" is that it's wrong not to speak out. (Read my signature at the bottom of this post) It's immoral to kill defenseless babies because they are inconvenient, and if you cannot understand that simple logic then I truly feel sorry for you. It explains a lot though. You must be empty inside.

To answer you other question, I've been blessed with 3 children, so there was and is no reason for me to adopt. But in my younger days we also had several foster kids living with us over the years.

How many kids have you adopted? Have you ever provided a loving home as a Foster Parent? Why not?

.

We’ve not adopted or fostered . Personal choice.
Just like being pro choice .
Infants don’t legally get aborted.

[Destroyer]

We’ve not adopted or fostered . Personal choice.
Just like being pro choice .
Infants don’t legally get aborted.

Ummm... yes they do. Late term abortions, when there is a good chance of the infants survival, are legal.

It's really amazing how resilient babies are. When my third child was born he was jaundiced. and he wouldn't stabilize. After a week he was transferred to the neo-natal wing of St. Joseph's hospital in Paterson. (Seems because of the high amount of drug babies they receive they are one of the premier neo-natal hospitals on the east coast and one of the top 10 in the nation. (who knew!!). Anyway, while I was there, visiting my son in his incubator, I had the opportunity to see a tiny black doll... just a little over the size of a Barbie doll, lying on a white cloth on a platform like a baby scale under a bright light. And while I was looking at the doll, IT MOVED!!! It was a baby that was born while the mother was (I'm told) 6 months pregnant. They keep the babies under the lights to keep them warm. The entire wing was filled with tiny infants, some barely recognizable as babies... but all of them were alive. This whole notion that a baby isn't a person until it's born is just plain poppycock. It's a false narrative perpetuated by people and companies like Planned Parenthood that make a ton of money by killing babies.

.

[bgreene]

Ummm... yes they do. Late term abortions, when there is a good chance of the infants survival, are legal.

It's really amazing how resilient babies are. When my third child was born he was jaundiced. and he wouldn't stabilize. After a week he was transferred to the neo-natal wing of St. Joseph's hospital in Paterson. (Seems because of the high amount of drug babies they receive they are one of the premier neo-natal hospitals on the east coast and one of the top 10 in the nation. (who knew!!). Anyway, while I was there, visiting my son in his incubator, I had the opportunity to see a tiny black doll... just a little over the size of a Barbie doll, lying on a white cloth on a platform like a baby scale under a bright light. And while I was looking at the doll, IT MOVED!!! It was a baby that was born while the mother was (I'm told) 6 months pregnant. They keep the babies under the lights to keep them warm. The entire wing was filled with tiny infants, some barely recognizable as babies... but all of them were alive. This whole notion that a baby isn't a person until it's born is just plain poppycock. It's a false narrative perpetuated by people and companies like Planned Parenthood that make a ton of money by killing babies.

.

I didn’t write a baby isn’t a person till it’s born - you’re spinning again.
I wrote when just a group of cells - with no brain and no heart it’s genetic potential to become a person .

[Destroyer]

I didn’t write a baby isn’t a person till it’s born - you’re spinning again.
I wrote when just a group of cells - with no brain and no heart it’s genetic potential to become a person .

So you agree with the new Texas law that is before the Supreme Court that prevents an abortion when a heartbeat is detectable? (usually after about 6 weeks) Good for you. That's a step in the right direction.

.

[bgreene]

So you agree with the new Texas law that is before the Supreme Court that prevents an abortion when a heartbeat is detectable? (usually after about 6 weeks) Good for you. That's a step in the right direction.

.

I didn’t agree with anything . I wrote DISAGREEMENT with your previous post

[Destroyer]

I didn’t agree with anything . I wrote DISAGREEMENT with your previous post

You wrote
As for “ murder “ question remains if not more correctly “ stopping a human from forming “
when the reality is cells alone with DNA but no brain, no heart within the legal limit.

I took that to mean that you thought that an embryo was a baby when it had a heart beat. And it cannot have a heartbeat unless it has a brain to tell the heart to beat. So I presumed that you were agreeing with the Texas law saying no abortions after a detectable heartbeat.

.

[bgreene]

You wrote


I took that to mean that you thought that an embryo was a baby when it had a heart beat. And it cannot have a heartbeat unless it has a brain to tell the heart to beat. So I presumed that you were agreeing with the Texas law saying no abortions after a detectable heartbeat.

.

Well what you took my comments to mean was WRONG .

YOU wrote about people who dont think its murder just because a baby hasnt been born yet. I am not one of those so called people who think that.

Ill repeat my position which was and still is :
Without a brain and heart its a collection of cells with DNA potential to become a baby.

[Destroyer]

Well what you took my comments to mean was WRONG .

YOU wrote about people who dont think its murder just because a baby hasnt been born yet. I am not one of those so called people who think that.

Ill repeat my position which was and still is :
Without a brain and heart its a collection of cells with DNA potential to become a baby.

Ok, so what is it WITH a heartbeat and a brain? When, in your opinion, is it a baby? When (morally) does it become murder?

.

[bgreene]

Ok, so what is it WITH a heartbeat and a brain? When, in your opinion, is it a baby? When (morally) does it become murder?

.

I really don’t know. I think most every woman is “pro life “ they just need to have the choice.
Who are men to force these rules ? Men that wouldn’t adopt the baby these women would be forced to have .
And it IS mainly MEN trying to repeal this law. Rich folks will still get abortions - the poor will be forced otherwise .

I’m not in favor of forcing the “moral question” on women in this regard . Women don’t go through the awful experience of an abortion for fun.

[Destroyer]

I really don’t know. I think most every woman is “pro life “ they just need to have the choice.
Who are men to force these rules ? Men that wouldn’t adopt the baby these women would be forced to have .
And it IS mainly MEN trying to repeal this law. Rich folks will still get abortions - the poor will be forced otherwise .

I’m not in favor of forcing the “moral question” on women in this regard . Women don’t go through the awful experience of an abortion for fun.

That's a pretty honest answer (the "I don't know")

But 62 million women were not pro life since RvW.

And even if RvW is repealed, states still have the right to either allow or ban abortions. So women will still have a shoice in most cases.

.

[bgreene]

That's a pretty honest answer (the "I don't know")

But 62 million women were not pro life since RvW.

And even if RvW is repealed, states still have the right to either allow or ban abortions. So women will still have a shoice in most cases.

.

The MAJORITY of Americans are pro choice.
The MAJORITY of Americans vote against opening our prestige Arctic Wilderness Zone to oil and gas drilling.
Neither means our politicians follow the will of the people !

[Pipe_Dream]

The majority of Americans are opposed to "Build Back Better."

[bgreene]

The majority of Americans are opposed to "Build Back Better."

Always trying to deny and switch

[Destroyer]

Always trying to deny and switch

LOL You're the one that just brought up something about opening our prestige Arctic Wilderness Zone to oil and gas drilling in a Roe v Wade post. You should be the LAST person to talk about switching subjects.

Sorry Pipe, Didn't mean to steal your thunder, I just had to answer since he does this all the time.

.

[bgreene]

LOL You're the one that just brought up something about opening our prestige Arctic Wilderness Zone to oil and gas drilling in a Roe v Wade post. You should be the LAST person to talk about switching subjects.

Sorry Pipe, Didn't mean to steal your thunder, I just had to answer since he does this all the time.

.

All the time says destroyer -
wrong as usual.

PUBLIC OPINION references to show how our government tries to force their agenda against the will of Americans.
My additional example is ON topic.
So the MAJORITY of Americans are PRO CHOICE.

[Pipe_Dream]

Always trying to deny and switch

I merely followed your lead. You went from abortion to opening the Arctic Wilderness Zone to oil and gas drilling, did you not?

[Pipe_Dream]

PUBLIC OPINION references to show how our government tries to force their agenda against the will of Americans.

That sounds like what's happening with "Build Back Better."

[bgreene]

That sounds like what's happening with "Build Back Better."

Thats typical difference between you and me - I dont base my information on sounds like, or seems to me.
I deal with the FACTS and the TRUTH .

[Pipe_Dream]

Thats typical difference between you and me - I dont base my information on sounds like, or seems to me.
I deal with the FACTS and the TRUTH .

The fact is that the majority of Americans don't want "Build Back Better."

[bgreene]

The fact is that the majority of Americans don't want "Build Back Better."

That may be - polls seems split on it but if so , likely because many Americans dont know whats actually in the plan.
The abortion question is obvious.

[Destroyer]

That may be - polls seems split on it but if so , likely because many Americans dont know whats actually in the plan.
The abortion question is obvious.

I'm a little confused by your statement. Exactly what in the abortion question is obvious?

.

[bgreene]

I'm a little confused by your statement. Exactly what in the abortion question is obvious?

.

Pro choice or anti abortion . Clear enough ?

[Destroyer]

Pro choice or anti abortion . Clear enough ?

Not really. Try speaking in coherent sentences. Pro choice what or anti abortion (pro life) what?

.

[bgreene]

Not really. Try speaking in coherent sentences. Pro choice what or anti abortion (pro life) what?

.

You’re confused alright ……

[Destroyer]

You’re confused alright ……

Ummmm You're darn right. I am confused. But YOU'RE the one speaking in incomplete sentences, not me. I'm just asking you to clarify what you wrote.

.

[bgreene]

Ummmm You're darn right. I am confused. But YOU'RE the one speaking in incomplete sentences, not me. I'm just asking you to clarify what you wrote.

.

I’m pro choice .
Play your sentence structure games and pretend you can’t understand.

[Destroyer]

I’m pro choice .
Play your sentence structure games and pretend you can’t understand.


You said: That may be - polls seems split on it but if so , likely because many Americans dont know whats actually in the plan.
The abortion question is obvious.
Which is why I asked you what was obvious, since you did not clarify what, exactly, you thought was obvious. Now, with your post saying that you are pro-choice we all can better understand what you were saying. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

One other point. I do not play games Greene. You don't seem to understand that.
When you make outlandish statements with no proof to back them up, or when you are caught in a false statement (like the Fox tree burning for example) and you won't admit that you are wrong I will call you out on it in this forum.
When you are correct in a statement (like Liz Cheney releasing those texts) I will agree with you like I did.
It's really very simple.

.

[bgreene]

You said:
Which is why I asked you what was obvious, since you did not clarify what, exactly, you thought was obvious. Now, with your post saying that you are pro-choice we all can better understand what you were saying. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

One other point. I do not play games Greene. You don't seem to understand that.
When you make outlandish statements with no proof to back them up, or when you are caught in a false statement (like the Fox tree burning for example) and you won't admit that you are wrong I will call you out on it in this forum.
When you are correct in a statement (like Liz Cheney releasing those texts) I will agree with you like I did.
It's really very simple.

.


What I understand is also clear - I’m FACT based .
Like trump lost the election - FACT
That Trump lies by claiming he won by wide margin - a LIE and FACT
That the majority of Americans are pro choice - FACT

Your constant pursuit to discredit me is really because you prefer not to face the truth and facts. Rather you write elaborate “ opinion pieces “ .

[Destroyer]

What I understand is also clear - I***8217;m FACT based .
Like trump lost the election - FACT
That Trump lies by claiming he won by wide margin - a LIE and FACT
That the majority of Americans are pro choice - FACT

Your constant pursuit to discredit me is really because you prefer not to face the truth and facts. Rather you write elaborate ***8220; opinion pieces ***8220; .

Hmmm... okay, lets see.....

1) Trump lost the election. Yes, true. So we both agree on that. However, you think the election was fair, while I do not.

2) If Trump really believes that he won the election that's not lying. Since he was not able to bring his claim to court the validity of his claim is still unknown.

3) The majority of Americans are pro-Choice. Also true. But that proves nothing. We (America) do not rule by majority. Fortunately, we never have.

4) I do not try and discredit you because I prefer not to face facts and truth. I do however, try to correct the mistruths that you constantly interject in your posts.

.

[bgreene]

Hmmm... okay, lets see.....

1) Trump lost the election. Yes, true. So we both agree on that. However, you think the election was fair, while I do not.

2) If Trump really believes that he won the 3lection that's not lying. Since he was not able to bring his claim to court the validity of his claim is still unknown.

3) The majority of Americans are pro-Choice. Also true. But that proves nothing. We (America) do not rule by majority. Fortunately, we never have.

4) I do not try and discredit you because I prefer not to face facts and truth. I do however, try to correct the mistruths that you constantly interject in your posts.

.

Destroyer says “ he corrects the mistruths “ - WRONG already.
Trump DID bring his case to MANY courts - all thrown out for lack of evidence.

[Destroyer]

Destroyer says “ he corrects the mistruths “ - WRONG already.
Trump DID bring his case to MANY courts - all thrown out for lack of evidence.

MOST of the suits were thrown out due to stature of limitations having expired. In all cases, since they never came to court the validity or falseness of his (Trumps) suit(s) remains unresolved and still open to debate.

[bgreene]

MOST of the suits were thrown out due to stature of limitations having expired. In all cases, since they never came to court the validity or falseness of his (Trumps) suit(s) remains unresolved and still open to debate.

Hahahahaa dream on destroyer . Great Aerosmith song.
Trumps vote suits thrown out of courts for lack of evidence .
Trumps election audits re confirmed he lost .
Trumps taped phone voice trying to bully Georgia lawmakers to come up with votes he didnt have - all part of history now .

[Destroyer]

Hahahahaa dream on destroyer . Great Aerosmith song.
Trumps vote suits thrown out of courts for lack of evidence .
Trumps election audits re confirmed he lost .
Trumps taped phone voice trying to bully Georgia lawmakers to come up with votes he didnt have - all part of history now .

Whatever you say.... :you:

.

[bgreene]

Whatever you say.... :you:

.

Cartoons - when you’ve got nothing and my facts are correct .

[Destroyer]

Cartoons - when you’ve got nothing and my facts are correct .

:you:

[bgreene]

:you:

Exactly -nothing but excuses, denial, and cartoons from destroyer.

[Destroyer]

Exactly -nothing but excuses, denial, and cartoons from destroyer.

Debating with you is almost a useless endeavor but I try. Sometimes however, it's just easier to laugh at your remarks, hence the laughing emoji.

.

[bgreene]

Debating with you is almost a useless endeavor but I try. Sometimes however, it's just easier to laugh at your remarks, hence the laughing emoji.

.
There’s no “ debate “ to the TRUTH of what happened destroyer .
FACTS still matter to many Americans .

Trumps vote suits thrown out of courts for lack of evidence .
Trumps election audits re confirmed he lost .
Trumps taped phone voice trying to bully Georgia lawmakers to come up with votes he didnt have - all part of history now .

[Destroyer]

There’s no “ debate “ to the TRUTH of what happened destroyer .
FACTS still matter to many Americans .

Trumps vote suits thrown out of courts for lack of evidence .
Trumps election audits re confirmed he lost .
Trumps taped phone voice trying to bully Georgia lawmakers to come up with votes he didnt have - all part of history now .

All part of your distorted, fractured, misrepresented history. Not the real one. You find one little thing that is true and you pick at just that part without looking at the overall truth. That's your problem. You miss the overall point. It's also why you're a terrible debater. You're more like a boxer in the ring, you swing wildly at anything that you think will score points. Problem is, most times you hit below the belt, which is why you keep loosing the debate.

.

[bgreene]

All part of your distorted, fractured, misrepresented history. Not the real one. You find one little thing that is true and you pick at just that part without looking at the overall truth. That's your problem. You miss the overall point. It's also why you're a terrible debater. You're more like a boxer in the ring, you swing wildly at anything that you think will score points. Problem is, most times you hit below the belt, which is why you keep loosing the debate.

.

Bla bla bla destroyer - your “know it all “ attitude is irrelevant.

I’m not debating with you - I post the FACTS and the TRUTHS that you deny and spin into nonsense . I have no interest in debating anything with you.

This threads originally about the future of abortion rights . I’m pro choice along with the majority of Americans .

[Destroyer]

Bla bla bla destroyer - your “know it all “ attitude is irrelevant.

I’m not debating with you - I post the FACTS and the TRUTHS that you deny and spin into nonsense . I have no interest in debating anything with you.

This threads originally about the future of abortion rights . I’m pro choice along with the majority of Americans .


Of course you cannot debate me. In a battle of wits, you're unarmed. All you can do is mock anyone that disagrees with you and repeat your same old lines over and over.

You post what YOU think are facts and truth, but they rarely bear any resemblance to the actual fact or truth. Even your "I'm pro-choice" comment is a misrepresentation.

Why don't you call it what it really is?

You're pro-murder of innocent unborn children.

It's funny that you are SOOOOO concerned over a few thousand people dying from this latest strain of Covid, but you turn a blind eye while over 62 million babies have been murdered. Sacrificed on the alter of "convenience".

.

[bgreene]

Of course you cannot debate me. In a battle of wits, you're unarmed. All you can do is mock anyone that disagrees with you and repeat your same old lines over and over.

You post what YOU think are facts and truth, but they rarely bear any resemblance to the actual fact or truth. Even your "I'm pro-choice" comment is a misrepresentation.

Why don't you call it what it really is?

You're pro-murder of innocent unborn children.

It's funny that you are SOOOOO concerned over a few thousand people dying from this latest strain of Covid, but you turn a blind eye while over 62 million babies have been murdered. Sacrificed on the alter of "convenience".

.

Pro choice destroyer

[Destroyer]

Pro choice destroyer

Pro-MURDER BGreene

.

[bgreene]

Pro-MURDER BGreene

.

Choice is still the law of our land

[Destroyer]

Choice is still the law of our land

True, but that doesn't change what an abortion is. It's murder. legal yes, for now, but still murder.

.

[bgreene]

True, but that doesn't change what an abortion is. It's murder. legal yes, for now, but still murder.

.

Only if you believe “a human “ is alive at conception.


Destoyer - if you REALLY had interest in political discussions you’d write your own threads.
But you’re not - you just feel DESPERATE need to try to cover for the lying cheating con man traitor trump. I write facts and the truth - which you just rush to whitewash because you know you’ve been wrong all along.

So write your own political thread and ILL respond advising if it’s factual …..or however I choose to reply.

[Destroyer]

Only if you believe “a human “ is alive at conception.


Destoyer - if you REALLY had interest in political discussions you’d write your own threads.
But you’re not - you just feel DESPERATE need to try to cover for the lying cheating con man traitor trump. I write facts and the truth - which you just rush to whitewash because you know you’ve been wrong all along.

So write your own political thread and ILL respond advising if it’s factual …..or however I choose to reply.

You wrote: Only if you believe “a human “ is alive at conception.
Prove to me that it's not. Left alone, that conception will normally become a human being, it will age, it will produce progeny and it will die. Abortions interrupt the natural order of things. In all cases more and more scientists are now saying that life does, indeed, begin at conception. As soon as the first cell divides into two, because each one of those two cells carries the complete DNA to make a human being.

As to your comment about you writing facts and truth, no, you write garbage. Your idea of a discussion is to make a usually outlandish statement, and after you're proven false you just shift the dialog to something else. That's how you got the nickname "Shifty".

Lastly, I don't whitewash anything. I just point out the obvious factual misrepresentations in your posts. When you're right (rarely) I agree with you. When you're not I disagree. And as I said in another post you made, where you repeated this same garbage, the reason for all topics in this forum is to invite discussion. That means one person starts a thread, and other people can comment on it, either agreeing with or disagreeing with what has been written. Do you really believe that you just make a post and no one can comment on what you write? You cannot be that misinformed. But in case you are, reread what I just wrote. if you make a post, you should expect other people to comment on it.

.

[bgreene]

You wrote:
Prove to me that it's not. Left alone, that conception will normally become a human being, it will age, it will produce progeny and it will die. Abortions interrupt the natural order of things. In all cases more and more scientists are now saying that life does, indeed, begin at conception. As soon as the first cell divides into two, because each one of those two cells carries the complete DNA to make a human being.

As to your comment about you writing facts and truth, no, you write garbage. Your idea of a discussion is to make a usually outlandish statement, and after you're proven false you just shift the dialog to something else. That's how you got the nickname "Shifty".

Lastly, I don't whitewash anything. I just point out the obvious factual misrepresentations in your posts. When you're right (rarely) I agree with you. When you're not I disagree. And as I said in another post you made, where you repeated this same garbage, the reason for all topics in this forum is to invite discussion. That means one person starts a thread, and other people can comment on it, either agreeing with or disagreeing with what has been written. Do you really believe that you just make a post and no one can comment on what you write? You cannot be that misinformed. But in case you are, reread what I just wrote. if you make a post, you should expect other people to comment on it.

.

You’re comments to try and minimize the historic, violent trump supporter attack on our Capitol
proves you’re just throwing denials and disinformation …..not much more.
Typical trumper

[Destroyer]

You’re comments to try and minimize the historic, violent trump supporter attack on our Capitol
proves you’re just throwing denials and disinformation …..not much more.
Typical trumper

What in the world does that have to do with Roe vs Wade? Your train jumped off the tracks again.

.

[bgreene]

What in the world does that have to do with Roe vs Wade? Your train jumped off the tracks again.

.

Destroyer - you’re clearly obsessed with me - checking on my background - what I do for a living etc ….. your doctor would likely suggest you stay off this site for a while and take up basket weaving

[Destroyer]

Destroyer - you’re clearly obsessed with me - checking on my background - what I do for a living etc ….. your doctor would likely suggest you stay off this site for a while and take up basket weaving

You would like that wouldn't you? I poke so many holes in your silly posts. One thing though.... I haven't checked on your background. YOU told me what you do long ago.

.

[Pipe_Dream]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Decision to uphold likely due by June 2022

I'm not going to go into the motivation for the unprecedented leak at this time.

But this is a decent overview of Alito's draft opinion, despite being posted at Politico.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/abortion-draft-supreme-court-opinion-key-passages-00029470

I am cautiously optimistic.

[bgreene]

I'm not going to go into the motivation for the unprecedented leak at this time.

But this is a decent overview of Alito's draft opinion, despite being posted at Politico.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/abortion-draft-supreme-court-opinion-key-passages-00029470

I am cautiously optimistic.

And who’s going to adopt all the low income babies born of the poor that can’t afford travel to states allowing abortion ? You pipe dream ? And these unfortunate poor babies will grow up as addition drain on the economy - likely having poor babies again themselves . You going to pay more for welfare ?

[scook]

A start would be to address the hideous adoption process. Our family’s experience is that with many multiple thousands of dollars into the process, attempting to adopt (and getting very close - one baby actually in the care of the family members and then taken back from the adoptive dad’s arms by a social,worker) both were reverted back to pretty irresponsible mothers. It was a gut wrenching, horrible experience, trying to adopt and give a good life to these two babies of color. Then thousands more into the process, miraculously, a baby was able to be adopted and he’s an absolute joy to all of our family. I think the whole thing took three or four years, took north of $65k and was an extremely emotionally abusive process. Fortunately, there were lots of donations of resources and a lot of people praying and giving active support through the process.

I’d suggest working to make that process something that normal people with normal financial resources can actually have a chance of accomplishing before thinking that killing babies (people) is an OK thing to do as a usual and customary way of dealing with the problem.

You want to throw government money (our money) at problems - that wouldn’t be a bad, or inefficient, place to put some of it.

[scook]

Actually, your argument suggests that we should just kill the domestic terrorists who are destroying property, businesses and peoples lives - dragging on our economy very significantly.

[Pipe_Dream]

A start would be to address the hideous adoption process. Our family’s experience is that with many multiple thousands of dollars into the process, attempting to adopt (and getting very close - one baby actually in the care of the family members and then taken back from the adoptive dad’s arms by a social,worker) both were reverted back to pretty irresponsible mothers. It was a gut wrenching, horrible experience, trying to adopt and give a good life to these two babies of color. Then thousands more into the process, miraculously, a baby was able to be adopted and he’s an absolute joy to all of our family. I think the whole thing took three or four years, took north of $65k and was an extremely emotionally abusive process. Fortunately, there were lots of donations of resources and a lot of people praying and giving active support through the process.

I’d suggest working to make that process something that normal people with normal financial resources can actually have a chance of accomplishing before thinking that killing babies (people) is an OK thing to do as a usual and customary way of dealing with the problem.


Bless you and your family for giving him a chance in life.

[Pipe_Dream]

And who’s going to adopt all the low income babies born of the poor that can’t afford travel to states allowing abortion ? You pipe dream ? And these unfortunate poor babies will grow up as addition drain on the economy - likely having poor babies again themselves . You going to pay more for welfare ?

"Drain on the economy?"

It appears that life is cheap to you. Sad.

But the crux of the opinion, if you would bother to read it instead of merely reacting to a headline, is that the Supreme Court should never have ruled in favor of "Roe" to begin with.

Life begins at conception according to scientific consensus. Every life is precious, even an unwanted life.

Even MSB Joe Biden understands that we're talking about "a child" here.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1521520576409608193

[scook]

Thanks Pipe :)

[yodaddy]

"Drain on the economy?"
Life begins at conception according to scientific consensus. Every life is precious, even an unwanted life.



Indeed. That "cluster of cells" are human cells, and are developing into a functioning human, not a turnip. But then again, the turnip potential could explain the mental deficiencies attendant with liberal politics.

[bgreene]

Michigan - 70 % of pop in favor of choice . Yet the Republicans want to impose the strictest anti abortion rules in our nation - no abortion even rape and incest .
Disgusting

[scook]

That's a bit of an exaggeration - it assumes that there would be no modification to the 1931 law on their books. It seems likely that some modification would be forthcoming.

[bgreene]

The MAJORITY of Americans ( 65-70 % consistently ) DO NOT want Roe-Wade overturned.

The Republicans under Trump stacked the Supreme Court to over ride the Will of Americans.

This is FACT.

[Destroyer]

The MAJORITY of Americans ( 65-70 % consistently ) DO NOT want Roe-Wade overturned.

The Republicans under Trump stacked the Supreme Court to over ride the Will of Americans.

This is FACT.

The MAJORITY of Americans do not understand the damage done to our nation by Roe and later by Casey where 7 justices cut out of whole cloth something the Constitution doesn't say. There is no Constitutional right to abortion since nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the word abortion, yet in Roe the justices made their own interpterion of what they thought the Constitution said, rather than what is actually says.

By reversing Roe v Wade it will correct this very grievous error and the downright sloppy (SCOTUS words not mine) judgement that Federalized abortion and took the right of self determination out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. Reversing Roe will restore Democracy by letting people in each state vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal in their state. That's called Democracy.

Understand, I am not debating on the morality of abortion. That's a discussion for another day. I'm simple showing why reversing Roe is a good thing for the SCOTUS to do since it corrects a horrible error and overreach of authority by a previous court.

.

[bgreene]

[QUOTE=Destroyer;249487]The MAJORITY of Americans do not understand the damage done to our nation by Roe and later by Casey where 7 justices cut out of whole cloth something the Constitution doesn't say. There is no Constitutional right to abortion since nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the word abortion, yet in Roe the justices made their own interpterion of what they thought the Constitution said, rather than what is actually says.

By reversing Roe v Wade it will correct this very grievous error and the downright sloppy (SCOTUS words not mine) judgement that Federalized abortion and took the right of self determination out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. Reversing Roe will restore Democracy by letting people in each state vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal in their state. That's called Democracy.

Understand, I am not debating on the morality of abortion. That's a discussion for another day. I'm simple showing why reversing Roe is a good thing for the SCOTUS to do since it corrects a horrible error and overreach of authority by a previous court.

WE THE PEOPLE DO UNDERSTAND and do NOT want this LAW of the land changed.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-reverse-roe-americans-support-abortion/story?id=84468131

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massive-fence-supreme-court-abortion-draft

[bgreene]

What you likely DONT KNOW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF UPHOLDING ROE-WADE

FACTS - NOT OPINION from Constitutional Lawyer:

…”There is no stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. None. The document is silent on the issue.

In Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court found that the right to privacy can be inferred through various provisions of the US Constitution, ie 4th amendment (warrant required for searches), 5th amendment (right to remain silent), etc. As such, the Court held that a woman has a right to privacy regarding her body and pregnancy up and until viability of the fetus. (I am aware that this highly simplifies abortion law.)

SO - If Roe v. Wade is overturned, not only will it overturn abortion rights, it also will overturn privacy rights because there is no guaranteed right to privacy anywhere in the US Constitution.

Therefore, if you think overturning this decision doesn’t concern you, and the issue is solely about abortion, you are incorrect.

It concerns everyone ! “

[scook]

First, what you refer to is absolutely a legal opinion. There is no stated right to privacy, per se, but yes, it can be reasonably inferred from the 4th and 5th amendments, where it’s a reasonable application.

Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.

The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.

[bgreene]

First, what you refer to is absolutely a legal opinion. There is no stated right to privacy, per se, but yes, it can be reasonably inferred from the 4th and 5th amendments, where it’s a reasonable application.

Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.

The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.

Nope - it’s fact specific to the constitutional data

[scook]

You sound like a kid who’s trying to impress people by using bigger words than he understands. Constitutional data, what’s that?

How is it not opinion (are you aware that what your constitutional expert wrote is actually called a legal opinion) to conclude that overturning one ruling which was based on certain inferences will automatically keep those inferences from ever being used again in more reasonable applications?

You are punching well above your weight, making these proclamations. You are, as has been pointed out repeatedly by several others, swallowing the liberal doctrine without critical thinking.

[bgreene]

You sound like a kid who’s trying to impress people by using bigger words than he understands. Constitutional data, what’s that?

How is it not opinion (are you aware that what your constitutional expert wrote is actually called a legal opinion) to conclude that overturning one ruling which was based on certain inferences will automatically keep those inferences from ever being used again in more reasonable applications?

You are punching well above your weight, making these proclamations. You are, as has been pointed out repeatedly by several others, swallowing the liberal doctrine without critical thinking.

“ punching above my weight “ says scook as he poses as both judge and know it all.
Hahah go have a cookie - scookie

[Destroyer]

***8220; punching above my weight ***8220; says scook as he poses as both judge and know it all.
Hahah go have a cookie - scookie

I believe i cautioned you about personal insults. its unseemly. please stop

.

[bgreene]

I believe i cautioned you about personal insults. its unseemly. please stop

.

You should have a cookie too destroyer and a glass of milk

[scook]

You should leave off your infantile attempts at arrogant condescension.

[bgreene]

I believe i cautioned you about personal insults. its unseemly. please stop

.

Hah ….destroyer once again “ posing “ as Gentleman of this web site . Funny ! Hypocrite !

And of course - my encouraging scookie to have a cookie doesn’t compare to your posting history destroyer !!!
You should have a cookie too ! So funny are your silly posts .

[scook]

Yet another clumsy attempt at arrogant condescension. Doing that repeatedly doesn’t make you appear bright or to be a good faith participant in what COULD be a productive discussion.

[bgreene]

Yet another clumsy attempt at arrogant condescension. Doing that repeatedly doesn’t make you appear bright or to be a good faith participant in what COULD be a productive discussion.

Scookie - I’m not a great athlete …but I’m not clumsy either as you write associated with your non stop insults . Hahah.

Roe- Wade: supported to STAY as FEDERAL LAW by the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS .
That’s a FACT. Same as most all I post . FACTS and the TRUTH.

[Destroyer]

Scookie - I’m not a great athlete …but I’m not clumsy either as you write associated with your non stop insults . Hahah.

Roe- Wade: supported to STAY as FEDERAL LAW by the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS .
That’s a FACT. Same as most all I post . FACTS and the TRUTH.

I ASKED you to stop with the insults.

I'll make a deal with you. You show me where in the Constitution that it says that a woman, as protected by the Constitution, (As Roe V Wade claims) has the right to an abortion and I'll admit I was wrong and you were right. Deal?

However, if you cannot show me where it says that then you have to admit you were wrong and that I was right. OK?

.

[bgreene]

I ASKED you to stop with the insults.

I'll make a deal with you. You show me where in the Constitution that it says that a woman, as protected by the Constitution, (As Roe V Wade claims) has the right to an abortion and I'll admit I was wrong and you were right. Deal?

However, if you cannot show me where it says that then you have to admit you were wrong and that I was right. OK?

.

There was no INSULT from me in my last post where you claim .
You just write that PRETENDING there was an insult .

[Destroyer]

There was no INSULT from me in my last post where you claim .
You just write that PRETENDING there was an insult .

I don't "pretend" anything.

And I notice you haven't responded to my offer for a deal. Remember, this thread is about Roe V Wade and a woman's right to kill a baby.

.

[bgreene]

I don't "pretend" anything.

And I notice you haven't responded to my offer for a deal. Remember, this thread is about Roe V Wade and a woman's right to kill a baby.

.

1. There was no INSULT from me in my last post where you claim .
You just write that PRETENDING there was an insult .

2. Based on YOUR posting history, I’m not interested in any “ deal “ with you.
My interest is posting the FACTS and TRUTHS……which, I do .

[Destroyer]

1. There was no INSULT from me in my last post where you claim .
You just write that PRETENDING there was an insult .

2. Based on YOUR posting history, I***8217;m not interested in any ***8220; deal ***8220; with you.
My interest is posting the FACTS and TRUTHS***8230;***8230;which, I do .

So in other words you know I'm right about Roe v Wade.

My previous posting history? I'm not sure I even know what that means. Would you care to explain?

Your comment about my previous posting history is nothing but a smoke screen. Nice try.

And again, as I've said many times before, I do not pretend anything.

.

[bgreene]

So in other words you know I'm right about Roe v Wade.

My previous posting history? I'm not sure I even know what that means. Would you care to explain?

Your comment about my previous posting history is nothing but a smoke screen. Nice try.

And again, as I've said many times before, I do not pretend anything.

.

Majority of Americans support Roe-Wade . Trumps court appointees want to override the Will of the People.

[bgreene]

Taper interview on abortion details



https://www.cnn.com/

[scook]

“Trump’s” appointees want to properly rule on what the constitution says, rather than legislating from the bench. If a majority is really in favor of killing babies under all conditions, as a matter of convenience, they can elect representatives who will pass a law to that effect.

It’s a policy issue that should be a subject of law, then vetted by the courts when lawsuits are filed. That’s the constitutional process.

[bgreene]

***8220;Trump***8217;s***8221; appointees want to properly rule on what the constitution says, rather than legislating from the bench. If a majority is really in favor of killing babies under all conditions, as a matter of convenience, they can elect representatives who will pass a law to that effect.

It***8217;s a policy issue that should be a subject of law, then vetted by the courts when lawsuits are filed. That***8217;s the constitutional process.

More nonsense and excuses

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction

[scook]

You’re always quick to demonstrate your lack of understanding.

[bgreene]

LAW OF OUR LAND

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.


Three conservative justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter co-authored the court's main opinion in the 5-4 decision, writing:

"The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe vs. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.

[scook]

And it was a case of the court legislating from the bench, which is NOT their job.

[bgreene]

26 states will make abortion illegal if Roe is overturned .

16 of those states would also make abortion illegal including rape and incest.

Disgusting that politicians to decide what a woman, a family, and their doctors cannot do in the case of these decisions.

I am pro choice, I support upholding Rowe-Wade.

[scook]

The court was legislating from the bench. Laws are passed by state or federal legislators, signed by governors or the president and vetted by the courts, not the reverse. You being pro abortion or me being pro life doesn’t affect that. It’s not the court’s job to legislate.

[bgreene]

The court was legislating from the bench. Laws are passed by state or federal legislators, signed by governors or the president and vetted by the courts, not the reverse. You being pro abortion or me being pro life doesn’t affect that. It’s not the court’s job to legislate.

This is FACT Scook
26 states would be able to make abortion illegal if Roe is overturned .
16 of those states would also be able to make abortion illegal including rape and incest.

Disgusting

[scook]

ALL states would be able to make abortion legal or illegal and congress could pass a law at the federal level.

You follow the far left doctrine of proclaiming the sanctity of the constitution in cases that support your bias and narrative and ignore it when it suits you.

[bgreene]

ALL states would be able to make abortion legal or illegal and congress could pass a law at the federal level.

You follow the far left doctrine of proclaiming the sanctity of the constitution in cases that support your bias and narrative and ignore it when it suits you.

A…..I’m not “ far left” , I’m a centrist with a few so called liberal positions including our environment.

B…. As I ACCURATELY stated , 26 states would make abortion illegal and 17 would even outlaw in cases of rape and incest. Disgusting .

[scook]

And as I accurately said, you proclaim the sanctity of the constitution but ignore it when it suits you.

[Destroyer]

This is FACT Scook
26 states would be able to make abortion illegal if Roe is overturned .
16 of those states would also be able to make abortion illegal including rape and incest.

Disgusting

If Roe is overturned that will put the abortion question right back where it belongs. In the hands of the people of ALL 50 states who, by elections, can decide for themselves if they do or do not want abortion to be legal in the state they live in. That's called DEMOCRACY.

EACH state can make laws to make abortion legal or illegal, and can over time, reverse their laws as the people of that state see fit. It's the same for all 50 states.

.

[Pipe_Dream]

26 states will make abortion illegal if Roe is overturned .

16 of those states would also make abortion illegal including rape and incest.

Disgusting that politicians to decide what a woman, a family, and their doctors cannot do in the case of these decisions.

I am pro choice, I support upholding Rowe-Wade.

You can't even spell it.

[bgreene]

You can't even spell it.

Roe - Wade

[Destroyer]

Roe - Wade

Roe verses Wade and Casey verses Planned Parenthood.

.

[bgreene]

Roe verses Wade and Casey verses Planned Parenthood.

.

Disgusting control freaks forcing abominable rules upon women and their families

[scook]

I agree that the states, where this issue is legally dealt with, should make reasonable provision for the physical health of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest, while remembering that a life is still being taken.

It’s despicable and abominable to be murdering human babies for convenience, after a woman DOESN’T exercise control over her body. It would be a productive effort to make adoption a reasonable thing for regular, non-wealthy people to do - there’s a big demand that’s not being accommodated, very much to the detriment of the babies and would be parents.

It’s pretty obvious that supporting adoption in a meaningful way is something that would undermine the left’s doctrine of unlimited abortion - they seem to think it’s better to spend their time attacking an adoption support organization and illegally harassing and threatening Supreme Court justices.

[Pipe_Dream]

Disgusting control freaks forcing abominable rules upon women and their families

:cry:

[bgreene]

I agree that the states, where this issue is legally dealt with, should make reasonable provision for the physical health of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest, while remembering that a life is still being taken.

It’s despicable and abominable to be murdering human babies for convenience, after a woman DOESN’T exercise control over her body. It would be a productive effort to make adoption a reasonable thing for regular, non-wealthy people to do - there’s a big demand that’s not being accommodated, very much to the detriment of the babies and would be parents.

It’s pretty obvious that supporting adoption in a meaningful way is something that would undermine the left’s doctrine of unlimited abortion - they seem to think it’s better to spend their time attacking an adoption support organization and illegally harassing and threatening Supreme Court justices.

Notice that you blame the WOMAN in your post.
Also notice that you don’t come out AGAINST inclusion of rape and incest in abortion laws, you instead call it “ reasonable provisions “ ….
Word games from scook.

I’m PRO CHOICE . No jargon, no word games .

[scook]

If you see word games anywhere in my post, there's something wrong with you.

I'm pro-life, with reasonable safeguards. You're pro murder of babies - no jargon or word games, I'll give you that. I find your cavalier attitude toward killing babies to be troubling and despicable.

As for blaming the woman, if a woman is concerned about having choice about her body, a good choice would be to not have unwanted babies. Birth control is cheap and available, and actually exercising control over what is done with and to her body is a very good practice to avoid becoming pregnant.

There are honest people arguing both sides of the issue, but wholesale killing of human beings isn't an ethical way of dealing with what is almost always irresponsible behavior.

[bgreene]

“ cavalier attitude “ says scook.

You’re wrong as usual - I’m pro choice , nothing “ cavalier “ about it .
Just my position…….which is also the majorities position.

[scook]

Certainly cavalier about human life, and I don’t think the majority supports your extreme lack of concern about murdering babies.

[Destroyer]

Abortion is just another nice word for murder. 53,000,000 babies have been murdered since Roe was adopted. It's been estimated that 70,000,000 million people died in WWII. So we are on track to murder more people (babies ARE people) than died in WWII... Anyone that feels pride in that is sick and should burn in hell..

Here's an interesting tid-bit of information. According to Planned Parenthood, 438 out of every 1000 abortions are African American. Just a little less than 50%. Yet African American's only account for 18% or the population. Perhaps if there was more responsibility taken that statistic might be more in line with national percentages. I mean, why use protection if you can just go and have an abortion whenever you want. Just sayin'

.

[bgreene]

Abortion is just another nice word for murder. 53,000,000 babies have been murdered since Roe was adopted. It's been estimated that 70,000,000 million people died in WWII. So we are on track to murder more people (babies ARE people) than died in WWII... Anyone that feels pride in that is sick and should burn in hell..

Here's an interesting tid-bit of information. According to Planned Parenthood, 438 out of every 1000 abortions are African American. Just a little less than 50%. Yet African American's only account for 18% or the population. Perhaps if there was more responsibility taken that statistic might be more in line with national percentages. I mean, why use protection if you can just go and have an abortion whenever you want. Just sayin'

.

Approx 600,000 abortions per year. Who’s to adopt all those unwanted babies ?
Who’s going to pay the welfare ?
Life begins at conception ? A mass of cells with potential to form a human isn’t quite murdering babies .

[scook]

A mass of cells? Pretty well organized mass, given that barring a significant anomaly, ALWAYS turn into what you recognize as a human person.

You must have missed my post about the horrible adoption process - lots of normal, non-wealthy families want to adopt but it’s an impossibly difficult, heartbreaking and expensive process. Maybe work on that problem, as I have previously suggested and you are as usual pretending not to have heard, instead of murdering innocent children.

[bgreene]

A mass of cells? Pretty well organized mass, given that barring a significant anomaly, ALWAYS turn into what you recognize as a human person.

You must have missed my post about the horrible adoption process - lots of normal, non-wealthy families want to adopt but it’s an impossibly difficult, heartbreaking and expensive process. Maybe work on that problem, as I have previously suggested and you are as usual pretending not to have heard, instead of murdering innocent children.

Oh now it’s “ murdering children “ ……a mass of cells.
Roe-Wade CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAW until trumps court appointees go against the Will of the majority of Americans .

[Pipe_Dream]

Life begins at conception ?

Yes. Follow the science.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

[Pipe_Dream]

I’m PRO CHOICE .

You're pro-killing human fetuses in the womb. We get it.

[Pipe_Dream]

Also notice that you don’t come out AGAINST inclusion of rape and incest in abortion laws, you instead call it “ reasonable provisions “ ….


https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47daaca1f2fc32ab2f96f6ee519d6b6a4bac62af9df3a3ac0d 3a13f6bf864abd.gif

[bgreene]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47daaca1f2fc32ab2f96f6ee519d6b6a4bac62af9df3a3ac0d 3a13f6bf864abd.gif

WRONG …..pro choice is PRO CHOICE …
Nice spin as usual

[Pipe_Dream]

Life begins at conception ? A mass of cells with potential to form a human isn’t quite murdering babies .

Follow the science.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/pelosi-science-abortion-wrong/

[bgreene]

Your “ science “ Pipe is NOT accurate, shows pic of later term fetus , and is from a political biased source - anti abortion .

The FACTS vs your link are quite different as this NON POLITICAL link explains.

And ….I believe few women want to go through an abortion, it’s about the choice needed as is current federal and constitutional law.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

[scook]

Fact-check a non-political link? Of course you believe that. To quote you: hahaha

[bgreene]

Fact-check a non-political link? Of course you believe that. To quote you: hahaha

Yes indeed scook - I read Pipes link and it was both inaccurate and biased.
I’m not “ pro abortion “ ….I personally think it’s a sad and in many cases a very difficult decision BUT there are so many reasons that the law should remain as current - pro choice.

This is also how the majority of Americans feel.

[scook]

Everyone has a bias toward what they believe. Pipe’s source owns that they’re not in favor of abortion. Their science appears to be legitimate and much more current than that cited in your much older link. Given the speed with which science and medical technology is progressing, that’s quite relevant.

If polled, I’m confident that most, if not all of the fact check organization favor abortion. They don’t own their bias, but it comes through pretty clearly, e.g. one study author found it logical, based on nervous system development, that pain was felt, but said that wasn’t the thrust of his study - fact check used that statement to dismiss the idea.

The split between pro life and pro abortion is very close to half and half. Pro abortion has a couple of percentage points lead, but nowhere do I see it hitting 50%.

[bgreene]

Everyone has a bias toward what they believe. Pipe’s source owns that they’re not in favor of abortion. Their science appears to be legitimate and much more current than that cited in your much older link. Given the speed with which science and medical technology is progressing, that’s quite relevant.

If polled, I’m confident that most, if not all of the fact check organization favor abortion. They don’t own their bias, but it comes through pretty clearly, e.g. one study author found it logical, based on nervous system development, that pain was felt, but said that wasn’t the thrust of his study - fact check used that statement to dismiss the idea.

The split between pro life and pro abortion is very close to half and half. Pro abortion has a couple of percentage points lead, but nowhere do I see it hitting 50%.

Scook says “ nowhere does HE see it reaching 50 % ….WRONG .
OVER 50 % support Roe- Wade

[Pipe_Dream]

Your “ science “ Pipe is NOT accurate, shows pic of later term fetus , and is from a political biased source - anti abortion .

The FACTS vs your link are quite different as this NON POLITICAL link explains.

And ….I believe few women want to go through an abortion, it’s about the choice needed as is current federal and constitutional law.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

"Factcheck.org" non political? You can't possibly be serious.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[bgreene]

"Factcheck.org" non political? You can't possibly be serious.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Most all my posts serious pipe…..except when I suggest “ scookie have a cookie “ :)

[bgreene]

And of course the question of whether TRUMP paid for his own girlfriends ABORTIONS remains

Trump WAS reportedly PRO CHOICE until he decided to go Republican and run for office .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/02/donald-trump-marueen-dowd-interview-abortion-past-partners

[Pipe_Dream]

And of course the question of whether TRUMP paid for his own girlfriends ABORTIONS remains

Trump WAS reportedly PRO CHOICE until he decided to go Republican and run for office .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/02/donald-trump-marueen-dowd-interview-abortion-past-partners

:you:

Man, Trump is living rent free inside your head.

[bgreene]

:you:

Man, Trump is living rent free inside your head.

At least I’m not fooled by his lies as you are .

[bgreene]

And of course the question of whether TRUMP paid for his own girlfriends ABORTIONS remains

Trump WAS reportedly PRO CHOICE until he decided to go Republican and run for office .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/02/donald-trump-marueen-dowd-interview-abortion-past-partners

Yup …..Trumps got quite a history

[Pipe_Dream]

At least I’m not fooled by his lies as you are .

What's that, CNN viewer?

[bgreene]

What's that, CNN viewer?

When Trump was asked about abortions for his past girlfriends …..he dogged the question.
Google it . FACT.

[Pipe_Dream]

Wait, aren't you "pro-choice?"

[bgreene]

Wait, aren't you "pro-choice?"

Wait for what ?
Trumps in favor of making abortion illegal - but when asked if he had involvement on any of his girlfriends abortions …..he dogged the question .

Keep playing your little word games pipe - it continues to diminish your virtue .

[Pipe_Dream]

Wait for what ?
Trumps in favor of making abortion illegal - but when asked if he had involvement on any of his girlfriends abortions …..he dogged the question .

Keep playing your little word games pipe - it continues to diminish your virtue .

You do understand that reversing Roe v Wade will not make abortions illegal, don't you? Or was that just a silly word game?

[bgreene]

You do understand that reversing Roe v Wade will not make abortions illegal, don't you? Or was that just a silly word game?

You’re WRONG as usual pipe …… Then the states can decide and 26 states will make it illegal and 17 likely for incest and rape too. Sick.
Wonder how many abortions trumps girlfriends had …….he dogged the question

[scook]

I think you mean he dodged the question, but whatever the answer is, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The Constitution leaves those decisions up to the states and if you are a supporter of the Constitution, you have to accept that.

[bgreene]

I think you mean he dodged the question, but whatever the answer is, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The Constitution leaves those decisions up to the states and if you are a supporter of the Constitution, you have to accept that.

Roe-Wade resulted in constitutional law

[Pipe_Dream]

Roe-Wade resulted in constitutional law

Supreme Court decisions can be overturned.

And yes, some states will restrict abortions and some will make them illegal if SCOTUS overturns Roe. Good for them.

[bgreene]

Supreme Court decisions can be overturned.

And yes, some states will restrict abortions and some will make them illegal if SCOTUS overturns Roe. Good for them.

Not what the MAJORITY of Americans want

[scook]

Try to pry the tightly sealed lid on your mind loose just enough to understand that it’s not the job of the court to reflect the majority opinion (though it’s doubtful that’s the case here). The legislative branch, signed by the chief executive create LAWS that are supposed to reflect the will of the people and the courts vet them against the Constitution if someone has a problem with them.

[Destroyer]

Roe-Wade resulted in constitutional law

And THAT is precisely WHY it MUST be overturned! The Supreme Courts job is NOT to make constitutional law. Their job is just to adjudicate what is all ready there. It is Congress' job to MAKE law. Roe was wrong because they applied their own definition to what the Constitution DID NOT say. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the word abortion. Nowhere does the constitution give women the unrestricted right to have an abortion.

Given the strict upbringing of the framers of the Constitution and their religious backgrounds and beliefs, a woman having an abortion for convenience was unthinkable. I think they would have recoiled in horror and written specific laws forbidding it if they would have know that it would mean the mass murder of over 53,000,000 babies.

.