Roe-Wade Woman’s right of choice

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

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]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

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]

Originally Posted by bgreene

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]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

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]

Originally Posted by scook

***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