New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

And that is the ultimate result. Getting you or anyone to agree and admit: Anytime. Anywhere. Any reason.

 

It sounds good until it's openly practiced.

 

That said, I don't read you as a 34/Tibs/TH3/Coach Tuesday leftist. You seem a bit more balanced. It's the far left -- the part that has all the money -- that will explode when they find out women are aborting babies because they're gay.

 

Yea that's what I figured and its interesting.  It really does raise tough questions, and there is no doubt there are bad reasons.  Especially as science gets more advanced and we can predict physical features of children (aborting babies until you get one with green eyes, etc.)  

 

 

*** I don't know why it riled up others, I was just switching back to minor disabilities compared to homosexuality because I think it proves your point better.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by Crayola64

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Sugar and spice.  

 

It’s a serious question.

 

You’ve stated you believe abortion is acceptable until birth.

 

What are the magical properties of the birth canal?

Edited February 20, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Yea, and I made your list earlier in that thread, can you respond if it satisfies you?  As for here, I explained why I thought aborting people for minor disabilities is more interesting than aborting for sexual preference, what is it that you don't understand about that?  

No, your list did not satisfy me. Again, links?

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It’s a serious question.

 

You’ve stated you believe abortion is acceptable until birth.

 

What are the magical properties of the birth canal?

 

We give rights to babies once they enter this world through the magical canal.  In other words, once it is born It seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw the line.  

 

Are you in favor of giving those rights beforehand? Should we let parents get a SSN for a baby not yet born?  

 

You can disagree, but I think being born is a good like to draw for a lot of things.

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, your list did not satisfy me. Again, links?

 

Honestly man, if you ask someone to take the time to make you a list, you can take three seconds to copy and paste a name into google to get what you are looking for.  

 

Big shocker you asked someone to make a list, they did, and you have some stupid reason to not engage with them.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

We give rights to babies once they enter this world through the magical canal.  In other words, once it is born It seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw the line.  

 

Are you in favor of giving those rights beforehand? Should we let parents get a SSN for a baby not yet born?  

 

You can disagree, but I think being born is a good like to draw for a lot of things.

 

Your position isn’t logical.

 

First of all, you don’t “give rights” to someone.    Rights are an intrinsic and inalienable part of humanity.  You can, of course, choose not to protect someone’s rights; but that’s the hallmark of oppressive tyrannies.

 

Secondly, the “assigning of a social security number” is a horrible annalogy for multiple reasons.

 

The notion is that humans have the right to life, and a just government has the duty to protect that right with legislation.

 

Life clearly does not begin where the ***** ends, as there are no magical life confiring properties there.  As such, with that admission, the only logical and just position can be one of viable life.  Else you’re making the argument of monsters holding a total disregard for the value of life.

[Numark3]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Your position isn’t logical.

 

First of all, you don’t “give rights” to someone.    Rights are an intrinsic and inalienable part of humanity.  You can, of course, choose not to protect someone’s rights; but that’s the hallmark of oppressive tyrannies.

 

Secondly, the “assigning of a social security number” is a horrible annalogy for multiple reasons.

 

The notion is that humans have the right to life, and a just government has the duty to protect that right with legislation.

 

Life clearly does not begin where the ***** ends, as there are no magical life confiring properties there.  As such, with that admission, the only logical and just position can be one of viable life.  Else you’re making the argument of monsters holding a total disregard for the value of life.

 

I didn't say life begins when they come out the birth canal.  I said it is a very clear black/white line to draw proscribing rights to someone.  And legal rights are absolutely given to someone.  I am not making a chart comparing the rights someone has before and after being born, that shouldn't be disputed...

 

Like I said, you can disagree with me, but I think it is a reasonable place to draw the line.  

[IDBillzFan]

24 minutes ago, TH3 said:

So I am guessing you offer up your home and your resources to afford children who are adopted because their parents are not financially capable of raising them - or you are even better than that and help adoptable kids who are severely disabled  - a life beyond what their parents can offer....

 

Did I see you in the hospice ward helping a mom out who just gave birth to a child who will only live for hours - or help a mom out who gave birth to a still born child...

 

Or are you just on here complaining that people should do what you believe is correct? 

 

You've taken the discussion from "late-term abortions are okay because that's not what I signed up for" to "giving birth to child who will only live for hours.

 

You couldn't be more disengenuous if you had Tib's password.

 

First of all, as to the point you're making by moving goal posts (again), I know more than a few women who have given birth to a child who was not going to survive outside the womb, and they are always surrounded by family and church followship in ways you couldn't possibly comprehend due to your lack of original thinking. They're there to help mourn, arrange for the funeral, and provide meals to the family for a couple of weeks to help them through their loss. I've been directly involved often, so piss off for thinking so lazily. 

 

Second, and back to the discussion before you shifted it, thinking people can ask a very simple question: Is there any way a woman could avoid getting pregnant with a baby they don't want?

 

Gee...can someone help me out here? Any ideas?

 

Oh, dear, if only women had ways to avoid getting pregnant. And if only those options were free! 

 

My oh my, I guess a person can dream.

 

But no. To a predictable leftist like yourself, there are only two choices: abort everything or give birth to a child that won't survive outside the womb for more than two hours.

 

That's how ridiculous you sound.,

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I didn't say life begins when they come out the birth canal.  I said it is a very clear black/white line to draw proscribing rights to someone.  And legal rights are absolutely given to someone.  I am not making a chart comparing the rights someone has before and after being born, that shouldn't be disputed...

 

Like I said, you can disagree with me, but I think it is a reasonable place to draw the line.  

 

You're 100% wrong here, and are conflating legality with philosophical and moral constructs.

 

Our entire system of government is predicated on the notion that humans have the intrinsic right to life (amongst other things) and that the ends of just and legitimate government are to protect that right with legislation; and further, that governments which do not do those things are unjust and illegitimate.

 

Our Foundational documents concede that rights do not come from government, but rather are intrinsic to an individuals humanity.  Again, our government does not endow individuals with rights.  It acknowledges the inalienable rights of individuals, and legitimizes itself with a pledge to protect them.

 

You "line" is arbitrary, as it assigns protections on the "right to life" not when life begins, but rather when it's convenient for individual mothers, and inherently flawed in that it intends a usurpation of government authority over the individual, insisting that rights flow from it's benevolent hand. 

 

Finally, your suggestion that charting what rights someone has before and after birth shouldn't be disputed is absurd, monstrous, and an outright rejection of science.  Humans have rights when they become human, which is when we admit that they are alive. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Kerfuffle over CNN’s hiring of Sarah Isgur exposes why the MSM needs more conservatives.

 

Media Are Still Trying To Pretend Planned Parenthood Didn’t Sell Baby Body Parts

 

 

When CNN recently hired Sarah Isgur, Jeff Sessions’ former spokeswoman, to be a political editor at its Washington bureau, the predictable backlash from left-dominated media types and activists followed. Even the allegedly unbiased CNN newsroom was reportedly “demoralized” at the mere thought of a Republican on staff. No word on how former Obama official, now CNN’s chief national security correspondent and co-anchor of “CNN Newsroom,” Jim Sciutto, felt about the development.

 

Isgur was accused of holding various right-of-center positions. And when a former political activist-turned-Vox writer claimed that Isgur “pushed Planned Parenthood conspiracy theories that were grounded in misleadingly edited videos,” the talking point quickly gained popularity with Isgur’ detractors.

 

The alleged proof of this conspiracy theorizing resides in a single retweet of a Federalist piece written by my colleague Mollie Hemingway, praising Isgur’s former boss Carly Fiorina for highlighting a series of undercover videos released in 2015, clearly catching Planned Parenthood executives and doctors admitting to illegally profiting from the sale of the fetal tissue of aborted babies.

 

The only conspiracy theory attached to the incident was spread by pro-abortion activists and Planned Parenthood apologists, which included CNN’s news division and other major media outlets, who either ignored the shocking videos or falsely and repeatedly claimed that videos of executives breezily discussing the harvesting and illegal selling of baby parts had been “heavily” and “deceptively” edited.

 

The fact was that Center for Medical Progress had edited the footage in the same manner news organizations always edit footage: they highlight the newsworthy parts of conversations. Unlike most of their media detractors, though, the Center for Medical Progress posted the entire raw footage of the tapes for anyone to watch.

 

Now, it’s bad enough that Democrats defaulted to their post-Trump posture of pretending inconvenient truths simply didn’t exist. But in 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra decided to take it a step further, and use his power to intercede on behalf of Planned Parenthood–a multiple-time contributor to his campaign—by attacking free expression for political reasons. Becerra signed an arrest warrant and filed 15 felony charges against David Daleiden, the founder of Center for Medical Progress, in an effort to shut down what was, by any definition, a worthy investigative effort.

 

As far as I can tell, not a single self-styled firefighting, truth-telling, democracy-saving, mainstream journalist—folks who have never in their professional careers had to worry about retribution from the state for exposing wrongdoing—stood up to defend Daleiden. None of the people who are “demoralized” by the sight of a Republican in their organization or horrified by a “Fake News” T-shirt asked what sort of precedent was being set when a partisan attorney general transparently attacked free speech.

 

MORE at the LINK:

[IDBillzFan]

14 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Kerfuffle over CNN’s hiring of Sarah Isgur exposes why the MSM needs more conservatives.

 

Media Are Still Trying To Pretend Planned Parenthood Didn’t Sell Baby Body Parts

 

I really love how the media tries to whitewash their own stupidity.

 

PP dices up babies and sells their body parts. It's been proven, and there would be more proof if Planned Parenthood didn't pay then CA Attorney General Kamala Harris millions of dollars to raid the Daleiden house to confiscate the rest of the videos.

 

You'd think a group of people who cheer for abortion would have no problem admitting just how much they love to dice up babies for profit.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

 

You'd think a group of people who cheer for abortion would have no problem admitting just how much they love to dice up babies for profit.

 

because they know what an evil ***** thing this is to do

 

[B-Man]

6 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

because they know what an evil ***** thing this is to do

 

 

 

University of Massachusetts poll of NH Democrat voters.

All four candidates support abortion up to birth:

Biden 28%

Sanders 20%

Harris 14%

Warren 9%

5:20 PM - 20 Feb 2019

 

 

.

[PBLESS]

9 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

If you are talking about a law that allows someone to get an abortion for any reason, at any stage, then I believe the main talking point stays the same regardless of the reason: I may disagree with the reason, but I believe in the right to get an abortion at any stage for any reason.  I honestly don't think it changes things that much.  My only point, that seems to be lost on a few, was instead of fast forwarding to a hypothetical where there is a gay gene, why not stick to the minor disabilities that we can actually detect.  I think its just as interesting, more relevant, and it doesn't mix views on abortion and homosexuality (i just don't think its interesting, but I get your point).  Or in other words, how would aborting someone with down's syndrome sit with the left is an interesting point.  

 

But my position on this is I don't care about the reason for getting an abortion, its irrelevant to me.  No reason or a bad reason, I am okay with abortions.  

Glad your mother didn't feel that way.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, PBLESS said:

Glad your mother didn't feel that way.

Not everybody here would agree with you.

[The_Dude]

I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 

neuken je

[/dev/null]

28 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 

[B-Man]

One pound at birth, born premature...............a real fighter.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

11 hours ago, The_Dude said:

I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 

 

[The_Dude]

10 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

I bought it the day it came out and I've played like 30 minutes....I need some quality time with the sticks. 

[B-Man]

Small steps.................

 

 

California Judge Orders State to Pay $399K to Pro-life Pregnancy Centers by Brianna Heldt

Original Article

The state of California has been ordered to pay $399,000 to three crisis pregnancy centers and a politically-conservative law firm after the Supreme Court struck down a law intended to force crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to display information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion was unconstitutional. In October, a federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the law known as the California Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act       .

[B-Man]

Please tell us again how we are misinterpreting the new laws !

 

 

Today the Vermont House is debating a bill, co-sponsored by 90 Democrats, that would legalize abortion at stage of pregnancy and for any reason. This is far more radical even than the abortion bills in New York and Virginia.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by B-Man

[Numark3]

23 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're 100% wrong here, and are conflating legality with philosophical and moral constructs.

 

Our entire system of government is predicated on the notion that humans have the intrinsic right to life (amongst other things) and that the ends of just and legitimate government are to protect that right with legislation; and further, that governments which do not do those things are unjust and illegitimate.

 

Our Foundational documents concede that rights do not come from government, but rather are intrinsic to an individuals humanity.  Again, our government does not endow individuals with rights.  It acknowledges the inalienable rights of individuals, and legitimizes itself with a pledge to protect them.

 

Dude, the governor gives rights to you.  There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law.  I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this.

 

Quote

You "line" is arbitrary, as it assigns protections on the "right to life" not when life begins, but rather when it's convenient for individual mothers, and inherently flawed in that it intends a usurpation of government authority over the individual, insisting that rights flow from it's benevolent hand. 

 

Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line.  We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth.

 

Quote

Finally, your suggestion that charting what rights someone has before and after birth shouldn't be disputed is absurd, monstrous, and an outright rejection of science.  Humans have rights when they become human, which is when we admit that they are alive. 

 

I don’t know what you are talking about.  You aren’t living in this world or something.  Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb.

 

 

what a silly thing to argue about.

15 hours ago, PBLESS said:

Glad your mother didn't feel that way.

 

Yes, because everyone who is an advocate for abortions gets abortions. Great logic.

 

oh, and my mother does believe that and I turned out just fine lol.

15 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Not everybody here would agree with you.

 

Lolol.  You would have looked less foolish yesterday I suppose.

 

still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples)

Edited February 21, 2019 by Crayola64

[Foxx]

46 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

... still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples)

... non-political motives ....

 

you know this, how exactly?

 

let's see.... he is friends with Kamala Harris. his staged attack included a noose around his neck. what bill passed the Senate in the immediately following days? oh yeah, an anti-lynching bill sponsored by, Kamala Harris. nope nothing to see here, no political motives at all.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Foxx

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Dude, the governor gives rights to you.  There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law.  I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this.

 

 

Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line.  We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth.

 

 

I don’t know what you are talking about.  You aren’t living in this world or something.  Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb.

 

 

what a silly thing to argue about.

 

Yes, because everyone who is an advocate for abortions gets abortions. Great logic.

 

oh, and my mother does believe that and I turned out just fine lol.

 

Lolol.  You would have looked less foolish yesterday I suppose.

 

still waiting in that thread for you to answer if the smollet thing is a political hoax, since he had non-political motives... (you know, the same stupid logic you tried to use to discount a few of my examples)

Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Dude, the governor gives rights to you.  There are rights like you are talking about that are intrinsic or inalienable....then there are legal rights that are accorded by statute and law.  I have no idea why in the world you would dispute or argue this.

 

No, the government does not.  You either lack a fundamental understanding of what rights are, and how they differ from social/legal privileges; or you're intentionally trying to conflate them in order to bolster your poor argument.

 

Rights are inherent to you, like the right to life.  It is the moral priori we appeal to when we state that it is wrong to kill.

 

Social/legal privileges are separate ideas entirely, and are not intrinsic to your humanity. 

 

This is not semantics.  This is an incredibly important distinction which I will not allow you to gloss over.

 

Disagree with it, but it’s a reasonable line.

 

It is not a reasonable line, as it is nothing but an arbitrary assertion.  A reasonable line would be backed with logic and science.

 

We treat babies pretty differently pre and post birth.

 

Speak to this in depth please.

 

I don’t know what you are talking about.  You aren’t living in this world or something.  Many rights are, in fact, given after birth to a person that they did not have while in the womb.

 

This is an absurd fiat declaration of your position, not an argument.

 

See my first response to you in this post.

 

what a silly thing to argue about.

 

When an argument as poor as yours is made, it can surely seem so.

[Numark3]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you.

 

I mean multiple people agreed that Todd was a politically hoax.

 

and its about you owning up after you obnoxiously made me google links and make a list.

[row_33]

28 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Keep proclaiming victory if that's what you need. Nobody here agrees with you and I really don't have any desire to argue with a rock. You'll need to change your MO before I discuss anything more with you.

 

much better with crayola on ignore

 

[Numark3]

54 minutes ago, Foxx said:

... non-political motives ....

 

you know this, how exactly?

 

let's see.... he is friends with Kamala Harris. his staged attack included a noose around his neck. what bill passed the Senate in the immediately following days? oh yeah, an anti-lynching bill sponsored by, Kamala Harris. nope nothing to see here, no political motives at all.

 

Thank you, my post (if you read it?) was that it was still a political hoax with political motives EVEN IF there were also none-political motives.  That was my point, and I am glad you agree with me.

 

3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too.  I disagreed.

[row_33]

You've chosen to ignore content by Crayola64.

 

Thank you!

 

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

I mean multiple people agreed that Todd was a politically hoax.

 

and its about you owning up after you obnoxiously made me google links and make a list that I didn't do very well and ended up embarrassing myself.

FIFY. I see you haven't changed your MO. Furthermore, your above post (3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too.  I disagreed.) is a lie.  

Edited February 21, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[Numark3]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, the government does not.  You either lack a fundamental understanding of what rights are, and how they differ from social/legal privileges; or you're intentionally trying to conflate them in order to bolster your poor argument.

 

Rights are inherent to you, like the right to life.  It is the moral priori we appeal to when we state that it is wrong to kill.

 

Social/legal privileges are separate ideas entirely, and are not intrinsic to your humanity. 

 

This is not semantics.  This is an incredibly important distinction which I will not allow you to gloss over.

 

 

 

 

It is not a reasonable line, as it is nothing but an arbitrary assertion.  A reasonable line would be backed with logic and science.

 

 

 

 

Speak to this in depth please.

 

 

 

 

This is an absurd fiat declaration of your position, not an argument.

 

See my first response to you in this post.

 

 

 

 

When an argument as poor as yours is made, it can surely seem so.

 

This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of.  Yes, there inalienable rights.  But there also legal rights that are not inalienable.  For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government.  These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by.

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

FIFY. I see you haven't changed your MO.

 

Lol remember when you distinguished many of my examples and disregarded them because there were also non-political motives?  That was dumb of course, but funny that you can’t distinguish them now from smollet.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of.  Yes, there inalienable rights.  But there also legal rights that are not inalienable.  For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government.  These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by.

 

Lol remember when you distinguished many of my examples and disregarded them because there were also non-political motives?  That was dumb of course, but funny that you can’t distinguish them now from smollet.

You seem to be involved in a lot of dumb arguments. I wonder what the common denominators are?

[Numark3]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You seem to be involved in a lot of dumb arguments. I wonder what the common denominators are?

 

Well since you want to weigh in, do you think the government gives any legal rights, or are they all inalienable?

 

(and it’s just this argument and the one you refuse to finish because you know you are wrong.  But oh well)

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Well since you want to weigh in, do you think the government gives any legal rights, or are they all inalienable?

 

(and it’s just this argument and the one you refuse to finish because you know you are wrong.  But oh well)

There is a difference between rights and privileges. I finished the previous argument plus any future arguments until you change your MO. So, go claim your victory and have a parade. People here know differently though.

[Numark3]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There is a difference between rights and privileges.

 

Hahaha so you both think the only legal rights are those that are inalienable, and the rest are legal privileges?  What is this based on, philosophy?

 

in the real world, and in this country, you have many legal “rights.”  For example, in certain circumstances, a landlord may have a “right of entry.”  Surely that’s not an inalienable right.  No, it’s a right given to landlords by statute.

 

while you may both think constitutional law is the basis of most laws, it’s not.  99% of our laws come elsewhere, and some give legal rights to people.  I know this may seem crazy.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Crayola64

[TakeYouToTasker]

37 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of.  Yes, there inalienable rights.  But there also legal rights that are not inalienable.  For example, as a renter or homeowner, you have legal rights given to you by the government.  These are called legal rights, not social or legal privileges or whatever you referred to them by.

 

It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter, that you don't understand the concepts in play; and the argument only seems dumb to you because of your profound ignorance.

 

"Rights" has a very specific and narrow meaning.  They are fundamental to your humanity, and the basis of right and wrong.  They cannot be taken from you, or given to you; only violated and protected. 

 

Anything beyond this which requires the intervention of other people is not a right, but rather is a privilege.  Rights exist inherent to you in a state of nature, requiring the efforts or no other person or entity; as you cannot be said to have a right to anything which requires the labor of another person.

 

What you are referring to as "legal rights" are not rights at all.  They are social/legal privileges put into place, constructed on top of your foundational natural rights, and do not supersede, amend, or repeal them.

 

These come from other individuals or societies intervention, and can be removed from you; meaning you had no right to them.  They are not rights. 

[Foxx]

50 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Thank you, my post (if you read it?) was that it was still a political hoax with political motives EVEN IF there were also none-political motives.  That was my point, and I am glad you agree with me.

 

3rdnlng argued yesterday that something couldn’t be a political hoax if there actual non-political motives too.  I disagreed.

[DC Tom]

52 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

This is officially the dumbest argument I have been a part of. 

 

Ever notice that all the dumb arguments you've had, all have one thing in common?  You.

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

Please tell us again how we are misinterpreting the new laws !

 

 

Today the Vermont House is debating a bill, co-sponsored by 90 Democrats, that would legalize abortion at stage of pregnancy and for any reason. This is far more radical even than the abortion bills in New York and Virginia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's unconstitutional.  Violation of the equal protection clause.  Where's my right to terminate a pregnancy protected?

[Numark3]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Ever notice that all the dumb arguments you've had, all have one thing in common?  You.

 

 

Ummmm.  Wouldn’t we all have that factor (“you”) as a common denominator?

 

Its kinda inherent in you being in the argument....