Third trimester abortions are not elective. Only done in rare and extreme cases. Mostly when the health of the mother is jeopardy. The bottom line is that an 8th month pregnant mom cannot just go to an abortion clinic and get an abortion; in the US.
I bet these Justices are happy they have the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter BSIT
- Start date
You are the one who ranted in outrage, "The right for a woman to make decisions about her own BODY is not being taken away...?", but now you seem to agree that those rights are not absolute - in contradiction to your own rant.
You are so transparently confused.
I think neither side has a monopoly. When it comes to far left and far right, they are two sides of the same coin. Extremism is what we should be condemning. We've seen Jan 6th and we've seen the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor.
So instead of finger-pointing "liberals" or "conservatives," what we should really be angry at is all form of extremism that chooses violence and destruction as the response when things don't go their way.
Your example is ridiculous because abortions don't happen at 9 months.
I didn't say the mother's rights were absolute, did I? This is you being you.
But people that argue all abortion should be illegal are saying the baby's rights are absolute. The mother has none. That you too?
What exactly should we be condemning, in your view, re the "plot to kidnap' the gov of Michigan?
Sorry I am not following. I suppose we can all agree on no one wants "rights stripped away"? So would you be OK if Supreme Court now says each state can pass its own laws whether their citizens can have guns?
That's a good question. When do you think is the time when a fetus should be able to enjoy all the rights that a baby has?
You were not meaning to imply that the "right for a woman to make decisions about her own BODY is being taken away" ?
That people are resorting to violence when things go their way. That is not how democracy works. I thought I've made it very clear when I said "what we should really be angry at is all form of extremism that chooses violence and destruction as the response when things don't go their way."
The fact that it didn't get carried out is fortunate.
But people that argue all abortion should be illegal are saying the baby's rights are absolute. The mother has none. That you too?
He's on an "FBI is evil" kick. That's what he's referring to with Michigan. It's a rabbit hole
Then why don't you state your position instead of playing 50 questions?.......to include rape, incest, and life of the mother.
You stated yours first, which showed you were characteristically befuddled, so I wanted to help you despite your childish insults.
Bob says it is a rabbit hole because it once more shows the corruption and incompetence of the FBI, not that more examples were needed:
"The outcome of the trial is a stunning rebuke to the prosecution, which at times appeared to view the case — one of the most prominent domestic terror investigations in a generation — as a slam dunk. The split verdict calls into question the Justice Department’s strategy, and beyond that, its entire approach to combating domestic extremism. Defense attorneys in the case, along with observers from across the political spectrum, have argued the FBI’s efforts to make the case, which involved at least a dozen confidential informants, went beyond legitimate law enforcement and into outright entrapment."
A Stunning Surprise In The Michigan Kidnapping Case Calls The Government’s Domestic Terror Strategy Into Question
In one of the nation’s most important domestic terrorism trials, the government’s single-minded pursuit of a conviction speaks volumes — about way more than just this one case.
Then why don't you state your position instead of playing 50 questions?.......to include rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Told you. I just saved you the 5 posts it would have taken for him to get there.
Come on, Bob. You usually slink away and hide after only 3-4 posts, not 5.
Given any more deep thought to how you know when to trust the FBI and when not to?
Don't be so hard on yourself, Bob. It only took about 3 questions for you to see the foolishness of your position, not 50.
Rape, incest, life of the mother. Pretty basic stuff.
Bob says it is a rabbit hole because it once more shows the corruption and incompetence of the FBI, not that more examples were needed:
"The outcome of the trial is a stunning rebuke to the prosecution, which at times appeared to view the case — one of the most prominent domestic terror investigations in a generation — as a slam dunk. The split verdict calls into question the Justice Department’s strategy, and beyond that, its entire approach to combating domestic extremism. Defense attorneys in the case, along with observers from across the political spectrum, have argued the FBI’s efforts to make the case, which involved at least a dozen confidential informants, went beyond legitimate law enforcement and into outright entrapment."
A Stunning Surprise In The Michigan Kidnapping Case Calls The Government’s Domestic Terror Strategy Into Question
In one of the nation’s most important domestic terrorism trials, the government’s single-minded pursuit of a conviction speaks volumes — about way more than just this one case.www.buzzfeednews.com
OK, you can start another thread and we can talk about FBI. But the topic here is about condemning using violence when it doesn't go your way because that hurts democracy, so the plot to kidnap a governor fits that description, whether it is "manipulated" or not. Do you agree with me that this kind of "using violence as a response to when things don't go your way" happens with the extreme right too, and not just limited to "liberals", as we've seen in Jan 6th?
For example, let's say John thinks that any woman who rejects him is evil, as all women basically are. So he thinks the he should teach them a lesson by raping them and forcing them to submission. He shares the thought with his buddy. His buddy loves stirring the pot, so he "manipulates" and "encourages" John. At the last minute though, his biddy realizes John is serious and will likely go ahead and do irreversible harm, so he reports John to law enforcement. John is arrested, but since he hasn't yet done anything to any women, his charges were later dropped.
Now, do you think that John's idea of forcing women into submission as dangerous, whether he actually carries out or not, whether his buddy encourages him or not? Will you condemn John's idea? Can you see what his buddy does is irrelevant?
In your case, yes. You didn't state your "main point" and used words incorrectly. How else am I supposed to know what you mean?
Does a fetus/child have separate DNA from the mother?
Do you support the right to doctor performed self-mutilation?
Nonono. Stick with answering the questions about your statement........then we can get to your questions.
You're saying a woman hasn't lost any rights when the government tells her she has to carry the baby inside her to term?
Yes.
But if instead, in a scenario more apt to the Whitmer fiasco, John's buddy wants to be a hero and so convinces his nitwit friend John that women are bad and should be raped - but then calls the police to have John arrested just in time, can you see that John's buddy is corrupt and evil?
It was actually pretty obvious. You just decided to try to skirt around it, per usual.
OK, so I suppose we settle that in my version, we agree that John's ideas are dangerous and needs to be condemned.
Now let's get into the role of his buddy. In my version, John already has the idea that women are bad and should be raped. His buddy loves stirring the pot and encourages him.
In your version, John does not think women are bad and should be raped. His buddy convinces John to take action, just because John is a nitwit.
So our difference is how innocent John is. The way I see it, blaming John as a nitwit is a scapegoat excuse. The Jan 6th folks, and the folks who protest outside the Supreme Court justices' houses - are they all nitwit and just "manipulated"? I am sure they are influenced, but to call them nitwit and insinuated that they are just innocently manipulated seem too far fetch an argument.
And even if we take a step back and assume your FBI theory is true, because that's what your article says they've been doing it for at least half a century,
then shall we also question the Black Panthers in the 70s, and Muslim groups after 9/11? How about Antifa? How about the looters after BLM protests? Does it mean they can also use the same FBI excuse? I'm afraid your FBI excuse just opens a can of worms.
Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Some take it as granting the right for individuals to keep and bear arms, others, like former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, believe that "it does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context."
So what if the Supreme Court now punts the issue to the states, and let each state decide how the militia context would apply? In other words, the states can determine whether individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.
What's your stance? Is the Supreme Court tramping on people's gun rights?
In my version, whether John thinks women are bad or not, he has never raped any.
One of those poor nitwits the FBI rounded up for this idiotic adventure lived in the basement of a vacuum shop with no plumbing, according to the article.
Since you appear to have been completely oblivious to the court ruling in this 'kidnapping' case, did you also not see the video of the Pulitzer Prize winning NYT 'reporter' Rosenberg bragging about what a farce Jan 6 was and that it was "crawling" with FBI informants - all contrary to what he had actually written in the NYT?
Well now I’m just really confused, because the title of this thread is yay for the 2nd amendment but Indy Rider here is acting all sadsies like his arsenal is about to be taken away. I guess he’s just covering his both sides bases here.
I didn't say anything about anyone taking away guns. And the irony of you and yours telling everyone to wear masks while saying all I want is to tell someone what they can and can't do is laughable.
BTW, I haven't killed anyone with my "killing machines". The only way that would happen is if someone threatened me or my family with deadly force...
1). I'd be perfectly fine with states having that power. In a sense, they already do...
2). My personal belief is at conception. But I understand that may not be realistic. So I would suggest at the sign of a heartbeat...
So if a guy carries a gun to the subway, screams at the crowd, "Go to hell you all evil bastards", and starts randomly shooting, only to realizes how idiotic that he forgets to put bullets in, so no one gets hurt. The man is arrested, but he shouldn't be punished because he hasn't hurt anyone?
No. Can you please share a link?
