I bet these Justices are happy they have the 2nd Amendment

[charlespig]

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...

Sign of a heartbeat is about 6 weeks, and you think that's the time that a fetus should enjoy the same right as a baby. If so, shall we also change laws to allow people to start claiming a 6-week fetus as dependent on our taxes? Insurance companies need to allow mothers to insure on their 6-week fetus so she can collect if she miscarries? Can the mother claim money for child support too?

Can I strip away a baby's right to be a US citizen? If not, and a 6-week fetus enjoys the same right as baby, then we can't deport any pregnant woman, for doing so will strip the right of the baby to be born a US citizen?

If personhood begins at 6 weeks, we need to allow parents to get a SSN for their fetus and begin exercising private rights and using public resources, right?

Further complicating the problem, if states can now make their own decision, so a fetus in Alabama becomes a citizen by 6 weeks and enjoys all the rights that a person has, but the same fetus in New York won't enjoy those rights until he is born?

I'd like to hear your answer on these issues.

 

[Riveting-]

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?

Of course he should be punished, but how does your misguided analogy of a lone actor have any relation to FBI corruption and entrapment?

Wait a minute: is that you, Bob, using a second account? This sure looks like a Bob-quality analogy.

 

[Riveting-]

Sign of a heartbeat is about 6 weeks, and you think that's the time that a fetus should enjoy the same right as a baby. If so, shall we also change laws to allow people to start claiming a 6-week fetus as dependent on our taxes? Insurance companies need to allow mothers to insure on their 6-week fetus so she can collect if she miscarries? Can the mother claim money for child support too?

Can I strip away a baby's right to be a US citizen? If not, and a 6-week fetus enjoys the same right as baby, then we can't deport any pregnant woman, for doing so will strip the right of the baby to be born a US citizen?

If personhood begins at 6 weeks, we need to allow parents to get a SSN for their fetus and begin exercising private rights and using public resources, right?

Further complicating the problem, if states can now make their own decision, so a fetus in Alabama becomes a citizen by 6 weeks and enjoys all the rights that a person has, but the same fetus in New York won't enjoy those rights until he is born?

I'd like to hear your answer on these issues.

That is you, isn't it Bob? Admit it....

 

[purduepat1969]

Sign of a heartbeat is about 6 weeks, and you think that's the time that a fetus should enjoy the same right as a baby. If so, shall we also change laws to allow people to start claiming a 6-week fetus as dependent on our taxes? Insurance companies need to allow mothers to insure on their 6-week fetus so she can collect if she miscarries? Can the mother claim money for child support too?

Can I strip away a baby's right to be a US citizen? If not, and a 6-week fetus enjoys the same right as baby, then we can't deport any pregnant woman, for doing so will strip the right of the baby to be born a US citizen?

If personhood begins at 6 weeks, we need to allow parents to get a SSN for their fetus and begin exercising private rights and using public resources, right?

Further complicating the problem, if states can now make their own decision, so a fetus in Alabama becomes a citizen by 6 weeks and enjoys all the rights that a person has, but the same fetus in New York won't enjoy those rights until he is born?

I'd like to hear your answer on these issues.

Those are just stupid arguments, and you know it. A fetus deserves the right to life, period...

 

[PurdueFan1]

Those are just stupid arguments, and you know it. A fetus deserves the right to life, period...

Until birth, at which point you suddenly stop caring about it.

 

[SKYDOG]

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.

You have a couple of examples where the right became destructive. Not to sure about the supposed kidnapping of the Michigan governor being violent and destroying things. The left has numerous examples of being violent over the past few years and it’s not even close.

 

[Hausta01]

Y’all and your dumb fukking second amendment. No one is taking your guns. You can drop the ridiculous whataboutism with that.

Of course, the irony of you bitching so much about wanting to own as many killing machines as possible while calling yourself pro life isn’t lost on me.

You’re not pro life. You just want to be able to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. That’s all it is. Power and control.

Where is the "right" to an abortion at in the constitution?

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?

No, the government isn't telling her that. There is no right a woman has lost. Especially since nothing has actually happened with the SC.

Does the child/fetus have different DNA than the mother?

 

[Hausta01]

Until birth, at which point you suddenly stop caring about it.

Incorrect.

 

[TMan92]

I wonder if people on the right will get to the point of protesting and doing violence to the left if they don’t get their way? The right just talks about it while the left acts on it many times in a destructive way.

 

[purduepat1969]

Until birth, at which point you suddenly stop caring about it.

Please tell me how I personally don't care about life after birth?

 

[BuilderBob6]

Where is the "right" to an abortion at in the constitution?

No, the government isn't telling her that. There is no right a woman has lost. Especially since nothing has actually happened with the SC.

Does the child/fetus have different DNA than the mother?

There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. There's also nothing in it about women or their rights, nothing about right to privacy, nothing about the right to vote. In fact, there are many issues the supreme court has considered that aren't in the constitution.

I thought that this whole conversation assumed Roe gets overturned. You want to wait a month or two? Or you want to explain how a woman hasn't lost the right to freakin LIVE when her life is given up to possibly save an unborn?

Of course a woman and her fetus have different DNA. That's science. Does that count if the fetus has no heartbeat?

 

[PurdueFan1]

Incorrect.

Lol right. You want to force the women to give birth and then you shrug and walk away. Again, it’s not about being pro life. It’s about power and control. Nothing more.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Where is the "right" to an abortion at in the constitution?

No, the government isn't telling her that. There is no right a woman has lost. Especially since nothing has actually happened with the SC.

Does the child/fetus have different DNA than the mother?

You do know it’s constitutionally protected, right?

 

[SKYDOG]

View embedded media

Hard to believe this is accurate since the media didn’t make big stories about this. If many of these events are true the media would have been all over this. Must of these must have been nothing burgers as the media wouldn’t miss a good opportunity to smear the right.

 

[TMan92]

Hard to believe this is accurate since the media didn’t make big stories about this. If many of these events are true the media would have been all over this. Must of these must have been nothing burgers as the media wouldn’t miss a good opportunity to smear the right.

🙉🙈🙊

 

[Hausta01]

You do know it’s constitutionally protected, right?

Can you lead to the article?

 

[Hausta01]

There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. There's also nothing in it about women or their rights, nothing about right to privacy, nothing about the right to vote. In fact, there are many issues the supreme court has considered that aren't in the constitution.

I thought that this whole conversation assumed Roe gets overturned. You want to wait a month or two? Or you want to explain how a woman hasn't lost the right to freakin LIVE when her life is given up to possibly save an unborn?

Of course a woman and her fetus have different DNA. That's science. Does that count if the fetus has no heartbeat?

Since a child/fetus has a different DNA, it is not the mother's body. Of course it counts if there is not heartbeat, the genetic code is still different.

What does this mean?
"Or you want to explain how a woman hasn't lost the right to freakin LIVE when her life is given up to possibly save an unborn?"

Are you talking about the horrible decision between saving the life of either the mother or child?

 

[purduepat1969]

There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. There's also nothing in it about women or their rights, nothing about right to privacy, nothing about the right to vote. In fact, there are many issues the supreme court has considered that aren't in the constitution.

I thought that this whole conversation assumed Roe gets overturned. You want to wait a month or two? Or you want to explain how a woman hasn't lost the right to freakin LIVE when her life is given up to possibly save an unborn?

Of course a woman and her fetus have different DNA. That's science. Does that count if the fetus has no heartbeat?

There are very few abortions where it's about saving the life of the woman. Most abortions are done for convenience reasons and nothing more...

 

[BuilderBob6]

Since a child/fetus has a different DNA, it is not the mother's body. Of course it counts if there is not heartbeat, the genetic code is still different.

What does this mean?
"Or you want to explain how a woman hasn't lost the right to freakin LIVE when her life is given up to possibly save an unborn?"

Are you talking about the horrible decision between saving the life of either the mother or child?

If the fetus can't live outside the womb, what does the DNA matter?

Are you saying that at the moment the DNA is formed in the fetus, the mother no longer has a say in what happens to the fetus? The government is now in .....and they get to decide what happens to it? In the case of the mother's life being in danger, the government gets to decide that the baby's life is more important than the mother. The government tells the husband that his wife has to die. The FAMILY has no day so.

That's exactly what you're saying.

 

[BuilderBob6]

There are very few abortions where it's about saving the life of the woman. Most abortions are done for convenience reasons and nothing more...

861 in 2020 to be exact. I'm sure it's comforting to the families of those mothers that there are so few.

So in effect, the government gets to decide if these women live or die. It chooses death. The women don't even get to choose whether they live or die.

I don't care if there's one or a million. The government shouldn't be in charge of whether a woman lives or dies. How can a right be more basic than a right to live?

 

[Hausta01]

I don't care if there's one or a million. The government shouldn't be in charge of whether a woman lives or dies. How can a right be more basic than a right to live?

Thanks for seeing our point.

 

[Hausta01]

If the fetus can't live outside the womb, what does the DNA matter?

Are you saying that at the moment the DNA is formed in the fetus, the mother no longer has a say in what happens to the fetus? The government is now in .....and they get to decide what happens to it? In the case of the mother's life being in danger, the government gets to decide that the baby's life is more important than the mother. The government tells the husband that his wife has to die. The FAMILY has no day so.

That's exactly what you're saying.

A child cannot live without caretakers, why does separate DNA matter?

Yes, I am saying at conception is when the child/fetus is alive. So the mother nor government should get to kill it.

Why are you insisting the government is forcing anything? The federal government is just saying each individual state will determine the law, that's it. Why are you so insistent that women be able to kill their unborn children?

In the instance of having to choose between a mother or child, I would lean towards saving the mother. Either way it's a horrible decision to have to make.

 

[purduepat1969]

861 in 2020 to be exact. I'm sure it's comforting to the families of those mothers that there are so few.

So in effect, the government gets to decide if these women live or die. It chooses death. The women don't even get to choose whether they live or die.

I don't care if there's one or a million. The government shouldn't be in charge of whether a woman lives or dies. How can a right be more basic than a right to live?

Dude, there were 700K abortions in 2017. If an abortion means life or death for the mother, then by all means it should be performed. But what about the other 699,000+ abortions?

 

[BuilderBob6]

Thanks for seeing our point.

While you may believe life begins at conception, science doesn't agree with you.

Still, you, and the state, are saying the child's life is more important than the mother's. The state doesn't have the right to make that moral judgement and neither do you.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Dude, there were 700K abortions in 2017. If an abortion means life or death for the mother, then by all means it should be performed. But what about the other 699,000+ abortions?

Be glad to have that conversation.......but there are states that are going to make abortion illegal under ANY circumstances.

If we can all agree that exceptions will be made for the life of the mother, we can move on the rape and incest.

 

[Hausta01]

While you may believe life begins at conception, science doesn't agree with you.

Still, you, and the state, are saying the child's life is more important than the mother's. The state doesn't have the right to make that moral judgement and neither do you.

How does science disagree? When does "science" say life begins?

 

[Hausta01]

Be glad to have that conversation.......but there are states that are going to make abortion illegal under ANY circumstances.

If we can all agree that exceptions will be made for the life of the mother, we can move on the rape and incest.

What states are those?

 

[BuilderBob6]

How does science disagree? When does "science" say life begins?

My mistake. All science gets questioned by the right. Nevermind.

 

[Hausta01]

My mistake. All science gets questioned by the right. Nevermind.

Great answer by someone who claims something but doesn't actually know it. You are the master at that Bob. Let me guess, you make the claim and to find out anything else about it I should "Google it" because you certainly didn't.

 

[BuilderBob6]

What states are those?

Do your own homework. Google "trigger laws". Do you even know what they are?

Even states that would allow a six week or near total ban are considering a total ban.

Idaho Lt. Gov. McGeachin calls for special session to remove all exceptions from abortion 'trigger law'

She called on Brad Little to call a special session to remove the three exceptions, including rape and incest, from Idaho’s current “trigger law” banning abortion.

www.google.com

 

[Hausta01]

Do your own homework. Google "trigger laws". Do you even know what they are?

Even states that would allow a six week or near total ban are considering a total ban.

Idaho Lt. Gov. McGeachin calls for special session to remove all exceptions from abortion 'trigger law'

She called on Brad Little to call a special session to remove the three exceptions, including rape and incest, from Idaho’s current “trigger law” banning abortion.

www.google.com

You made the claim, you do the freaking work. Dear Lord Bob, how hard is that? If you make a claim you need to substantiate it. I don't do your work for you.

 

[Hausta01]

Do your own homework. Google "trigger laws". Do you even know what they are?

Even states that would allow a six week or near total ban are considering a total ban.

Idaho Lt. Gov. McGeachin calls for special session to remove all exceptions from abortion 'trigger law'

She called on Brad Little to call a special session to remove the three exceptions, including rape and incest, from Idaho’s current “trigger law” banning abortion.

www.google.com

So after reading the article, it's one lady who is running for governor who wants it changed and there is little to no support for it. Great work Bob, you found the nut.

 

[purduepat1969]

Be glad to have that conversation.......but there are states that are going to make abortion illegal under ANY circumstances.

If we can all agree that exceptions will be made for the life of the mother, we can move on the rape and incest.

I have no issues with exceptions. However, rape consists of less than 1% of abortions and incest less than 0.5%. If certain lawmakers could stop being stupid and allow those exceptions, the excuses for why abortion is needed would go away...

 

[3ZSDAD]

You're really going to use the example of a 9 month old baby? An extreme position. GTFO. Not going to do this if that's how you start the conversation. Of course a 9 month old has rights.

What about an 8 month old, 7 months, 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, 3 months, 2 months? At what point is a women considered pregnant? At what point if the woman is killed that is carrying a child is it not considered 2 murders? Why is it 2 murders if she is shot by a guy in the hood but praised by PP if a doctor sucks the baby out of her. Our problem is people who support abortion just to get votes and never contemplate the unintended consequences of their policies

 

[3ZSDAD]

View embedded media

Roughly 45 million babies aborted during that time frame
40 percent of them black. People in favor of abortion are racist

 

[jrcrist]

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?

They can’t, as the constitution specifically states it shall not be infringed, which means the Supreme Court or no other government institution can “punt” it anywhere.

 

[jrcrist]

Be glad to have that conversation.......but there are states that are going to make abortion illegal under ANY circumstances.

If we can all agree that exceptions will be made for the life of the mother, we can move on the rape and incest.

Which account for less than 3% of abortions.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Which account for less than 3% of abortions.

Then there should be no problem making exceptions for them.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

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.

Why does someone who encourages someone else to commit suicide go to jail?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Then there should be no problem making exceptions for them.

Except exceptions become loopholes. The problem is liberals are cowards and liars. Say what you mean. You want to be able to murder when it suits you. Join the pro death dark side. It's liberating. Ignore the religious right. Half of abortions are by people who claim to be religious. Total hypocrisy.