Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 206

Thread: Roe v Wade overturned ?

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    That was my first thought as well.

    Has it never been adjudicated you think?
    Probably not. I think some laws are kept in reserve just in case, but they aren't enforced all the time lest people get wise to what's going on.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    This guy is still alive?
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  6. #154
    It's a far superior decision, obviously. But what has to be prepared for is that this will allow the left to portray themselves as put upon underdogs. They do that anyway,d espite controlling all cultural nodes. This will help that narrative. That needs to be counteracted if at all possible.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    And all of these screaming shrews...almost universally white women.

    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  8. #156
    @jmdrake

    AG Merrick Garland Refuses to Enforce Laws Protecting SCOTUS

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ecting-scotus/

    JOHN NOLTE 11 May 2022

    The pro-baby-slaughtering protests, chanting, and screaming outside the homes of six Supreme Court justices violate federal law, and Joe Biden’s attorney general refuses to enforce that law.

    Here it is in black and white: 18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading:

    Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    The law is strikingly clear. It is a crime to protest “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge” with “the intent of influencing any judge.”

    And yet, even though this is the law, hundreds of pro-abortion loons are flagrantly violating this law by doing exactly that: protesting outside the residences of six justices in the hopes of persuading them to rule a certain way.

    Now, it is a perfectly valid position to oppose this law, to see it as a violation of the First Amendment, to believe it is unconstitutional. As long as the protests are peaceful, why should We the People be restricted in our protests? It’s also possible that the ban on protesting near courthouses is unconstitutional, but that the ban on protesting near someone’s house in a residential neighborhood is constitutional. The Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech.

    What’s more, what is wrong with trying to influence a judge’s ruling?

    But that’s not the point here…

    The point is that the law is the law is the law, and it is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s sworn duty to uphold federal law, and he is not doing that. Why? Well, does anyone doubt that Garland and the lawless White House that appointed him would like nothing more than to see the endless and demonic slaughter of innocent, unborn children continue?

    Garland is pro-abortion. That’s why he’s not enforcing the law. This has nothing to do with principle. If it were pro-life protesters out there, you can bet Garland would have already rounded them up and thrown away the key.

    Once again, it is plain to see that in this country, there is one law for people on the left and another for people on the right.

    Nevertheless, according to the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws. The executive branch, which Garland is part of, enforces that law. Period. End of story. By not enforcing the law, Garland is violating his constitutional oath. It’s not up to him to decide which laws he will and won’t enforce. He is also setting a terrible precedent by allowing this brazen lawbreaking to continue. What’s to stop future attorneys general from doing the same?

    It comes down to this… If Garland disagrees with a law, the most effective way to see that law overturned is to enforce it. Arrests could result in court challenges that kill the law.

    Some people blame Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) for not enforcing the law. Well, unless the feds deputize the local police force, a state governor cannot enforce federal law. That’s up to federal law enforcement, which Merrick Garland oversees.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  9. #157
    So it looks like he agrees with our analysis. The law itself, with regards to protesting around courthouses, is unconstitutional. But laws against protesting at someone's HOME are constitutional. The Biden administration has decided not to uphold the law. Okay. So....why doesn't the other side protest at Kagan, Meyer and Jackson's homes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    @jmdrake

    AG Merrick Garland Refuses to Enforce Laws Protecting SCOTUS

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ecting-scotus/

    JOHN NOLTE 11 May 2022

    The pro-baby-slaughtering protests, chanting, and screaming outside the homes of six Supreme Court justices violate federal law, and Joe Biden’s attorney general refuses to enforce that law.

    Here it is in black and white: 18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading:

    Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    The law is strikingly clear. It is a crime to protest “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge” with “the intent of influencing any judge.”

    And yet, even though this is the law, hundreds of pro-abortion loons are flagrantly violating this law by doing exactly that: protesting outside the residences of six justices in the hopes of persuading them to rule a certain way.

    Now, it is a perfectly valid position to oppose this law, to see it as a violation of the First Amendment, to believe it is unconstitutional. As long as the protests are peaceful, why should We the People be restricted in our protests? It’s also possible that the ban on protesting near courthouses is unconstitutional, but that the ban on protesting near someone’s house in a residential neighborhood is constitutional. The Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech.

    What’s more, what is wrong with trying to influence a judge’s ruling?

    But that’s not the point here…

    The point is that the law is the law is the law, and it is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s sworn duty to uphold federal law, and he is not doing that. Why? Well, does anyone doubt that Garland and the lawless White House that appointed him would like nothing more than to see the endless and demonic slaughter of innocent, unborn children continue?

    Garland is pro-abortion. That’s why he’s not enforcing the law. This has nothing to do with principle. If it were pro-life protesters out there, you can bet Garland would have already rounded them up and thrown away the key.

    Once again, it is plain to see that in this country, there is one law for people on the left and another for people on the right.

    Nevertheless, according to the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws. The executive branch, which Garland is part of, enforces that law. Period. End of story. By not enforcing the law, Garland is violating his constitutional oath. It’s not up to him to decide which laws he will and won’t enforce. He is also setting a terrible precedent by allowing this brazen lawbreaking to continue. What’s to stop future attorneys general from doing the same?

    It comes down to this… If Garland disagrees with a law, the most effective way to see that law overturned is to enforce it. Arrests could result in court challenges that kill the law.

    Some people blame Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) for not enforcing the law. Well, unless the feds deputize the local police force, a state governor cannot enforce federal law. That’s up to federal law enforcement, which Merrick Garland oversees.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Nevertheless, according to the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws. The executive branch, which Garland is part of, enforces that law. Period. End of story. By not enforcing the law, Garland is violating his constitutional oath. It’s not up to him to decide which laws he will and won’t enforce. He is also setting a terrible precedent by allowing this brazen lawbreaking to continue. What’s to stop future attorneys general from doing the same?

    It comes down to this… If Garland disagrees with a law, the most effective way to see that law overturned is to enforce it. Arrests could result in court challenges that kill the law.

    I agree with that Breitbart article about the reason for Garland's not enforcing this law is because he's pro-abortion. But I don't agree with the reasoning in the part I quoted.

    If a law is unconstitutional, then Garland is obligated not to enforce it. It isn't to wait until the Court decides on the law's constitutionality, and then if the Court decides to lie and call an unconstitutional law constitutional just go on and keep enforcing an unconstitutional law, which he vowed not to do in his oath of office.

    This passing of the buck is typical in both the executive and legislative branches. By the reasoning of the article, legislators are also well within their rights to pass unconstitutional laws and then have the executive branch enforce those laws until they eventually get challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional (or, as often happens, ruled constitutional even if they aren't). I have heard supposedly conservative legislators use this exact line of argument to defend their refusals to promise not to vote for unconstitutional laws.

    If the article were right about this reasoning, then there really would be no point in having all members of the legislative and executive branches vow to uphold the Constitution.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 05-12-2022 at 11:55 AM.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So it looks like he agrees with our analysis. The law itself, with regards to protesting around courthouses, is unconstitutional. But laws against protesting at someone's HOME are constitutional. The Biden administration has decided not to uphold the law. Okay. So....why doesn't the other side protest at Kagan, Meyer and Jackson's homes?
    Because they know that, if they did, within 24 hours, they'd be cooling their heels for the next couple of years right alongside the 6 Jan protesters in some DC political prison.

    (I know we're both aware of that, just wanted it on the record)

    @jmdrake

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall one of the Bundy people were charged with this law, or something similar to it.

    Do you recall anything like that?
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 05-12-2022 at 11:13 AM.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  12. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I agree with that Breitbart article about the reason for Garland's not enforcing this law is because he's pro-abortion. But I don't agree with the reasoning in the part I quoted.

    If a law is unconstitutional, then Garland is obligated not to enforce it. It isn't to wait until the Court decides on the law's constitutionality, and then if the Court decides to lie and call an unconstitutional law constitutional just go on and keep enforcing an unconstitutional law, which he vowed not to do in your oath of office.

    This passing of the buck is typical in both the executive and legislative branches. By the reasoning of the article, legislators are also well within their rights to pass unconstitutional laws and then have the executive branch enforce those laws until they eventually get challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional (or, as often happens, ruled constitutional even if they aren't). I have heard supposedly conservative legislators use this exact line of argument to defend their refusals to promise not to vote for unconstitutional laws.

    If the article were right about this reasoning, then there really would be no point in having all members of the legislative and executive branches vow to uphold the Constitution.
    A valid point.

    But Garland can't come out and say that.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I agree with that Breitbart article about the reason for Garland's not enforcing this law is because he's pro-abortion. But I don't agree with the reasoning in the part I quoted.

    If a law is unconstitutional, then Garland is obligated not to enforce it. It isn't to wait until the Court decides on the law's constitutionality, and then if the Court decides to lie and call an unconstitutional law constitutional just go on and keep enforcing an unconstitutional law, which he vowed not to do in your oath of office.

    This passing of the buck is typical in both the executive and legislative branches. By the reasoning of the article, legislators are also well within their rights to pass unconstitutional laws and then have the executive branch enforce those laws until they eventually get challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional (or, as often happens, ruled constitutional even if they aren't). I have heard supposedly conservative legislators use this exact line of argument to defend their refusals to promise not to vote for unconstitutional laws.

    If the article were right about this reasoning, then there really would be no point in having all members of the legislative and executive branches vow to uphold the Constitution.
    Very good point! In fact conservatives usually praise "constitutional sheriffs" who say up front they will not enforce mass gun confiscation if that becomes "the law."
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Because they know that, if they did, within 24 hours, they'd be cooling their heels for the next couple of years right alongside the 6 Jan protesters in some DC political prison.
    I'm not certain of that. January 6th was an aberration and it's wrong to draw too many parallels from it. I know most people here support what happened. I do not. Some protesters were indeed peaceful. Others were literally kicking in doors, smashing windows and climbing through, running after police officers who were drawing them away from congress etc. If someone were kicking in Justice Thomas door that was barred with chairs on the other side, and some antifa goon with a backpack tried to crawl through after pipe bombs had been found that day....well forgive me for not wanting to arrest the secret service agent that shot the antifa goon in the head. Yet, for some odd reason, people want a different standard for Ashlii Babbitt. Sorry. I just can't be inconsistent like that. Yes I think there are January 6th protesters that were overcharged. But there are some who definitely crossed the line.

    /rant.

    Now back to my original point. If you do exactly the same thing that the other side does, you protest with sides outside the homes of the justices that voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, you don't kick in doors, you don't smash windows, then they come and arrest you? Okay. You've won at that point. Seriously you have. The main tactic of the civil rights movement was to plan to get arrested for things that most thinking people would think are not valid reasons for being arrested. Then force Garland to explain why one group of protesters are being arrested and another is not for doing the exact same thing and the exact same time in the exact same jurisdiction. Someone might ask "Well what about agent provocateurs." You have them on both sides of every issue. Police your own protest. If you can't control certain bad actors then people who are peaceful should simply leave. But it's best to control the bad actors.

    (I know we're both aware of that, just wanted it on the record)

    @jmdrake

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall one of the Bundy people were charged with this law, or something similar to it.

    Do you recall anything like that?
    I don't recall that. I know Clive Bundy himself was never arrested in 2014 but later in 2016 when he was headed to assist in another standoff he was arrested on charges from his first standoff and those charges were ultimately dismissed.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #163
    SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

    Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.
    I'm always reminded of this scene:

    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

    Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.
    It will help with their fundraising, I'm sure. But I think it's a miscalculation to think that this is a winning issue for them. Everyone draws this line in a different place and most people are comfortable with allowing each state to set their own policies.

    In any debate, the GOP candidate only has to ask the opposing candidate where they draw the line. If they draw the line at anything less than the first breath, they'll lose their base. If they do choose to take the hard stance and say it's the mother's choice until the cord is cut, they'll lose everyone else.

    I think the electorate has had enough with the clown show for awhile - on all issues. The tide has turned.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    It will help with their fundraising, I'm sure. But I think it's a miscalculation to think that this is a winning issue for them. Everyone draws this line in a different place and most people are comfortable with allowing each state to set their own policies.

    In any debate, the GOP candidate only has to ask the opposing candidate where they draw the line. If they draw the line at anything less than the first breath, they'll lose their base. If they do choose to take the hard stance and say it's the mother's choice until the cord is cut, they'll lose everyone else.

    I think the electorate has had enough with the clown show for awhile - on all issues. The tide has turned.
    Not so much a winning issue, just something to run on and keep people continually divided into two camps while we're all collectively being looted and WEF'ed. Note the video I linked. It's not depicting one party or the other but rather both parties together and how they can manufacture interest/participation in an election when people are collectively overall disgusted with both parties year after year. Hope that makes sense.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  19. #166
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  20. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Not so much a winning issue, just something to run on and keep people continually divided into two camps while we're all collectively being looted and WEF'ed. Note the video I linked. It's not depicting one party or the other but rather both parties together and how they can manufacture interest/participation in an election when people are collectively overall disgusted with both parties year after year. Hope that makes sense.
    Perfect sense.

    Plus if the Supreme Court overturns Roe & Wade, it just means that now the individual states can decide- which is what it should have been in the first place.
    There is no spoon.

  21. #168
    We all know that if the Democrats steal the midterms they'll claim that the win was legitimate because of overturning Roe v. Wade.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169


    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 05-14-2022 at 02:35 PM.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    SCOTUS sure has bailed out the Democratic Party for the mid-term election. Dems had precisely -zero- to run on before but now have the biggest of red meat emotional hot buttons to run on.

    Every run up to an election invariably some hot button social issue is resurrected just in time for fundraising and soap-boxing.
    I'm always reminded of this scene:

    Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post


    The irony of the ugly chick holding the "mandatory vascetomy law" sign is that:

    1) The FDA for DECADES has blocked vasalgel, an easily reversible long term contraceptive for men.

    https://www.revolutioncontraceptives.com/vasalgel/

    https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

    https://medicaltrend.org/2021/03/11/...d-in-30-years/

    All men have are vasectomies and condoms. And that's the way gold digger women like it. One such gold digger pulled the rapper Drake's condom out the trash and tried to seed herself with its contents only to get chemically burned because he put hot sauce in it before throwing it away.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...dom/ar-AASHuIp

    Oh, and the gold digger wants to sue Drake. LOL!

    2) Under Roe v Wade it was still legal for liberal California to sterilize women without their knowledge or consent. So much for "my body my choice." So much for "reproductive rights."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/women...onsent-n212256

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-eugenics-era

    3) In California a drug addicted woman was convicted of manslaughter because she accidentally killed her fetus.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSt...urned-83516795

    Yes the charges was later dismissed. But that shows how twisted the logic of "It's only a baby if it's wanted" is. If it's not a human being then nobody should ever be guilty of murdering it. Note the judge's twisted logic.

    “There is no crime in California of manslaughter of a fetus,” Judge Valerie R. Chrissakis wrote.

    And yet in the same article:

    California's murder law was amended in 1970 to include the death of a fetus. In January, Bonta issued a legal interpretation that said the change was intended to criminalize violence done to pregnant women that caused fetal death. The intent, he said, was never to include a woman’s own actions that might result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.

    So...which is it? Does the murder law cover the fetus or not? If a fetus is not a person, and cannot be murdered, then if some evil man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat he should only be liable for what he did to her and not to the fetus. So he should get an aggravated assault charge and not a manslaughter or murder charge.

    Or how about this? A man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend to take abortion inducing pills had to plea bargain to avoid a murder charge.

    https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-abortion-pill

    If it's not a human, then why was there any murder charge on the table?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The irony of the ugly chick holding the "mandatory vascetomy law" sign is that:

    1) The FDA for DECADES has blocked vasalgel, an easily reversible long term contraceptive for men.

    https://www.revolutioncontraceptives.com/vasalgel/

    https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

    https://medicaltrend.org/2021/03/11/...d-in-30-years/

    All men have are vasectomies and condoms. And that's the way gold digger women like it. One such gold digger pulled the rapper Drake's condom out the trash and tried to seed herself with its contents only to get chemically burned because he put hot sauce in it before throwing it away.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...dom/ar-AASHuIp

    Oh, and the gold digger wants to sue Drake. LOL!

    2) Under Roe v Wade it was still legal for liberal California to sterilize women without their knowledge or consent. So much for "my body my choice." So much for "reproductive rights."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/women...onsent-n212256

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-eugenics-era

    3) In California a drug addicted woman was convicted of manslaughter because she accidentally killed her fetus.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSt...urned-83516795

    Yes the charges was later dismissed. But that shows how twisted the logic of "It's only a baby if it's wanted" is. If it's not a human being then nobody should ever be guilty of murdering it. Note the judge's twisted logic.

    “There is no crime in California of manslaughter of a fetus,” Judge Valerie R. Chrissakis wrote.

    And yet in the same article:

    California's murder law was amended in 1970 to include the death of a fetus. In January, Bonta issued a legal interpretation that said the change was intended to criminalize violence done to pregnant women that caused fetal death. The intent, he said, was never to include a woman’s own actions that might result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.

    So...which is it? Does the murder law cover the fetus or not? If a fetus is not a person, and cannot be murdered, then if some evil man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat he should only be liable for what he did to her and not to the fetus. So he should get an aggravated assault charge and not a manslaughter or murder charge.

    Or how about this? A man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend to take abortion inducing pills had to plea bargain to avoid a murder charge.

    https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-abortion-pill

    If it's not a human, then why was there any murder charge on the table?
    I owe you a rep.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?
    Way too much sounds familiar...
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Wow! At 50 seconds in. "Outside the quarantine zone a new pathogen has killed 27 people." Sound familiar?
    The response is telling, also: "Can you believe this $#@!?"... which is how any rational human with more than two brain cells to rub together reacts to open propaganda. It's just a naked display of raw power...


  29. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post


    Upon looking at the people in the picture, I conclude that those people should not have children. I support their right to abortion and am against their right to deliver live children. Are contraceptives that ineffective? I don't buy the unplanned accident theories. Are these sleazebags so incompetent that they cannot remember to take a pill? Does a diabetic forget to take insulin? I am on a once a day eye drop for glaucoma. I do not forget. Do Transgender people forget to take their hormones? How many days a month/year is a woman fertile? How many days a month are these sluts having sex? Take some responsibility for "your body" and your choice. It is "your choice" to have unprotected sex. I as a male never had children that were unintended and never had unprotected sex. I didn't want to father and or pay for children that I did not intend to have. Any male that impregnates these fleabags are at the bottom of the gene pool solidifying my stance that this world doesn't need their offspring. @jmdrake if the fetus is a life than all mothers and health care providers, or vacuum cleaner/coathanger abortionists should be tried and convicted of murder. If a fetus is not life, then abort away.

    Screw Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS needs to rule on when life begins. That ruling will be very telling about SCOTUS. I call BS on leaving it up to states. Is it life or not? If it is life it is murder.

    WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? SCOTUS?

  30. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    Upon looking at the people in the picture, I conclude that those people should not have children. I support their right to abortion and am against their right to deliver live children. Are contraceptives that ineffective? I don't buy the unplanned accident theories. Are these sleazebags so incompetent that they cannot remember to take a pill? Does a diabetic forget to take insulin? I am on a once a day eye drop for glaucoma. I do not forget. Do Transgender people forget to take their hormones? How many days a month/year is a woman fertile? How many days a month are these sluts having sex? Take some responsibility for "your body" and your choice. It is "your choice" to have unprotected sex. I as a male never had children that were unintended and never had unprotected sex. I didn't want to father and or pay for children that I did not intend to have. Any male that impregnates these fleabags are at the bottom of the gene pool solidifying my stance that this world doesn't need their offspring. @jmdrake if the fetus is a life than all mothers and health care providers, or vacuum cleaner/coathanger abortionists should be tried and convicted of murder. If a fetus is not life, then abort away.

    Screw Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS needs to rule on when life begins. That ruling will be very telling about SCOTUS. I call BS on leaving it up to states. Is it life or not? If it is life it is murder.

    WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? SCOTUS?
    Why are you looking to SCOTUS to answer that question? Why don't find out the answer to the question yourself? Then when you find out an answer that makes sense have discussions with people on the other side of the issue. Don't tell them the answer. Ask them the question. Dr. Kermit Gossling was convicted of murder for killing babies who survived abortion. His lawyer argued at one point that it should have not been considered murder because it wouldn't have been murder if it has been completed while the baby was still in the womb. Ask people if they agreed with his lawyer. Most people will say no. Then ask "Well should the late term abortion, one done post fetal viability, been allowed?" Some will say "If the mother and doctor agreed." Others will say no. And then ask those people when they would draw the line and why. And yes. This process takes work. Talking to strangers (or to your friends and family on hot button issues) is outside of most people's comfort zones. And you will run into people you can reason with. Ignore those people and move on. You will eventually run into someone that CAN be reasoned with. If that ONE person changes his mind about abortion you've won. This is a battle that is won one person at a time.

    Now, here's where my line is. I disagree with the "life begins at conception" line. If I agreed with it then I would be against in vitro fertilization. The overwhelming majority of those embryos will never be born. I don't know what will happen to them. I don't care what will happen to them. They have no heartbeat. They have no electrical impulses going across their brain cells. At that point you have what I would call a "proto-human." At some point that changes. I now believe the change happens sometime in the first trimester. The Texas "heartbeat" bill is where I would draw the line. That's at 10 weeks. Note that the abortion pill, RU 486, only works for the first 10 weeks. Women still have to choice to abort, they just need to make that choice in a reasonable amount of time. (Ten weeks).

    There are about 10,000 abortions that happen late, as in past 20 weeks. A handful of them are actually medically necessary. But many are falsely called medically necessary. The law should enumerate which medical conditions actually warrant an abortion.

    See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

    A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5 When viewed from this perspective, it is possible to see the recent New York and Virginia legislation as a signal that politics, not science, is the most powerful influence on abortion issues and legislation.

    Note warping science to fit a political agenda happens in other areas as well. Thirty years ago I was solidly pro choice. I came to that conclusion thinking to myself about the issue when I was in elementary school. The conclusion I came to was wrong. It took a long time for me to be convinced I was wrong. Actually....TBH, my instincts were correct. I knew that at SOME point it was a baby and couldn't be justifiably killed other than to save the life of the mother. But I didn't realize how early that point is.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Why are you looking to SCOTUS to answer that question? Why don't find out the answer to the question yourself? Then when you find out an answer that makes sense have discussions with people on the other side of the issue. Don't tell them the answer. Ask them the question. Dr. Kermit Gossling was convicted of murder for killing babies who survived abortion. His lawyer argued at one point that it should have not been considered murder because it wouldn't have been murder if it has been completed while the baby was still in the womb. Ask people if they agreed with his lawyer. Most people will say no. Then ask "Well should the late term abortion, one done post fetal viability, been allowed?" Some will say "If the mother and doctor agreed." Others will say no. And then ask those people when they would draw the line and why. And yes. This process takes work. Talking to strangers (or to your friends and family on hot button issues) is outside of most people's comfort zones. And you will run into people you can reason with. Ignore those people and move on. You will eventually run into someone that CAN be reasoned with. If that ONE person changes his mind about abortion you've won. This is a battle that is won one person at a time.

    Now, here's where my line is. I disagree with the "life begins at conception" line. If I agreed with it then I would be against in vitro fertilization. The overwhelming majority of those embryos will never be born. I don't know what will happen to them. I don't care what will happen to them. They have no heartbeat. They have no electrical impulses going across their brain cells. At that point you have what I would call a "proto-human." At some point that changes. I now believe the change happens sometime in the first trimester. The Texas "heartbeat" bill is where I would draw the line. That's at 10 weeks. Note that the abortion pill, RU 486, only works for the first 10 weeks. Women still have to choice to abort, they just need to make that choice in a reasonable amount of time. (Ten weeks).

    Thirty years ago I was solidly pro choice. I came to that conclusion thinking to myself about the issue when I was in elementary school. The conclusion I came to was wrong. It took a long time for me to be convinced I was wrong. Actually....TBH, my instincts were correct. I knew that at SOME point it was a baby and couldn't be justifiably killed other than to save the life of the mother. But I didn't realize how early that point is.
    I agree and I use a similar line of Socratic questioning: when does life end?

    If we all agree life ends at the cessation of pulse, respiration and brain waves, and if any of those still exist that person is not truly "dead", then it only makes sense that is when life starts as well.

    Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

    God is not constrained by the biological quirks of his own creation.

    He knows your soul and can pick you, before any of it, including conception, happens.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  33. #178
    Psalm 127:3
    Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  34. #179
    [QUOTE=Anti Federalist;7108806]

    I don't think a single one of them needs to worry about becoming impregnated.

  35. #180
    [QUOTE=phill4paul;7108898]
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post


    I don't think a single one of them needs to worry about becoming impregnated.
    LOL - I think the few Charlie males I see drifting around in that pic, like a runty rooster, do not even know how.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2019, 06:22 PM
  2. Ben Carson likens abortion to slavery, wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned
    By Ronin Truth in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-28-2015, 10:11 AM
  3. Tom DeLay conviction overturned
    By green73 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 11:03 AM
  4. Mitt Romney Romney surrogate says Roe v. Wade won't be overturned
    By sailingaway in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 04:58 PM
  5. Washington, D.C. handgun ban overturned!
    By SnappleLlama in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •