Alabama Senate approves near-total ban on abortion; sends bill to the governor

[cpwill]

Current conservatives are regressives of the worst description, especially social conservatives. They are ideologues of the worst admiration and have completely destroyed the republican party, making it a shell of its former self and a whore to the evangelical movement.

:yawn: name calling is boring.

Easy, Comparable, Response: " Well modern liberals are bigots who all hate America, Freedom, Children, and Decency; a bunch of socialist atheist Muslims who want to enforce radical feminism by enforcing the hijab, and... "

Do you have anything not-stupid?

 

[Obscurity]

You think that an inalienable Right to Life isn't a Classic Liberal ideal? That the State exists to protect individual rights from abuse is pretty central to Classic Liberalism.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Fetuses cannot be given the right to life, else you open a Pandora's box of privacy issues and competing rights with, as a conservative put it, the "host mother."

The pro-birth movement is an abject fraud, a bunch of sell out cum dumpsters to a batch of evangelical and catholic ideologues. It is unworthy of anything save utter derision and mockery until it is blasted from common discourse like the irrelevant batch of drivel that it is.

If only liberals and those who support the right to choose would treat the hideous pro-birth movement as viciously and derisively as the right treats those who fight against the 2nd amendment we wouldn't be seeing this upheaval, but alas, it seems liberals and pro choicers are too content with trying to actually debate the pro-birth movement instead of utterly destroy it, as they should be doing.

I personally will no longer make logical arguments against pro-birthers, and instead mock the utter idiocy of their platform and the short sighted and moronically ham fisted approach they have taken to this subject.

They have finally earned it and I urge all pro-choice folks to do the same.

 

[Obscurity]

:yawn: name calling is boring.

Easy, Comparable, Response: " Well modern liberals are bigots who all hate America, Freedom, Children, and Decency; a bunch of socialist atheist Muslims who want to enforce radical feminism by enforcing the hijab, and... "

Do you have anything not-stupid?

IDK, do you lot actually have a point to make?

I mean, all you do is advocate for moronic policy positions without actually considering or caring about the fall out, then get all uppity when someone calls you out on it.

 

[cpwill]

IDK, do you lot actually have a point to make?

I mean, all you do is advocate for moronic policy positions without actually considering or caring about the fall out, then get all uppity when someone calls you out on it.

exposing your own ignorance while trying to accuse others of foolishness isn't exactly the best strategy.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Trump]

Fetuses cannot be given the right to life, else you open a Pandora's box of privacy issues and competing rights with, as a conservative put it, the "host mother."

The pro-birth movement is an abject fraud, a bunch of sell out cum dumpsters to a batch of evangelical and catholic ideologues. It is unworthy of anything save utter derision and mockery until it is blasted from common discourse like the irrelevant batch of drivel that it is.

If only liberals and those who support the right to choose would treat the hideous pro-birth movement as viciously and derisively as the right treats those who fight against the 2nd amendment we wouldn't be seeing this upheaval, but alas, it seems liberals and pro choicers are too content with trying to actually debate the pro-birth movement instead of utterly destroy it, as they should be doing.

I personally will no longer make logical arguments against pro-birthers, and instead mock the utter idiocy of their platform and the short sighted and moronically ham fisted approach they have taken to this subject.

They have finally earned it and I urge all pro-choice folks to do the same.

I’m agnostic and believe Abortion Clinics are America’s dirty little secret. Sucking viable babies from the womb is disgusting.

PETA would have full blown melt down with huge TV ad campaign if we did this to animals.

Killing 60 millions babies since Roe is not something any American should be proud of

 

[Obscurity]

exposing your own ignorance while trying to accuse others of foolishness isn't exactly the best strategy.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

It's not my fault you lot literally advocate for positions that make no logical sense. Does it feel good to advocate for lunacy? I mean really. Fetuses given the right to life?

Ignornace? Let me ask you this. Do you understand what would happen if Roe were overturned? Griswold V. Connecticut? I'm guessing you never thought about this, and am assuming you will google it. That's fine. Your first class is free, the next one will cost you. I take paypal.

 

[Obscurity]

I’m agnostic and believe Abortion Clinics are America’s dirty little secret. Sucking viable babies from the womb is disgusting.

PETA would have full blown melt down with huge TV ad campaign if we did this to animals.

Killing 60 millions babies since Roe is not something any American should be proud of

Another token agnostic/atheist. I really couldn't care less what you describe your position to be, the roots of the anti-choice, pro-birth movement lay directly at the feet of the catholic church, and then the evangelicals foisted the banner and created a hill to die on.

I don't care for your pathetic attempts at using emotion to stir empathy - I have zero empathy for people like you, fighting against constitutional rights. You are just another zealot campaigning to infringe on the rights of others under the banner of a small government conservative.

Why not just admit your hypocrisy and get it over with?

Does it make you feel good to fight against constitutional rights?

 

[cpwill]

Blacks cannot be given rights, else you open a Pandora's box of property issues and competing rights...

Your argument sounds a bit familiar..... :thinking:



1. Rights are not given by the State. They are inherent, and either Recognized or not because State. So here you are not arguing that we should not Give the right to life to unborn children, but rather that we should not Recognize their Right to Life.

2. Arguing that we shouldn't recognize the rights of a powerless group of people because doing so would be inconvenient or troublesome is an idea with a long history, but not a proud one, and, as a reason for not recognizing someone's rights today, it's not a terribly good one.

3. Rights do indeed compete, and limit each other. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Your right to free speech is limited by my right not to be slandered. So that, too, is not a terribly good reason not to recognize someone's rights.

The pro-birth movement is an abject fraud, a bunch of sell out cum dumpsters to a batch of evangelical and catholic ideologues. It is unworthy of anything save utter derision and mockery until it is blasted from common discourse like the irrelevant batch of drivel that it is.

:yawn: purile and boring. Do you have anything smarter, or just Mean Girls rants?

If only liberals and those who support the right to choose would treat the hideous pro-birth movement as viciously and derisively as the right treats those who fight against the 2nd amendment we wouldn't be seeing this upheaval, but alas, it seems liberals and pro choicers are too content with trying to actually debate the pro-birth movement instead of utterly destroy it, as they should be doing.

I personally will no longer make logical arguments against pro-birthers, and instead mock the utter idiocy of their platform and the short sighted and moronically ham fisted approach they have taken to this subject.

They have finally earned it and I urge all pro-choice folks to do the same.

I hope they follow you in doing so. That would be a spectacularly foolish move, that would seriously disadvantage the pro abortion lobby.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Trump]

Another token agnostic/atheist. I really couldn't care less what you describe your position to be, the roots of the anti-choice, pro-birth movement lay directly at the feet of the catholic church, and then the evangelicals foisted the banner and created a hill to die on.

I don't care for your pathetic attempts at using emotion to stir empathy - I have zero empathy for people like you, fighting against constitutional rights. You are just another zealot campaigning to infringe on the rights of others under the banner of a small government conservative.

Why not just admit your hypocrisy and get it over with?

Does it make you feel good to fight against constitutional rights?

I make my points on subject and you attack me personally....not a winning debate strategy

Focus...limit emotional tantrums

 

[cpwill]

It's not my fault you lot literally advocate for positions that make no logical sense. Does it feel good to advocate for lunacy? I mean really. Fetuses given the right to life?

Ignornace? Let me ask you this. Do you understand what would happen if Roe were overturned? Griswold V. Connecticut? I'm guessing you never thought about this, and am assuming you will google it. That's fine. Your first class is free, the next one will cost you. I take paypal.

The argument would go back to the States, and much of the acrimony of our national political life might be reduced

You seem to have "agrees with my opinions" confused with "logical".

Are you, by any chance, still in college?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Obscurity]

I make my points on subject and you attack me personally....not a winning debate strategy

Focus...limit emotional tantrums

I asked you a question and I'd like an answer.

If not, we have nothing to really discuss here; you're against constitutional rights, I am for them. One side will win, one will lose.

Fetuses are not people and have no rights to life. Does that upset you? Aww.

 

[vegas giants]

Ok. You understand that their perspective, and what they wrote are interrelated?

Their perspective is not relevant. We interpret the constitution for modern times

 

[vegas giants]

Your argument sounds a bit familiar..... :thinking:



1. Rights are not given by the State. They are inherent, and either Recognized or not because State. So here you are not arguing that we should not Give the right to life to unborn children, but rather that we should not Recognize their Right to Life.

2. Arguing that we shouldn't recognize the rights of a powerless group of people because doing so would be inconvenient or troublesome is an idea with a long history, but not a proud one, and, as a reason for not recognizing someone's rights today, it's not a terribly good one.

3. Rights do indeed compete, and limit each other. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Your right to free speech is limited by my right not to be slandered. So that, too, is not a terribly good reason not to recognize someone's rights.




:yawn: purile and boring. Do you have anything smarter, or just Mean Girls rants?



I hope they follow you in doing so. That would be a spectacularly foolish move, that would seriously disadvantage the pro abortion lobby.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Rights are created the states. There is no list of agreed upon inherent rights

 

[Obscurity]

Your argument sounds a bit familiar..... :thinking:

Aww, so cute! Care to try again? What a pathetic strawman comparison. Dismissed for the drivel it is.

1. Rights are not given by the State. They are inherent, and either Recognized or not because State. So here you are not arguing that we should not Give the right to life to unborn children, but rather that we should not Recognize their Right to Life.

Is that my position? You haven't actually asked my position, here you describe it for me. I reject the term "unborn children" for the emotional nonsense that it is. Rephrase the question appropriately if you'd like an answer.

2. Arguing that we shouldn't recognize the rights of a powerless group of people because doing so would be inconvenient or troublesome is an idea with a long history, but not a proud one, and, as a reason for not recognizing someone's rights today, it's not a terribly good one.

Hilarious that you'd construct a strawman about "blacks" and then argue the position of a powerless group of people - what an apt comparison I dare say!

Tell me, where does the constitution say that a fertilized egg is a human being with all inherent rights?

3. Rights do indeed compete, and limit each other. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Your right to free speech is limited by my right not to be slandered. So that, too, is not a terribly good reason not to recognize someone's rights.

Enlighten us; advise us of the mental gymnastics you need to go through to compare the rights of a lump of incoherent, unthinking, unaware cells to a thinking, opinionated, living and breathing, self aware woman? I'd love to hear the intricacies of this thought process, because to me, the two are not even in the same league and to you lot they are equal. Funny, I thought things were not "equal" in the conservative world, and equality was a bad word.

:yawn: purile and boring. Do you have anything smarter, or just Mean Girls rants?

Do you? Since your entire position is untenable given current laws, how about you apply some logic to your bull**** stance and think for once of the consequences of this idiotic pro-birth position.

I hope they follow you in doing so. That would be a spectacularly foolish move, that would seriously disadvantage the pro abortion lobby.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I hope they do also. I so tire of you lot and your endless church money. I think anything with its roots in catholocism ought to be dismissed. If it were up to the catholic church, we'd all have 50 kids and be poor and destitute.

You lot have earned the derision for your pathetic attempts at emotionally hijacking this conversation and refusing to consider the fall out of your literally stupid movement.

 

[Obscurity]

The argument would go back to the States, and much of the acrimony of our national political life might be reduced

You seem to have "agrees with my opinions" confused with "logical".

Are you, by any chance, still in college?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Oh, it would go back to the states. Like Ohio and Georgia which would lock people up for exercising this right. You seem to forget, one of the biggest complaints of your flaccid side is "legislating from the bench". Well, overturning precedent would do exactly this, and Clarence Thomas and the other conservative clowns on the SCOTUS would get exactly what they want - theocratic legislative fiat for the south and center, and logical pro-rights changes on the coasts.

I'd prefer doctors and women not be jailed for aborting unthinking lumps of cells, but apparently, you think they should be jailed for it. Typical. Your ideological platform is based around enshrining decisions made at the individual level in permanence and allowing no one to make decisions that go against the grain of your moral compass.

I have no stomach for such authoritarian BS.

Small government when it comes to taxes, big government when it comes to social choices, the new flag of the new regressive right.

 

[Trump]

I asked you a question and I'd like an answer.

If not, we have nothing to really discuss here; you're against constitutional rights, I am for them. One side will win, one will lose.

Fetuses are not people and have no rights to life. Does that upset you? Aww.

13th Amendment ended Slavery

28th will end Abortion

Yes I am for Constitutional rights

 

[ocean515]

Their perspective is not relevant. We interpret the constitution for modern times

Well, that's impossible to claim, since the Constitution is a direct reflection of the perspective of our Founding Fathers. That makes it supremely relevant.

However, IMO, there could be a sliver of accuracy to what you're claiming regarding modern times, in that it would be unreasonable to think the Justices on the SCOTUS wouldn't be influenced in any way by personal experience.

 

[Obscurity]

13th Amendment ended Slavery

28th will end Abortion

Yes I am for Constitutional rights

You're for authoritarianism.

North Korea is nice.

 

[vegas giants]

13th Amendment ended Slavery

28th will end Abortion

Yes I am for Constitutional rights

Not in the US in a million years

 

[Trump]

Not in the US in a million years

It’s true ....13th Amendment ended Slavery...like a while ago.

 

[vegas giants]

Well, that's impossible to claim, since the Constitution is a direct reflection of the perspective of our Founding Fathers. That makes it supremely relevant.

However, IMO, there could be a sliver of accuracy to what you're claiming regarding modern times, in that it would be unreasonable to think the Justices on the SCOTUS wouldn't be influenced in any way by personal experience.

Justices are free to use personal experience. But I dont think when they are ruling on the constitutionality of anti trust violations for example they can call on the founding fathers perspectives. Modern issues, such as abortion, require modern perspectives

 

[gdgyva]

13th Amendment ended Slavery

28th will end Abortion

Yes I am for Constitutional rights

that is some mighty fine stuff you are smoking

you must be in a legal state

75% ratification of an amendment?

you are joking right?

you couldnt get 25% of the states to pass such an amendment and i am conservative

stop with the theatrics....stop trying to tell women what they can and cant do with their bodies....

you dont have to like abortion...it is something you will forever have to live with

 

[vegas giants]

It’s true ....13th Amendment ended Slavery...like a while ago.

I'm well aware.

 

[Obscurity]

that is some mighty fine stuff you are smoking

you must be in a legal state

75% ratification of an amendment?

you are joking right?

you couldnt get 25% of the states to pass such an amendment and i am conservative

stop with the theatrics....stop trying to tell women what they can and cant do with their bodies....

Too bad.
you dont have to like abortion...it is something you will forever have to live with

It's about time someone who is conservative comes in here to tell it like it is.

Abortion, legal or not, will forever happen.

This upsets some folks.

 

[ocean515]

Justices are free to use personal experience. But I dont think when they are ruling on the constitutionality of anti trust violations for example they can call on the founding fathers perspectives. Modern issues, such as abortion, require modern perspectives

No they don't. In the United States, the principle that should be applied is simply a Constitutional one.

I understand liberals tend to believe in a living Constitution, so I get where you're coming from.

Thankfully, the perspective and life experience of our Founding Fathers prompted them to anticipate that emotional trends can come and go, and so they made it difficult to change the Constitution to fit the thinking of the moment.