The women's protest today is for all women except pro life women
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
They are excluded, so much for inclusion. Typical left, tolerant as long as you agree 100% with them.
This is what makes me laugh. The libtards and the nuts are both intolerant. You my friend have shown that you are just intolerant than any lefty. I honestly don't undertand the deep division and hypocritical views of the factions to the rad left and right. Other than their ideology, they are the same intolerant folk .....
Let me ask you a question. Do conservatives riot? Do conservatives destroy property during protests? Just last evening, violence erupted at the University of Washington over a speech by a conservative. One man was shot and many others injured.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/man-shot-outside-of-milo-yiannopulos-event-video/
Conservatives protest to be sure. Catholics protested when Obama spoke at Notre Dame over his abortion position. Did they destroy property? Did they harm anyone? Did Notre Dame have to cancel due to threats of violence? Do conservatives try and shut down speech with threats and intimidation?
Both sides have opinions. It is how one deals with opposing opinions that matters. You say both sides intolerant. Let's say that true. Only one side consistently resorts to the tactics described above. Only one side tries to completely stop that speech. I'd say the playing field tilts left.
By the way, the Police Chief of DC said yesterday the rioters and protestors were targeting police officers. 217 arrests made yesterday in D.C. Many to be charged with felonies.
Intolerance takes many forms other than rioting.
If i was in charge and these idiot libbtards erupted into violence, there would be violence upon their skulls. I have no tolerance for this nonsense just because one side lost or they are might lose their safe space.
I'm not so sure that many of the inauguration rioters had anything to do with the Trump election. Many of them looked like the same types we have seen rioting and destroying property in cities across the country in the past several years. The women's march was all anti-Trump.
Last edited:
My point that you seemed to ignore is that "intolerance" that leads to violence is primarily the weapon used by the left. Peaceful protests are one thing and very, very American. Violence, riots, property destruction, quite another.
The right and the left are not equal in this circumstance. Now you say that intolerance takes many forms. But this form is primarily the province of only once side. Bottom line, both sides are not equal.
Except for the Baby. The kid just has to hope Mom thinks it deserves a chance to live, if not... oh well too bad. It's her "choice" don't you know?
In fact to make her "choice" a little easier, I'd propose allowing them a few moments of real-time bonding before making her "choice" to either kill the kid or let it live.
You know boom, like you try on a coat, or test drive a car and kick the tires a little to see if you really want to own it?
Let expectant Mothers actually hold their little tykes, maybe give 'em a 3 day "return merchandise" policy? After the test run, if Mom still feels like the kid would be too much of a hassle...just stick a pair of scissors into the base of the Baby's skull and suck its brains out...problem solved.
Now before you go and get all hyped up angry at me for suggesting such a grizzly end to the Life of an unwanted innocent Baby, understand what I just described is a perfectly legal partial birth Abortion. The only difference is where that Baby sits when its brains are sucked out...everything else is the same.
The Baby is pulled half way out of its Mother's birth canal, and the brains get sucked out! Only half way pulled out though, because we are so humane don't you understand?
So as I said, why not make it a little easier on everyone and just go ahead and pull the kid ALL the way out of Mom's birth canal? Let Mom examine it, try it out, THEN decide if she wants to keep it or not? It's the same Baby, it's her 'choice', it's the same procedure...she just doesn't see it before she has it killed under current Law, or maybe she doesn't want to see it so she won't have a guilty conscience? Doesn't matter, the same Baby is still being killed whether she sees it or not.
Now go get mad at me, but there is nothing I said here that's either wrong or illegal, except pulling the Baby all the way out to kill it.
That's called Murder.
Last edited:
Yeah. how come Pro Life Moms who "choose" to let their kids live don't get to participate in the protest over a lack of "choice" for women?
Isn't their choice just as valid?
Here is what I don't understand. The left is always preaching science. Let science decide. Well, science has discovered that DNA occurs at conception. A life is formed.
So now libs say, ignore the science. Live doesn't begin until we say it begins. Many libs believe life does not occur until the baby is outside the mother's womb. Obama even voted on a bill in Illinois that would force doctors to not help a child born during a botched abortion. That is how radical he is.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/23/new-audio-surfaces-of-obama-defending-infanticide-in-illinois/
Read this and remember the name, Kermit Gosnell.
Actually it was a bill requiring doctors to perform live saving measures of a child born during an abortion procedure and Obama was the only one--republican or democrat--not to vote for it. That’s radical.
When you drill down into their arguments for infanticide you wonder if they have any morals at all?
They can't defend what they advocate, so they change the name.
Infanticide like Gosnell practices is called "reproductive assistance".
Partial Birth Abortions are called "intact dilation and evacuation"
Sick
A little one can also survive outside the womb after only 8 weeks gestation. They are also fully developed by then...little arms, feet, legs, head...it's all there.
They're tiny, but they're fully formed Babies. Those same innocent kids being kept alive in incubators can be legally killed after only 8 weeks by their Moms as long as they're still inside her tummy, and she doesn't want them anymore.
God help us.
Last edited:
You have shown that you have no core beliefs. I'm not sure what you think but I do not go out and protest gay marriage, I think civil unions are ok but differ on the term marriage, and I don't think women should be in units that might have to fight hand to hand. I think men should use a man's bathroom not a woman's. What else do you think I'm intolerant about?
Boom, let's flush out your beliefs a little further.
1. Once a child is viable outside the womb (approximately 20 weeks) does that child have any rights?
2. Since science has determined that DNA is present at conception does this not signify life?
3. If a child is capable of feeling pain, should the abortion be allowed to proceed?
4. At any time during the pregnancy does the child have any rights, up to and including the 9th month?
5. If the mother's life is not in jeopardy, and the child is viable, can the state stop the abortion?
1. Once a child is viable outside the womb (approximately 20 weeks) does that child have any rights?
2. Since science has determined that DNA is present at conception does this not signify life?
3. If a child is capable of feeling pain, should the abortion be allowed to proceed?
4. At any time during the pregnancy does the child have any rights, up to and including the 9th month?
5. If the mother's life is not in jeopardy, and the child is viable, can the state stop the abortion?
There was a woman who opposed trump but was told since she was pro life, she wasn't allowed to march. Tolerance?
I think it's settled law but should have a period beyond which, abortion is not allowed. I believe the european standard of 20 weeks is enough. You don't know what I believe and it shows. I also believe as Ginsburg said, the law was wrongly settled.
That's why Trump's victory was so important. Now he gets to replace Scalia with a conservative originalist. When Kennedy retires, as expected after this term, he gets to appoint another conservative originalist. That would give us 5 and a clear majority. Ginsberg has to retire soon, she is rapidly aging.
Ginsburg did admit Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. That SCOTUS had created law. That is outside their constitutional duties. We must return to the original intent of the founders. The court evaluates laws, they do not create them. It destroys our Republic.
Roberts found a way to make law too. It will be very intersting to see how effective the dems are in delaying the next appt. It takes 60 to approve.
My guess is that Reid paved the way to nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. If the Dems try that ploy with a mainstream conservative jurist, McConnell will act and lay the blame on Reid.
This is all the ammunition McConnell needs:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again
I agree. He cared more for comity on the Court and the adulation of the media than he did the Constitution. No other way to describe his making law while on the Court.
I imagine that it will require 60. I think that Trump will nominate a conservative woman.
Frankly anyone wanting to terminate a pregnancy past 22 weeks without danger to the mother should be ashamed of themselves as a decision maker. So I wouldn't have any problem with the establishment of a law stating that abortion Post 22-25 weeks is illegal. That being said, I'm not a woman and my experience with this is limited. Of course, my personal belief system is based on cyclical time and ever growing/ never ending energy that provides the source of life and is replentished in death, so it allows me to have a much less fearful attitude towards death than others.
I see DNA as the blueprint of living organisms, but I do not define it as the beginning of life. I've witnessed many people awake, upright, living, but not alive.
There are many miscarriages 1 in 4 pregnancies (some estimate as high as 1 in 3). These losses, abortions, adoptions are all emotionally traumatic to women. The attitude that women have abortions and couldn't care less is mostly a myth. Some women struggle with the decision their entire lives. My point: it's not so cut and dry one way or the other. The right to choose, it's exactly that...a right to choose the best course of action for you and your body. Up to 30% could end up losing the child via miscarriage anyway. Allow for choice, then advocate to prevent women making the choice, through financial and emotional support, safe sex initiatives, adoption programs, and....yes....spiritual support and education if you will.
Most fetuses are viable at 20 weeks. Five months is plenty of time to decide. There are many babies at 5 months in the neonatal units. European limits are 20 weeks. Why anybody would want to allow the killing at 6 months is a stretch for me.
Some tests for downs are effective 15-22 weeks, although my thoughts about that being a viable reason for extermination of the pregnancy are conflicted (due to the slippery slope), I can understand that thinking.
Scientists disagree with you on the presence of DNA.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-all-living-creatures-have-DNA
Life cannot exist without DNA. DNA is present after conception. The science is clear. I'm not sure why miscarriages are relevant to this discussion. I was simply wondering if you were in favor of some restrictions or none at all. For the record, the American people oppose abortion after 3 months, except to save the life of the child.
I was pleasantly surprised that you do, at some point in pregnancy, recognize the child has rights. As you know, the Dem party has no such recognition in its platform, up to and including the 9th month.
Most pediatric specialists confirm a Baby after only 8 weeks gestation can live successfully outside the womb. The Supreme court has yet to rule on exactly when "personhood" status is achieved, but if that's not a human being at 8 weeks, or even 20 weeks...what is it?
If we found the same thing on Mars, the Left would be ready to declare the entire story of Creation a hoax. They're practically saying that now even with this understanding that DNA is a unique identifier of a unique specific human design at the molecular level.
This can be observed by watching what a Baby under ultra sound observation does when an object is inserted near its amniotic sac. It moves away to avoid the discomfort. A spinal cord is present, which means a nervous system has developed, so yes.
If that same child is killed by a criminal in carrying out a crime against that birth mother, under current Law the criminal can be prosecuted for murder. If he kills both the mother and the expectant Baby, he can charged for killing both.
Several States already have established a precedent on this, and limit the period of time that child can be aborted. After a certain period of time, it cannot be.
The Supreme court may rule on "person hood" in its next session. It may also decide on if States have a right to limit the period which an Abortion can legally still be pursued. Expect them to use Science to rule on the former, and use State's rights to decide the latter.
apparently all of them didn't vote...
100,000 confirmed in Denver
60,000 plus in St Paul, Mn
12,000 marchers at the Oklahoma State Capitol building this morning
2,500 marchers in Walla Walla, Washington
20,000 clogging the main street of Portland Maine
1,000 marched today in Las Cruces, New Mexico
Over 10,000 marched in Houston, Texas
Over ten thousand in Kansas City
Last edited:
I think miscarriages are relevant to the conversation. It is indicative of how in the early stages of pregnancy, sustainable life is always sustainable.
Several nations in Africa have about a 10% infant mortality rate. Should that be relevant to a discussion about euthanizing sick, suffering children in Africa? It is indicative of how in the early stages of childhood, sustainable life is not always sustainable.