Kennedy Announces Plan To Retire July 31

#801
#801
An abortion rights group leading the fight on the left against President Trump's next Supreme Court nominee announced its first ad buy Tuesday targeting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is expected to be a key vote in the confirmation battle.

NARAL Pro-Choice America announced full page print ads and "homepage takeovers" of four Maine newspapers and websites: the Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel, Bangor Daily News and Lewiston Sun Journal. The ads begin Wednesday.

The print and online ads state: "Trump has been loud and clear in saying he'd pick Supreme Court Justices to end Roe v. Wade. We believe him. Don't you, Senator Collins?"
 
#802
#802
Franklin Pierce said:
An abortion rights group leading the fight on the left against President Trump's next Supreme Court nominee announced its first ad buy Tuesday targeting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is expected to be a key vote in the confirmation battle.

NARAL Pro-Choice America announced full page print ads and "homepage takeovers" of four Maine newspapers and websites: the Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel, Bangor Daily News and Lewiston Sun Journal. The ads begin Wednesday.

The print and online ads state: "Trump has been loud and clear in saying he'd pick Supreme Court Justices to end Roe v. Wade. We believe him. Don't you, Senator Collins?"
Click to expand...

There is truth in all of this.
 
#804
#804
zeppelin128 said:
There is truth in all of this.
Click to expand...

There is also truth in the partisan politics and hypocrisy of lefts attacks on Judge Barret’s faith and implying it will impact her judgement and prevent her from impartially applying and interpreting the law.

She is even on video record stating she doubts Roe v Wade will be overturned but rather she would expect more impacts on late term pregnancies.
 
#805
#805
Same as the videos of Dims saying if they just get one gun bill passed it will mean the eventual end of gun ownership in this country. Scare tactics. Don't be scared, plenty of important issues out there besides roe wade. There are plenty who feel strongly about it but they don't have the numbers.
 
#807
#807
zeppelin128 said:
There is truth in all of this.
Click to expand...

1. Roe vs Wade would have to be brought up to be overturned wouldnt it? Its not like SCOTUS just overturns stuff willy nilly would it? if you are this worried about it, it means you believe the case FOR roe vs wade is weak.
2. what do you lose if Roe vs Wade is over turned? Less dead babies? people always act like women get spontaneously pregnant and that is why it is a reproduction issue. violating womens rights would be to require that they are pregnant every year. where does the right to terminate come from? we already have other laws saying we aren't sovereign over our own bodies. if anything centralizing the government and giving them healthcare gives us, men and women, less control of our bodies.
 
#808
#808
LouderVol said:
1. Roe vs Wade would have to be brought up to be overturned wouldnt it? Its not like SCOTUS just overturns stuff willy nilly would it? if you are this worried about it, it means you believe the case FOR roe vs wade is weak.
2. what do you lose if Roe vs Wade is over turned? Less dead babies? people always act like women get spontaneously pregnant and that is why it is a reproduction issue. violating womens rights would be to require that they are pregnant every year. where does the right to terminate come from? we already have other laws saying we aren't sovereign over our own bodies. if anything centralizing the government and giving them healthcare gives us, men and women, less control of our bodies.
Click to expand...

On #2, here's a libertarian argument for you. Isn't it true (at least for 5-6 months) that a baby cannot survive outside the womb. Do you think the government should be able to compel you to maintain the life of another person? And before you answer, what if we could save a person by forcing you to donate a kidney. Should the government be able to do that, since that person's right to life would presumably trump (no pun intended) you autonomy over your own body?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#809
#809
evillawyer said:
On #2, here's a libertarian argument for you. Isn't it true (at least for 5-6 months) that a baby cannot survive outside the womb. Do you think the government should be able to compel you to maintain the life of another person? And before you answer, what if we could save a person by forcing you to donate a kidney. Should the government be able to do that, since that person's right to life would presumably trump (no pun intended) you autonomy over your own body?
Click to expand...

to make you kidney analogy applicable the donator would have to be on the operating table after already agreeing to giving the kidney away.

Woman chose to have sex (if its rape thats a different and small part of it), choose to have unprotected sex, 2 levels, both him and her options, plus the old fashioned pull out or back door, oral, or insert fetish here. Plus any other options like birth control, having herself or him fixed. Then you have the morning after pills. She made her choice, she made a bunch of choices, no one has forced her to do anything. Even if the woman is guilty of nothing, the baby is absolutely innocent in the matter and I will protect that innocent; long before I will ever forgive a dodging of personal responsibility.

and as far as the 5-6 months go, that might be true NOW, but who knows about down the road. I am a premi baby myself (more than a month) so maybe I am a little defensive here. had I been born a decade or two earlier there is a good chance I wouldn't be alive, so I am willing to give those children the best chance they can get.
 
#810
#810
LouderVol said:
to make you kidney analogy applicable the donator would have to be on the operating table after already agreeing to giving the kidney away.

Woman chose to have sex (if its rape thats a different and small part of it), choose to have unprotected sex, 2 levels, both him and her options, plus the old fashioned pull out or back door, oral, or insert fetish here. Plus any other options like birth control, having herself or him fixed. Then you have the morning after pills. She made her choice, she made a bunch of choices, no one has forced her to do anything. Even if the woman is guilty of nothing, the baby is absolutely innocent in the matter and I will protect that innocent; long before I will ever forgive a dodging of personal responsibility.

and as far as the 5-6 months go, that might be true NOW, but who knows about down the road. I am a premi baby myself (more than a month) so maybe I am a little defensive here. had I been born a decade or two earlier there is a good chance I wouldn't be alive, so I am willing to give those children the best chance they can get.
Click to expand...

Presumably you believe the government should not be able to compel you to give your kidney to someone else, even though that's the only way to preserve his life and you would be none the worse off. If that's the case, then it's not the value of life that's doing the work for you. Rather, you believe the woman should be compelled to maintain the pregnancy because she brought it on herself, essentially.
 
#811
#811
evillawyer said:
Presumably you believe the government should not be able to compel you to give your kidney to someone else, even though that's the only way to preserve his life and you would be none the worse off. If that's the case, then it's not the value of life that's doing the work for you. Rather, you believe the woman should be compelled to maintain the pregnancy because she brought it on herself, essentially.
Click to expand...

Yep! Sure do! Taking a body part from some me for some random individual I have no connection to is no where near equivalent to taking an unborn child’s chance at life that my own actions are directly responsible for! Holy hell thats pretty freaking basic.

Now off to the shop!
 
#814
#814
Orange_Crush said:
This. I can't help but notice zep is sidestepping the fact that ya'll are pointing out his skewed view of the Supreme Court, which is supposed to have an adherence to the constitution as opposed to party/agenda politics.

The egg is on zep's face with this one.
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways in which to interpret the constitution. I believe that the document was written with a certain amount of ambiguity so that it can evolve with the times.
 
#822
#822
Better fit in this thread since she was brought up
 

Attachments

  • 46a1090063375ee42187b8e7afbefbbd01284b037be620a1867273ac097072fc.jpg
    46a1090063375ee42187b8e7afbefbbd01284b037be620a1867273ac097072fc.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#824
#824
NorthDallas40 said:
Yep! Sure do! Taking a body part from some me for some random individual I have no connection to is no where near equivalent to taking an unborn child’s chance at life that my own actions are directly responsible for! Holy hell thats pretty freaking basic.

Now off to the shop!
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't a woman be able to decide to remove the parasitic growth. That parasitic growth doesn't have to be killed. Simply remove it and see if it survives.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top