ClearwaterVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 16,188
- Likes
- 17,782
Never heard the word steal until trump started in with his stupidity
If you want to
You don’t have to feed your baby because you can leave it at a fire station. So you have no such obligationYou’re avoiding the obvious question here. It’s weak.
There is no option to legally allow your baby to starve. If you do so you will go to jail. So we have established a way for people to surrender their child legally, that you eluded to.
If the ability to keep a fetus alive is there (for some abortions that ability is already here), should the child be allowed to simply die or should we establish a similar system?
You don’t have to feed your baby because you can leave it at a fire station. So you have no such obligation
Then I'd say the states need to approve the exit of another state.Negative ghost rider. The states approved entry of new states.
Then I'd say the states need to approve the exit of another state.
Edit: I take that back. Looks like Congress admits new states. The Procedures for Adding States to the Union — Legislative Procedure
Have you not heard my plans for an American Empire that spans both Americas and Australia? And Japan, just for the hell of it.If states can vote another state to stay in the union against their will, do you believe we should be able to vote states in against their will too?
I'd love to be able to hit up a few more places without a passport.
Obviously there’s an obligation. Taking the child to a fire station is an obligation.
Why would a similar obligation not apply to abortion? If the child is unwanted, but we can establish a system to save the child, why wouldn’t we?
Why do you only see that obligation as existing in one instance?
Because you are infringing upon the rights of the woman. At any other point, a woman can choose to not have her rights infringed upon further.