ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans View Reproductive Age Women Monolithic

That’s that’s just the whole point, I don’t have to prove you wrong, the law clearly defines A fetus versus a baby. I don’t need to prove you wrong you need to prove them wrong. Life, as a concept, has nothing to do per say with the definition of fetus versus baby. And to be fair you actually should refer to as as a baby you should refer to it as an infant because for the first year of life medically it is referred to as an infant.

All that said, these are semantics. The crux of your question is not when life begins but when viable life begins and that’s the crux of the question with the law too.
You are the one playing semantics. Is it alive at conception? Is it human?

The law is an ass.

Again its stroke of the pen nonsense. The constitution does not distinguish between "viability" and life. Its more semantics made up by persons in robes. The crux of the question is if it is a human life or not.

SCOTUS can rightfully jettison the viability nonsense at any time. It can just as easily do this as it did when it created it out of whole cloth claiming it was a shadow of things to come. Ghosts have no constitutional basis.

Humans are given constitutional rights not viable humans, but all.

When over educated lawyers in robes rule otherwise they are violating the constitution.

In a sense the baby (fetus in Latin) has a right to life at the moment of conception. The mother has a right to self defense.

The baby is genetically different from the mother and is not part of her body. The umbilical cord is there to allow the exchange of nutrients and oxygen because they are not one body but two separate entities.

That she might need to raise the child or set it up for adoption does not change the childs right to life.

When you argue the law you argue on shifting sand. And it is a circular argument at that. SCOTUS has ruled erroneously many times. Your argument is that the "law says" therefore you can not change the law.

My argument is that the law is wrong both constitutionally and morally because human life begins at conception. I argue that the law can and should be changed.

Slavery was just as settled law as this is. This isn't going away until the baby/child/fetus has its right to life protected. The pro-life abolitionist of the day will keep this issue alive.

Oh and the republic is NOT worth SAVING if it can not get this issue right.
 
So you’re vilifying women because they have sex. What about the men that had sex with them? I guess since they’re men they have no accountability or culpability. We just give them a hi5 cause he got laid but she’s just a dirty nasty little slut that got what she deserved and now has to deal with it for the rest of her life. Thank you, in one brief paragraph you summarized everything that’s wrong with men.

🤣🤣🤣
Like I said, you’re pretty dumb sometimes. No one is villifying women but you’re comparing someone stolen or born into slavery with a woman who chooses to lay down with a man knowing it can lead to pregnancy. And what men are off the hook? They pay child support and get zero say when the woman makes a choice to kill the baby. How come the men don’t get to opt out of child support? If a woman can opt out of being a mother why can’t a father?
 
Good news. No one took away womens right to choose. The moment they open them legs….they chose.


Waiting for derp guy to bring up rape. Derp guy will probably be doc mcstuffins
 
Hey speaking of falling into a deep wet hole, can you tell your wife I’ll be 15 minutes late today? Thank you

tenor.gif
 
The curb stomping isn't going to stop. Give me somebody fiscally conservative and socially moderate, keep the Quran, the Bible and the weather channel out of politics.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT