International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13841342)
In what sense doesn't it deserve those things? Every system is based on an elite group ruling. The founding fathers wrote about this. If you rely on passively voting, you get a choice between two flavours of whatever the non-passive, organised people decide you are going to get to choose between.

In a way you are right... but... G.W. Bush won by the supreme court of partisans ruling despite losing the majority votes of the people.... and Trump won by the electoral college ruse despite loosing the majority votes of the people.

Also the number of senators being set to two per state is an abject atrocity of undemocratic representation... since some states with a handful of people get two senatorial votes out of 100 while ones with millions of people get the same.

And the gerrymandering chicanery is making sure that despite the majority votes for one party the minority party still gets more congress representatives than the one with the majority of votes.

So the people of the USA are cheated out of their votes all the time.

And that is on the federal level... on the state level there is even more shenanigans that take place... like voting booths not being available in certain areas and striking out piles of votes by some guy deciding to do so... etc. etc.

It is a Banana Republic in many ways.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 13841403)
The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated

Notable in the above decision is it relies almost fully on historical references to state regulations during a time in our history where women had no right to vote, let alone sit on government seats.

I think that is exactly what they mean by chanting "make America great again"... and not just about women's emancipation.

What always make me ponder... is how can there be any (sane) women republicans... let alone the other groups.

cosmicaug 25th June 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841440)
In a way you are right... but... G.W. Bush won by the supreme court of partisans ruling despite losing the majority votes of the people.... and Trump won by the electoral college ruse despite loosing the majority votes of the people.

Also the number of senators being set to two per state is an abject atrocity of undemocratic representation... since some states with a handful of people get two senatorial votes out of 100 while ones with millions of people get the same.

And the gerrymandering chicanery is making sure that despite the majority votes for one party the minority party still gets more congress representatives than the one with the majority of votes.

So the people of the USA are cheated out of their votes all the time.

And that is on the federal level... on the state level there is even more shenanigans that take place... like voting booths not being available in certain areas and striking out piles of votes by some guy deciding to do so... etc. etc.

It is a Banana Republic in many ways.

When organizations send election observers to other countries they are looking for standards to be followed that are not followed in the USA and when they are not followed in these emerging democracies, they call it electoral chicanery.

zorro99 25th June 2022 11:19 AM

Trump said God said abortion issues should be resolved by states.

Steve 25th June 2022 11:27 AM

Lovely country you have there, America. The idea that peoples’ rights are protected, or important, is a blatant lie. I am wondering, as an old fart, whether the USA will become recognized as the theocracy it is becoming while I am still alive.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13841458)
Lovely country you have there, America. The idea that peoples’ rights are protected, or important, is a blatant lie. I am wondering, as an old fart, whether the USA will become recognized as the theocracy it is becoming while I am still alive.

The American FARM is good pastures for its sheep... so long as they keep grazing with their heads in the grass... and not ever notice that the FARMER is not there to take care of them but rather to milk fleece and consume them... and when he protects them from the "wolves" it is not out of love for them.. but rather for his property.

Now of course this has been the state of humanity since farming started... but not many farmers throughout history have been as nice to their sheep as the American farmers... and not many farms have had as good pastures as the American farm.

--- with apologies to George Orwell.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13841451)
When organizations send election observers to other countries they are looking for standards to be followed that are not followed in the USA and when they are not followed in these emerging democracies, they call it electoral chicanery.


Of course... the rules do not apply to the rules' enforcers and their masters.

Joecool 25th June 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13840609)
You gotta love these morons on the court. Gun violence is a problem. So what do they do? Make the problem worse.

The number of homeless is growing. Resources are limited. And what do they do? Make the problem worse.

Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

Leumas 25th June 2022 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.


Unless they are a bunch of unqualified lying partisans who lied under oath to gain entry so as to sabotage the constitution in service of their sky daddy and TRIBE.

Hercules56 25th June 2022 11:57 AM

I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.

Joecool 25th June 2022 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841475)
I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct

That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

Olmstead 25th June 2022 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

In that case, why do the judges disagree, and why is this disagreement based on their ideology?

Hercules56 25th June 2022 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841479)
That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

Are you ok with States deciding for themselves whether or not to ban discrimination in housing, education, employment and stores?

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841479)
That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.


It is bad on economic, moral, constitutional and nationalism levels.

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841475)
I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.


Actually it is not... also even the clowns themselves swore under oath that it is not legally correct... and the arguments they used are against other laws.

Leumas 25th June 2022 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841489)
Are you ok with States deciding for themselves whether or not to ban discrimination in housing, education, employment and stores?

his ilk are HOPING FOR IT.

Hans 25th June 2022 03:28 PM

It will be like prohibition; on the outside the conservatives will act happy but if the situation arises they will get abortions. Just like when their grandparents wanted a drink - they did so. A system based on states still providing abortions will grow up. Some die hards will try and interfere with that system and most police departments will 'not prioritize' anti-abortion' investigations.

bruto 25th June 2022 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans (Post 13841579)
It will be like prohibition; on the outside the conservatives will act happy but if the situation arises they will get abortions. Just like when their grandparents wanted a drink - they did so. A system based on states still providing abortions will grow up. Some die hards will try and interfere with that system and most police departments will 'not prioritize' anti-abortion' investigations.

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13840627)
I saw a couple of these, I didn't realize it was quite that wide spread.

Governor Dip****, of my home state of Missouri, is bragging that we are the first state in the nation to outlaw abortions. I'm contemplating whether it is better to fight or flight.

Thank goodness I have no family in a red state except for my 'niece' in TX who is really my BF's daughter. I've never set foot in TX and never will. When my parents retired to Spokane in 1984 and my sister moved there after getting back from working in Saudi Arabia, they all moved to OR because they couldn't take the redneck culture there. Spokane is just 20 miles from Idaho, which is ruby red.

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 13840954)
Roe VS Wade overturned on Biden's watch. Congrats?

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse........

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 06:06 PM

Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota are calling on President Joe Biden to declare a public health emergency as almost half the states move to ban abortion following the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Quote:

Ending the constitutional right to abortion has brought the nation to “a perilous time that threatens millions of women,” Warren and Smith wrote in the [New York Times] op-ed, adding that now "the government — not the person who is pregnant — will make the critical decision about whether to continue a pregnancy." NBC News link
I feel very badly for women who had abortions planned and now may be unable to have the procedure. It's a life-changing event of seismic proportions. It just doesn't seem at all fair. :(

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841040)
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

Same sex marriage GRANTED MORE rights to people. Annulling R v W takes AWAY a right.

Same sex marriage secures a right to two consenting adults. Annulling R v W removes a right from an UNconsenting adult. See if you can spot the difference.

ZiprHead 25th June 2022 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

Then maybe they should start doing so.

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 07:04 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Looks like just over half the states are prepared to effectively outlaw abortion thanks to SCOTUS.
  • Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
  • Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • Georgia—Six-week ban
  • Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Iowa—Six-week ban
  • Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
  • Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
  • North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Ohio—Six-week ban
  • Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
  • South Carolina—Six-week ban
  • South Dakota—Trigger ban
  • Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
  • Wyoming—Trigger ban

The six week ban outlaws abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Pre-Roe bans are laws that prohibited abortion and were never removed after the original Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS. Trigger bans are laws designed to take effect if and when Roe v Wade was overturned.

Source is the Guttmacher institute. Link

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 08:10 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Apparently, judging by the AP map below (source is the Guttmacher Institute) abortion will be permitted in about twenty states, banned in twenty, yet to be decided in ten. AP reports Alabama has one of the toughest anti-abortion laws:
Quote:

Abortions became almost entirely illegal in Alabama on Friday. A 2019 state abortion ban took effect making it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. All three clinics stopped providing abortions Friday morning under fear of prosecution under the 1951 state law...Doctors who violate the law could face up to 99 years in prison. AP News link
The one exception Alabama makes is if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's health.

The Great Zaganza 25th June 2022 09:33 PM

Prepare for Red States calling Blue States "baby murdering factories"

smartcooky 25th June 2022 09:37 PM

If y'all think this is all they want - to overturn Roe v Wade, think again. They will be going after other precedents as well.

Griswold v Connecticut (the right to use contraception)
Lawrence v. Texas (the right to same-sex intimacy)
Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same sex marriage)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...trac-rcna35228

The corrupt sex-pest, Justice Clarence Thomas has made this clear in his concurring opinions, effectively inviting anyone to bring cases that might lead to the overturning of those precedents.

If Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned, homosexuality will once again be a criminal offence in Texas - (its already Texas law but currently unenforceable) but would immediately become enforceable if Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned

You can be 100% certain that if were to happen, a whole bunch of peckerwood redneck states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc will follow suit!

Brainster 26th June 2022 12:18 AM

Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.

Lurch 26th June 2022 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841001)
Actually ... not in America... they get what the Electoral College and gerrymandering chicanery gives them.

Edit to add: and of course the SCOTUS itself when they decide who is president.

This reply was in response to my, "A People gets the Government it deserves." Yet in your post immediately preceding the quoted, you point out how the Dems warrant blame for not legislating when they had the opportunity. In a fashion, therefore, you agree with me.

I should clarify the a People comprises the totality of a population. If a political system has 'evolved' to the point where unfair and nefarious means are employed by one side, it is the result of the combination of the unscrupulous and the inattentive folk across society. The fairer side has not fought hard enough, and so they 'deserve' the fruits of their lackadaisical inattenriveness.

Democracy and progress must ever be fought for. Americans are discovering--possibly too late--that vigilance can never be relaxed. Taking for granted the comparative calm of the post WW2 period has resulted in the losing sight of the way ructious upheaval is historically cyclical.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13841749)
Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.

I agree.
About 2. , I think the only problem is the time it will take to find another single -issue topic that GOP voters will be told they were always passionate about. Drag Queens seem to be latest&greatest threat to the Most Christian Nation.

I also think that anti-abortionists will try to take the Fight federally, with pushing for bills in Congress that would ban abortion in the Blue Baby Killer States.

Lurch 26th June 2022 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841040)
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

This court is reversing what it had formerly settled. This court is not taking to heart to "Suck it up, Buttercup." This court is not accepting what had been the "law of the land."

You are disregarding history, treating this particular court as though it's the first to rule on the matter.

And it appears other reversals of what were formerly the laws of the land will come in short order. This court is politically activist to a degree beyond what the right would accuse of a left leaning court. Actually stripping away rights formerly granted is heinous. If nothing else, it delegitimises the court by effectively stating it cannot make up its mind, engaging in whip-saw lurches between progress and retrenchment. This court is spitting on its former jurists.

I hold this court in contempt of the nation. It has become a tool of a political party, evoking shades of the frantic People's Court in that fatal spasm of early '40s Germany.

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olmstead (Post 13841482)
In that case, why do the judges disagree, and why is this disagreement based on their ideology?

BINGO!

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13841599)
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

I like the thrust of this.

Nessie 26th June 2022 01:17 AM

Republican politician thanks Trump for;

"On behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for WHITE LIFE life in the Supreme Court"

https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/statu...74543786500097

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:29 AM

If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.

smartcooky 26th June 2022 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841760)
If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.

Cut them peckerwoods in the South-East loose I say, let 'em have their straight, white, racist, Christian promised land. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada together would make a viable country, as would Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Hersey and the New England states together.

mikegriffith1 26th June 2022 03:42 AM

I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841805)
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

so in your opinion, it's a baby right after fertilization?
Or maybe before?

Planigale 26th June 2022 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841805)
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?

Samson 26th June 2022 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13841820)
So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?

Bet your life they would ban just such a device.
Actually are they a meat eater?
Because they might consider all mammalian life sacrosanct.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.