Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Many pro life folks like myself view the dead babies as a holocaust so there is that.

Correct, but if we are not to live in a theocracy people must respect the right of others to believe that is not the case. 

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Correct, but if we are not to live in a theocracy people must respect the right of others to believe that is not the case. 

do you respect his views?  didnt you post earlier about all the anti abortion people just being old men who have hang ups about sex and controlling women?  if that wasnt you then i apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, buddha said:

do you respect his views?  didnt you post earlier about all the anti abortion people just being old men who have hang ups about sex and controlling women?  if that wasnt you then i apologize.

I respect his views and he's absolutely free to not take part in an abortion and no one is forcing his wife/gf to get an abortion. Unfortunately, people with his views are forcing women to birth children that may kill them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I respect his views and he's absolutely free to not take part in an abortion and no one is forcing his wife/gf to get an abortion. Unfortunately, people with his views are forcing women to birth children that may kill them. 

and im sure he would argue that people with your views have allowed the slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, buddha said:

and im sure he would argue that people with your views have allowed the slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

Innocent babies that somehow don't have the rights as babies. As soon as a woman is pregnant, the state should issue a birth certificate and she should be able to claim that baby on income tax. Anyways, I would argue that an embryo isn't an innocent baby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Innocent babies that somehow don't have the rights as babies. As soon as a woman is pregnant, the state should issue a birth certificate and she should be able to claim that baby on income tax. Anyways, I would argue that an embryo isn't an innocent baby. 

when do you think it becomes a baby?  when its born and the mother can claim it on her tax return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

How come women can't get life insurance policies on these babies? Or claim them as dependents on their income tax?

https://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/unborn-child-insurance-how-early-can-coverage-begin-en.html

you can in some countries.  so that obviously proves its a baby before its born.  or maybe its just a baby in asia before its born?  hoisted by your own petard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, buddha said:

and im sure he would argue that people with your views have allowed the slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

I would argue that people with his views would allow moms in some situations to die.

Any consideration there at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, buddha said:

https://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/unborn-child-insurance-how-early-can-coverage-begin-en.html

you can in some countries.  so that obviously proves its a baby before its born.  or maybe its just a baby in asia before its born?  hoisted by your own petard.

Republicans making the US more like China. You really got me there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

i would argue that "my body my choice" makes the baby secondary to the debate, which is also sad.

Unless I'm following a different debate than you are, the baby has never been secondary to this debate in the real world. Or at least where I live. It is the beginning and the end. 

The hard questions, they grey area, how it effects the health of the mom,  those questions all get ignored. They are secondary

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Unless I'm following a different debate than you are, the baby has never been secondary to this debate in the real world. Or at least where I live. It is the beginning and the end. 

The hard questions, they grey area, how it effects the health of the mom,  those questions all get ignored. They are secondary

of course both are important.  no offense, its you that keeps bringing up alternative scenarios and "what ifs" and counter arguments to everything i say.

ive said a number of times what i think in this thread and you have said you agree with me, so im not sure what youre getting at with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

That's not all the Democrats position. They aren't forcing anyone to get an abortion. 

nope.  youre totally china.

what does the chinese tax code say about babies?  since you think the us tax code is so relevant?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

nope.  youre totally china.

what does the chinese tax code say about babies?  since you think the us tax code is so relevant?  

For the record I do not believe a fetus should be claimed as a dependent. That just seems like the next logical step if you consider it a baby and consider it murder punishable by life in prison or worse for having an abortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

For the record I do not believe a fetus should be claimed as a dependent. That just seems like the next logical step if you consider it a baby and consider it murder punishable by life in prison or worse for having an abortion. 

so you dont actually think a matter of "when life begins" should be determined by the insurance industry or the vagueries of the american tax code?  phew.

when do you think it becomes a "baby" worthy of protection?  if a third party kills a pregnant woman, the person can face murder charges for the unborn baby.  you ok with that?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

of course both are important.  no offense, its you that keeps bringing up alternative scenarios and "what ifs" and counter arguments to everything i say.

ive said a number of times what i think in this thread and you have said you agree with me, so im not sure what youre getting at with this.

It’s basically the same argument I heard Trumpers use “what ifs”

open borders/ no abortions

 

750k Dirty Illegals/ 750K bound to fail babies

The illegals will suck off the welfare system/ The babies will suck off welfare system

We can’t stop the libs because the system is rigged/ Can’t stop the Red Hats because the system is rigged

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...