REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Why did pro-life groups rebuke Trump for abortion comments? Seems to me like he was on point...
- Thread starter casa_mugrienta
- Start date
No, I mean a woman's uterus. It's not a fetus for about 10wks after conception. Get that straight and then we can debate whether or not you want the government to control what women do with their bodies.casa_mugrienta said:You mean her fetus? No, I DGAF.frvcvs said:casa_mugrienta said:
So then you think the government should stay out of a woman decides to do with her uterus? Glad we agree.
Stop trying to conceal the reality of abortion.
Uterus shmuterus. This isn't about a woman's uterus and never has been. Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, so it's a fetus for well over half of the time abortion is legal.frvcvs said:No, I mean a woman's uterus. It's not a fetus for about 10wks after conception. Get that straight and then we can debate whether or not you want the government to control what women do with their bodies.casa_mugrienta said:You mean her fetus? No, I DGAF.frvcvs said:casa_mugrienta said:
So then you think the government should stay out of a woman decides to do with her uterus? Glad we agree.
Stop trying to conceal the reality of abortion.
And despite not being a yellow dog Democrat like you, I could care less whether a woman has an abortion, so stop blabbering about government control and womens bodies and wanting a debate.
Time to he a man and face up to the facts, u fckin weirdo.
"In the beginning they were calling it a baby. We were saying it was only blood and tissue. Let’s agree this is a life form, a potential life; you’re terminating it. You don’t have to argue that abortion stops a beating heart. It does." - Merle Hoffman
It's called wearing a condom.GDaddy said:
I was always terrified of getting some annoying women I was using for sex pregnant.
(I never dragged it out--hit and quit. I'm not sadistic by nature but a guy has to get laid sometimes)
And I get not using condoms. As my GF said, those black people in the ghetto are really on to something there.
You could care less whether a woman has an abortion but you want to argue about it anyway?casa_mugrienta said:
More importantly do you really want to vote for a guy who's changed his opinion on abortion more times than Larry Kings changed wives?
To keep a society functional you have to consider eugenics.
I know AH gave it a bad name but the troublemakers gobble up limited resources.
What if they were nipped in the bud?
I know AH gave it a bad name but the troublemakers gobble up limited resources.
What if they were nipped in the bud?
The counterargument to population control is that if it takes a million births to get the exceptional braincase that comes up with the giant leap forward then cutting down that birthrate slows our pace of advances.
The global average standard of living in 2016 is way higher than it was 50 years ago, and we owe that in large part to advances in science and technology.
The global average standard of living in 2016 is way higher than it was 50 years ago, and we owe that in large part to advances in science and technology.
There's no argument. I'm educating you and guiding you towards your eventual self realization that you are an emotional weakling.frvcvs said:You could care less whether a woman has an abortion but you want to argue about it anyway?casa_mugrienta said:
I'm not voting for anybody, thanks, you know this already but lack the intelligence and education to put forth anything of value on just about any topic save fixie riding so you come here blathering lies, assumptions, and innuendo. All the while with you finger on the "report" button.
You will be voting for someone who tried to get a child rapist off the hook while certain of his guilt and then had the nerve to chuckle about it in retrospect. You have over 30,000 posts on a surfing forum yet you admittedly do not surf. What a resume. Pat yourself on the back, loser.
the argument is (should be) and always has been since Roe V Wade about the 14th amendment. The dissent ruled not against the act itself but about the misappropriation of the 14th... They believed (rightly so IMO) that this is a STATE'S ISSUE.frvcvs said:You could care less whether a woman has an abortion but you want to argue about it anyway?casa_mugrienta said:
More importantly do you really want to vote for a guy who's changed his opinion on abortion more times than Larry Kings changed wives?
And that was the dissent.23rdstMB said:the argument is (should be) and always has been since Roe V Wade about the 14th amendment. The dissent ruled not against the act itself but about the misappropriation of the 14th... They believed (rightly so IMO) that this is a STATE'S ISSUE.frvcvs said:You could care less whether a woman has an abortion but you want to argue about it anyway?casa_mugrienta said:
More importantly do you really want to vote for a guy who's changed his opinion on abortion more times than Larry Kings changed wives?
Questions for you "States' Rights-ers":23rdstMB said:
Do you actually give a sh!t about abortion?
Or, are you just parroting the marching orders from your masters- promulgating a wedge issue that will effectively fracture the US along state lines?
Divide and conquer, and all that.
Don't conflate my opinions about states rights to my opinions on abortion.VanHook said:
I can believe in a woman's right to choose while at the same time be against the act itself. My issue is with progressives using the courts (9 unelected people in blacks cloaks) to decide what is right for the country as a whole. In many instances doing so by inventing precedent out of whole cloth... like they did in this case.
The US isn't a homogeneous entity- laws that respect to the individual shouldn't be either.
Don't blame "progressives" on judicial activism, blame John Marshall back in Marbury v Madison
And that's the way the Supreme Court has to be; they have to be unelected, and the power of judicial review is well-founded and a core of our check and balance system.
I do believe in Federalism, but I also believe in the supremacy of the Federal Government and especially the Supreme Court
And that's the way the Supreme Court has to be; they have to be unelected, and the power of judicial review is well-founded and a core of our check and balance system.
I do believe in Federalism, but I also believe in the supremacy of the Federal Government and especially the Supreme Court