You: ""women are obligated to provide others with children according to the law"" LOL! Oh, DO show me that law !!! Still haven't seen the law that YOU claim exists …..You wouldn't state a falsehood , would you ??
in accordance of U.S.Code 1111 if women fornicate they are obligated by law to donate their babies to others instead of murdering them with an abortion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...the second degree, shall,of years or for life.
Fourth time now can you give an intellectually responsive answer, I know you are capable of doing so. Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard? Why should women seeking these procedures be denied the same standard of care all other patients receive?
Ah, you're talking about the "Hyde Amendment", Foxhastings, but in cases loosely construed as relating to the "health" of the woman (as determined by some government social-worker), federal funds can, and are, used to pay for abortions. Before you attack me for being against abortion, please be aware, I am NOT -- and neither are many other Conservatives! We on the Right are characteristically adept, at least, of being able to do fourth-grade arithmetic. So, you've got an indigent pregnant woman who wants an abortion, which, even in the last trimester of pregnancy, typically costs no more than about $3,000. For her 'health' (again, as determined by some government social-worker), you can pay the three thousand and give her the abortion for free -- OR -- you can put this indigent woman and her unwanted child on government handout welfare programs for at least (AT LEAST) twenty years, or more. Does anyone really need a smartphone calculator 'app' to do the math...? And as far as "huge tax breaks and loopholes" are concerned.... Well, I wish I had five bucks for every time I've bitched and complained in my posts here in the Forum about the total rotten unfairness of the U. S. Tax Code -- which has favored the über-wealthy for many decades, under BOTH Republican AND Democrat regimes. Truth? Donald Trump's economic policies have done NOTHING to help me, even though I'm comfortably retired. His big 'tax cut' was worth about a thousand bucks to me, but with his constant ranting and railing against fair and proportional interest rates on savings accounts in banks, S&L's, and credit unions, he's actually penalized me and many others who SAVE money, thousands of dollars -- because despite huge demand for cash and credit, interest rates, as set by Trump's hand-picked Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, are smashed to almost-ZERO! But under the radical-Left's Democrat Party clown-show, nothing would be any better for people who responsibly save money, and everything else in our national lives would be far, far worse. Oh, how I thoroughly HATE the 21st-century....
FoxHastings said: ↑ You: ""women are obligated to provide others with children according to the law"" LOL! Oh, DO show me that law !!! Still haven't seen the law that YOU claim exists …..You wouldn't state a falsehood , would you ?? Your interpretation of some "Code" is proof !!! No, it isn't..... We weren't discussing murder but if you believe murder is happening then why haven't you done your patriotic civic duty and reported it??
I thought you said the right (we) could do math....sounds like an abortion is much cheaper....and DOESN'T destroy women's rights. Why are your fellow righties so set on destroying them even if it's more costly??? We can agree on the last line...
As I already showed they are, fifth time Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard? Why should women seeking these procedures be denied the same standard of care all other patients receive?
Because it’s not realistic! There is no procedure to get what they’re being required to get. You can ignore it all you want, but that’s why it keeps getting struck down. why don’t these states require hospitals offer admitting privs???
YOU:""if women fornicate they are obligated by law to donate their babies to others instead of murdering them with an abortion."" You STILL have not shown me the law where you claim ""women are obligated to provide others with children"""... those are YOUR words....with NO backup or proof whatsoever...
I truly did mean to say that paying the costs of an indigent woman's abortion is much, much less than it would cost to put her and her unwanted child on welfare for approximately twenty years (or more). I tried to make that much fairly clear, but, maybe not. I'm glad that "we can agree on the last line" of my post. Believe it or not, I do earnestly hope that a day can come in the United States when we on the Right and you on the Left can compromise on at least some crucially important things, and stop this country's slide into oblivion and chaos.... And I won't try to evade your question about why some of my "fellow righties" are so "set on destroying women's rights". To be honest, I think it is an application of religious beliefs -- but in my variety of Christianity, each person is individually responsible and individually empowered to make his or her own decisions in life, so long as they do not unfairly or illegally impact another person. But then the argument about 'exactly what is a person' gets started... and the fight goes on and on. For me that 'fight', such as it was, ended when the Supreme Court ruled in Row v Wade that a woman's body is her own personal property, and that she -- and ONLY she -- can make decisions about what is allowed to be inside her body, to grow there, to inhabit space there, or anything else related to HER BODY. Some of my fellow Conservatives do not believe that at all... and so ALL of us on the Right go on getting beaten to a pulp every time this whole thing about abortion goes to court. I can't stop it... nobody can, evidently.
my President is fixing to put anti abortion judges on the Supreme Court, He is just waiting for ruth ginsburg to retire.
FoxHastings said: ↑ You: ""women are obligated to provide others with children according to the law"" LOL! Oh, DO show me that law !!! Still haven't seen the law that YOU claim exists …..You wouldn't state a falsehood , would you ??Your interpretation of some "Code" is proof !!! No, it isn't..... We weren't discussing murder but if you believe murder is happening then why haven't you done your patriotic civic duty and reported it?? That's an evasion, not an answer.....STILL no proof that there is a law saying women are obligated to give other people children...STILL can't back up your claim We weren't discussing murder but if you believe murder is happening then why haven't you done your patriotic civic duty and reported it??
Forget it... the libs would never let poor, old Ruthie retire. Hell, she's been working-from-home for over two years now, on a kind of modified 'life-support'. It doesn't matter that she's even older than THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, she will never retire until a liberal Democrat replaces Trump, and, thanks to modern medical science, she won't die, either -- at least, not before the November election.... But -- and it is important for ALL of us on the Right to finally grasp this -- even if Trump is re-elected, Ruthie croaks/retires, and he gets to put another 'not-radical-Leftist' on the SCOTUS, the overturn of legal abortion in this country is not (NOT) going to happen! The main reason? Women are not 'brood-mares' of the State! Women OWN THEIR OWN BODIES... and for better or worse, women and only women must make their own decisions about what is done to, in, and on their bodies -- period! For another thing, 'outlawing' abortion would be POLITICAL SUICIDE! Some people earnestly believe that abortion is the sin of murder, BUT, it is not up to the GOVERNMENT to issue that condemnation. Some religious factions -- many surprisingly different ones -- maintain that a woman who decides to have an abortion is going to go to Hell, but even if that were true, it is not up to a secular GOVERNMENT to say she broke a law that has been in effect in this country for over 47 years -- so long as the fetus is inside her body!
RBG will likely hang it up when Biden wins, then re-nominates Garland to the SCOTUS... Then Kamala will get Breyer and probably Thomas Then Kamala's VP will get Alito And then we're safe for a while... RBG....A life well lived...
Yeah, a smothering, anti-Constitutional Supreme Court! A hyperliberal Socialist Paradise! ... "Highway to Hell".... . "Hey, we know what's best for you stupid creeps!"
world war 2 was fought to end a genocide, and poor women doing abortions save the taxpayer money slavery was an institution for 400 years and it ended, since abortions are genocide of unborn babies it should end too.
In Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, the mandatory retirement age for 'national-level' judges is from 65 - 70 years. Four of the nine U. S. Supreme Court Justices are older than that now -- and Justice Ruthie Ginsburg is a whopping EIGHTY-SEVEN YEARS OLD. She is now older than the GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE! .
Both are American institutions, still serving Americans daily, and in little danger of falling apart (before January)....
Well, without commenting on the inherent 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of what you've expressed in your post, what I'll say in conclusion is that if you really want radical, hyperliberal Democrats to win EVERY election at the national level from now on, then all you have to do is figure out a way to make abortion illegal in this country again. You can make it clear how stupidly misguided the socialist economic agenda is, how high taxes and fees are jacked-up when Democrats are elected, and how they constantly they toil against the Constitution as written and amended -- BUT -- you'll still lose in nearly every election if you make abortion illegal! You can win every other point, but lose that one issue, and you'll be defeated every time! Let them abort their fetuses, babies, blobs-of-tissue! Let them take the fetus' body parts and sell them on the open market, throw them in the trash, or fry them up and eat them for dinner! It's 'no skin off our asses' what these women do with THEIR bodies, and it's political suicide for anyone to dictate to them what they must, or must not, do.... We've got much more important crap to worry about now! . Why fight her...? MOVE ON!
if it is okay with the Zionist Christians then it is okay just commenting on the inherent evil of it, America spent huge sums to stop genocides in europe but allow it within borders under the law it is his body and he can do what he wants to it.
Amen.... Now, it's time to hijack my own thread as it's winding down... I found this very interesting, but a new thread won't get any responses... I guess the obvious question is WHY our SCOTUS would be hearing this case??... I myself don't see any remote US connection, based on this link... SNIP The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear Germany's bid to block it from facing a lawsuit in American court over medieval artwork that its former Nazi government pressured Jewish art dealers to sell in the 1930s. Germany had asked for the case to be thrown out on the basis of sovereign immunity, which generally prohibits U.S. courts from hearing claims against foreign governments. The justices will hear arguments arising from a 2015 lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court in Washington in which heirs of the art dealers said Germany owes them either the return of the artwork or more than $250 million in damages. A federal judge in Washington ruled in 2017 that because the organized plunder of Jewish property by the Nazis was part and parcel of their later genocide of the Jews - a crime under international law - the American court had jurisdiction to hear the case. ENDSNIP https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-takes-germanys-145329296.html I don't see it... Sounds like these people have a case, but not in the US Court system... Maybe The Hague??