Republican's Latest Monumental Faux Pas

Same avoidance and control freak hyperbole on your part. It's easy for you to try and drive from the back seat ... hell, even easier when you're not even in the car. Your opinion means jack **** in the real world to women who actually have to face the fears and uncertainties of pregnancy.

 

A fetus isn't conceived and gestated in a woman's behind.

Educate yourself.

 

Exactly. ONLY a woman can do that. YOU have no skin in this game. YOU will NEVER have to make that decision.

 

That's where you are wrong. We have representative form of government that means everyone's opinion matters.
Secondly the guy should be legally on the hook as well.

 

So, we should let people murder other people if we don't have skin in the game?

WTF?

 

Abortion is not legally considered murder.

 

Those laws are changing in numerous states. Try to keep up.

 

Correct as usual. You know so many true things.

 

Considered by some of course, others dispute this. Bear in mind at one time the highest court in America sanctified Slavery. Even approved putting into prison Americans due to being japanese.

 

You can dispute that abortion isn't murder but the law overrides your feeeeeeelings...

 

NO ONE on the left is passing legislation to take away gun rights so your response is an inane non sequitur.

 

If you know of any mothers killing their babies you should report that to the cops ASAP.

 

It is you that is wrong in this regard.

The TYRANNY of the majority does NOT get to DEPRIVE anyone of their RIGHTS!

Therefore everyone's opinion means SQUAT when it comes to upholding INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

 

ALL of the democratic candidates for president are promising to take away gun rights. Every single worthless one of them.
And all of the science PROVES gun laws don't even touch gun crime.

 

Really you want to argue about semantics again?

 

Yes the unborn baby has the right to it's life.
And that right to life outweights it's parents rights to not deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

Onus is entirely on YOU to PROVE that absurd allegation of yours with CREDIBLE sources.

 

Ironic PROJECTION coming from someone using disingenuous emotive drivel like "unborn baby" when no such entity actually exists in either scientific or legal terms.

 

Regurgitating theist bovine excrement is NOT a substitute for SOUND LEGAL ARGUMENTS to support your iniquitous desire to DEPRIVE women of their RIGHTS.

 

Bullshit.. go read what they say...

 

Thank you for DOWNGRADING your own credibility by FAILING to substantiate your BOGUS allegation.

 

It is NOT semantics.

In this world there are different words for different things...that's how we communicate....if every word meant the same thing think how confused we'd be.
So when we refer to a fetus we are using correct language..calling a fetus something else is just an emotional ploy to make people think that it's the Gerber baby that's being aborted...that's not honest nor scientifically correct.

 

NOW you like science???

Hilarious, a fetus is a bay to you but you quote :science" for YOUR point???


BTW, Democrats want sensible gun control....others want NO control and want felons and criminals and the mentally incompetent to have all the guns they want...

 

How would you possibly know what the founders views on abortion were?

 

From the blog, American Creation:
The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

Few issues arouse as much passion as abortion. This has not always been the case, however. Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy. Recipes for herbal potions including pennyroyal, savin and other plants capable of “bringing on the menses” were common in home medical guides of the period.
Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”) Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern! Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.
Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.
Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.” Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment."""