Lila Rose Shares Why Abortion Supporters Want a Culture of Consequence-Free Sex

Of the last three Presidents, only Trump signed off on a Federal ban on gun accessories. Just highlights the
asinine character of your post.

 

That is absolutely wrong. The first things we learn in civics class:

JUDICIAL BRANCH (Supreme Court) INTERPRETS THE LAWS
EXECUTIVE BRANCH (President) ENFORCES THE LAWS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ( Congress) MAKES THE LAWS

What you posted simply isn't true.

 

Your linked source bases all of their criteria on Christian evangelism. That's not science, it's emotion. I understand those arguments, but not all Americans feel that way. In fact, you are in the minority on this issue.

The decades-long push to outlaw abortion has always been driven by religious fanatics who firmly believe that all Americans should live by their rules. Their agenda is to control women, and to punish us for doing what our bodies were made for.

Please read the 4th Amendment and tell me why it no longer applies to women of childbearing age.

 

Translation: I can't argue the specific points, so I'm going to try something resembling an appeal to authority argument and just blame it on religion.

 

Except I'm smart enough to realize that perfect is the enemy of good.

Thanks to the kind of people I vote for, we have a rock solid SCOTUS that is upholding the Constitution.

If the kind of people you vote for were putting in judges, you'd have no firearms.

How do we know that? They tell you. You vote for them anyway.

 

The Dodd decision has nothing to do with religion. Some folks care about the death of an unborn child, others don't. The Court said that since abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has no jurisdiction. So the voters in each state will decide. Its as simple as that.

 

The point wasn't about the NRA.

 

That’s their way of doing things. The reality is that the pro life movement has used advances in science since 1973 to make the case for life.

 

The left says it’s hate speech to identify those trying to or actually succeeding at acts of pedophilia as the groomers that those so engaged are.

 

If the sacred sandal fits ...

Give me a specific point to argue. I'll start:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is there any search more unreasonable that that of my uterus? Please tell me why that right doesn't apply to women of childbearing age.

 

Allow me to throw a little logic into an emotional argument.

A fetus is not a child. It has no personhood status. It is a potential human being until it becomes viable enough to survive outside the womb.

As for the Constitution, see #110. The Constitution doesn't say we can own guns like AR-15s either, but that doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to those weapons.

 

Fake news. If sex happens between a 14 year old and 24 year old, they still get charged, only the judge has discretion as to whether or not they are required to be put on the sex registry list.

The bill does not affect whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor and only affects whether or not the party has to register as a sex offender.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.5.&lawCode=PEN

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20192020/SB145/

 

Please quote anyone saying that they love abortion. Hyperbolic, hypocritical rubbish.

I am not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. If you don't understand that, let me know and I'll try to dumb it down for those who have difficulty with logic and reason.

 

YOUR OPINION is that an unborn child is not a human being with rights. That is simply YOUR OPINION. Millions of others say that an unborn child is, indeed, a human being with rights. That's why the Supreme Court, in its wisdom left the decision up to the voters in each state. It's a wise decision.
The Constitution says we can own firearms... period. An AR-15 is a firearm... period.

 

Sure.

Pick one of the actual topics in the post and argue that instead of making grand excuses for avoiding the topic.

 

That's right. They tacitly approve of it and allow it while still saying "it's not legal".

This is what leftists do.

Why would you not put a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old on a sex offender registry? Because you don't care if 24 year olds are having sex with 14 year olds.

I'd advise you educate yourself some more, as it can be charged as a misdemeanor.

https://www.egattorneys.com/age-of-consent-california

In California, statutory rape is a "wobbler" offense, meaning it can be charged either as a misdemeanor or a felony.

 

Did I say it couldn't be charged as a misdemeanor? I said the bill doesn't change whether or not the crime gets charged as either or. I hardly think anyone wants to charge 17 year olds having sex with each other with felonies.

Obviously, age is a big factor in determining if it gets classified as one vs. the other.

Are 24 year olds who have sex with 14 year olds not being put on the sex offender registry list? I can see a 17 year old having sex with a 27 year old not requiring it because they are very close to the age of consent.

 

When the government seizes a uterus let us know.

 

You're trying to change the argument to suggest this is some kind of "romeo and juliet" provision, but that's not what it is.

What the bill did was simply allow a 14 year old gay person and a 24 year old gay person to have sex, so they could also rule it a misdemeanor. Prior to that, it was a felony.

You can try to change the argument, but the fact is CA allows 24 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds, doesn't put them on the sex offender registry, and allows misdemeanor charges instead of making it a mandatory felony.

Doesn't sound like they're very serious about that 18 year age of consent.

You don't refer to statutory rape as "consensual" if you do, and you certainly don't sign laws making 10 year age gaps that are slap on the wrist penalties.

Thousands of pedophiles released from California prisons after less than a year: Report

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/1...risons-after-less-than-a-year-report-1312975/

More than 7,000 pedophiles convicted of “lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age” were released from California prisons the same year they were convicted, according to the Daily Mail.


The crimes included child rape, continuous sexual abuse of a child, sodomy with a child under 16 and kidnapping a child under 14 “with intent to commit lewd or lascivious acts,” according to the Daily Mail. The outlet analyzed data on thousands of convicts in California’s Megan’s Law database and found that individuals convicted of sexually abusing children were serving only months in jail or prison; Megan’s law requires that certain information about convicted sex offenders be made public.

 

The bill only changes whether or not the offender is required to register on the sex offender list based on the discretion of a judge.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
From the "lila rose" :“If people only had sex with someone that they loved and were committed to and that they were open to having a child with, the abortion rate would disappear,” she said."


Uh, what a dope....stating the bloody obvious...and totally impossible and showing total ignorance of the history of the world and humans all in one statement..

Little Lila can wish and hope and make up stories but she can't change humans even if she thinks she's god...

Using "ifs" and "shoulds" doesn't change a thing.

Happy to know a 15 year old didn't have her life destroyed with an unwanted pregnancy at way too young an age ...and the "man" who impregnated her is also breathing a sigh of great relief...





YUP! That makes me very happy when women retain their basic rights....especially since it makes Anti-Choicers UNhappy





Oh for sure...righties have always hated women having rights...look how hard they keep fighting to destroy them...

Some day you may actually address what I posted with more than just irrelevant inanities.

Where TF did I post anything about "morality", "sanctity of life", or religion ??????

 

Meanwhile, back in reality....

 

vman12 said: ↑
Which is the same argument all of the abortion lovers on this forum use to justify abortion.

NO WHERE in the posts of mine you quoted did I use rape to JUSTIFY abortion.....


YOUR misunderstanding is not proof.


Abortion is justified because women have a right to bodily autonomy just like you have..

 

Bodily autonomy? So we aren't forced to get vaxxed? Wear masks? When did THIS happen?

 

lol sure.