ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Does anyone else find it ironic Dion will spend days arguing about Gaza Babies dying, and yet be pro-abortion, and rabidly so?
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.
 
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.

Funny, how is it that killing a pregnant mom leads to 2 murder charges? 🤔

You're babbling nonsense again, young man.
 
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.
False.
 
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.

Can we abort you for living in your parents basement attached to them?
 
I’ve never said any of that. I think Trump deserves what he’s getting. And the American people do too in November.
GPXChi8aUAAs2gc
 
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.

The fetus is an unborn person under the 14th from the moment of conception. Any state not providing protection for this class is violating their constitutional rights.

As someone who is very vocal in his support of the disenfranchised and disfavored classes of the world, I’m curious why you don’t in this situation. Is there a class more susceptible to violence and at danger than this? Unable to defend itself or even speak for itself.

How can any sane country consider rights enjoyed by its citizens to foreign nationals (even those considered enemies) for illegally crossing its border but deny a child moments away from birth even the right to be alive?
 
Funny, how is it that killing a pregnant mom leads to 2 murder charges? 🤔

You're babbling nonsense again, young man.
It only does where specific fetal homicide laws have been passed as fetuses are explicitly NOT covered by regular homicide. If fetuses were babies they’d already be covered and such a thing as ‘fetal homicide’ wouldn’t need to exist. Your example destroys your own argument.
 
An Israeli settler extremist is who killed Rabin tanking the Oslo Accords. Yet you say it was all Hamas. Wonder why?

Because Hamas rejected the two state solution, Mr, Historian. You are delusional. Israel has accepted a two-state solution for many years. I just mention that one, because Hamas screwed the deal and those people who call themselves Palestinians. Take off your blinders, you are the most biased poster on this thread.

And, again, when I say Hamas, I am talking about the elected government that orchestrated the torture, rape, murder, and kidnapping of children and families and young people. You remember. The elected government that baked babies alive and tortured children to death. THAT Hamas.
 
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.

The gymnastics and science denying in which you have to engage to argue the leftie extremist BS. It is exhausting to read it’s such buffoonery.
 
It only does where specific fetal homicide laws have been passed as fetuses are explicitly NOT covered by regular homicide. If fetuses were babies they’d already be covered and such a thing as ‘fetal homicide’ wouldn’t need to exist. Your example destroys your own argument.

By admitting it’s “homicide,” your own words destroy your argument. The distinction was made because murderers argued just as you attempt. So, legislators made it clear for all the idiots to see.
 
It only does where specific fetal homicide laws have been passed as fetuses are explicitly NOT covered by regular homicide. If fetuses were babies they’d already be covered and such a thing as ‘fetal homicide’ wouldn’t need to exist. Your example destroys your own argument.
hahaha, you only care about laws that center around your fascist views.

Pick and chooser of laws.
 
By admitting it’s “homicide,” your own words destroy your argument. The distinction was made because murderers argued just as you attempt. So, legislators made it clear for all the idiots to see.
Fetal homicide is just what the inventors of the law decided to name it. Murderers of pregnant women aren't subject to two murder charges in jurisdictions without such a Bandaid fetal law. Just one.
 
I saw a couple minutes of it. It was quite coherent imo. He was into it & seemed alive even. Maybe that will help Dims keep him - the opposite of what the WSJ article may have done.
Did you see the part where his wife had to step in and lead him off the stage without greeting the vets and troops as planned, and when he repeatedly tried to sit in a chair when everybody else was standing?

Both are on video.
 
Last edited:
Because a fetus isn't a baby. The mother exists already as an individual entity with rights. She has control over what to do with herself. When a fetus is birthed and becomes its own individual person then legal rights are conferred onto it and it gains status equal to the pre-existing mother's. Not before when it is attached and part of the mother.
“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
 
Last sentence.

Pathetic pandering virtue signaling.
Only time I put one on now is if I'm sick/coughing in Drs office. That's a fact not Virtue Signaling. I was nasty as hell in February. Coughing out sh** like I had Ebola. You're an asshole if you think that's ok to spray out at people around you.
 
“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
Exactly. There are all sorts of patched-on stuff y'all have come up with for specific cases. That, again, wouldn't be needed if fetuses were already considered babies. The act you reference here specifically recognizing fetuses as a "legal victim" if, and only if, they are injured or killed during the commission of one of the listed crimes. If they were already legal persons with rights from conception that never would've been needed.
 
Interesting (in my clueless opinion) that Hunter didn't take a plea deal (if one was even offered) versus having tons of your skeletons and so forth being brought forward, including potential name dropping w/ dad's co-horts. Given this is an election year at that.

He was indeed offered a sweetheart plea deal. Thankfully an honest judge with character and integrity blew it up

Probably for the same reason Trump didn't take a plea deal instead of having a porn star on the witness stand recounting spanking the former President on the ass with a rolled up magazine with his face on the cover.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-trial-stormy-daniels-hush-money-magazine-spank

I’m just speculating but any such deal offered to Trump would almost certainly be based on him agreeing not to seek the office of POTUS, which is a total non-starter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost In FL
Bye bye.
Gee. I wonder why? Surely they’ve done everything on the up and up and have nothing to hide right?

If they’re making that kind of statement, it’s pretty much an admission of guilt.
 
Exactly. There are all sorts of patched-on stuff y'all have come up with for specific cases. That, again, wouldn't be needed if fetuses were already considered babies. The act you reference here specifically recognizing fetuses as a "legal victim" if, and only if, they are injured or killed during the commission of one of the listed crimes. If they were already legal persons with rights from conception that never would've been needed.
Even a cursory Google search shows countless examples of the rights of unborn babies through history.

The “patched-on” stuff that you seem to think was created to contradict human history is directly because of Roe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC888
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT