Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am talking about the majority of the left. Every time we have been involved in a conflict under a GOP president the screams of "war mongers" from the left start. Now that we may get involved in one under a Democrat president the silence from them is deafening.
I am opposed to getting involved militarily in foreign countries in most cases. It is useless and costs us billions in tax dollars. Yet we leave our own borders wide open for every Tom, Amad, Jose, etc. to enter at will.
Hmmm, maybe you ought to change the channel once in a while, hey?
It is in the nation's best interest to oppose amnesty and no it isn't "reform". Women's rights? What about the rights of the unborn? What is wrong with making sure every one who votes has the right to? If the GOP is losing seats due to the above then there is something gone amok with the American mindset, not with those policies. Progressive brainwashing at its finest.
Evidently, you are unfamiliar with your own cherished Constitution. The "unborn" have no rights. Fourteenth Amendment.
I find it astounding that you need a Canadian to tell you this.
Evidently, you are unfamiliar with your own cherished Constitution. The "unborn" have no rights. Fourteenth Amendment.
I find it astounding that you need a Canadian to tell you this.
Yep, even though there is not difference between a preemie born 2 weeks early and a baby in the womb 2 weeks prior to being born, some people believe it's ok to vacuum them out and snip their brain stems. I wonder if these people are for the option of letting those preemies in the NICU be euthanized as long as they have not made it to the due date yet.
Of course in Europe, ethics experts at Oxford actually feel that a baby who is born and then found to be disabled should have the option of being terminated, post-birth, because it's not really different than an abortion.
Yep, even though there is not difference between a preemie born 2 weeks early and a baby in the womb 2 weeks prior to being born, some people believe it's ok to vacuum them out and snip their brain stems. I wonder if these people are for the option of letting those preemies in the NICU be euthanized as long as they have not made it to the due date yet.
Of course in Europe, ethics experts at Oxford actually feel that a baby who is born and then found to be disabled should have the option of being terminated, post-birth, because it's not really different than an abortion.
What does any of this have to do with the issue of foetal rights? Kindly stick to the issue. Read your own constitution.
What does your constitution have to do with experts at Oxford in Europe? If I said experts in Europe have determined that you should eliminate the second amendment, you'd be howling.
Evidently, you are unfamiliar with your own cherished Constitution. The "unborn" have no rights. Fourteenth Amendment.
I find it astounding that you need a Canadian to tell you this.
I am not referring to the Constitution. There is higher moral authority than that. You can disagree with me if you like but I am pro-life and think that abortion is just plain wrong and killing a human being is not within a woman's so-called rights, IMO. The only exception in my mind is where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Let's not get off topic though, shall we? I have read enough threads about pro-choice vs pro-life in here.
There was an AP study within the last few years that found 79% of republicans were blatantly racist.
After skimming through this forum, the study seems to be validated as correct.
And just how did that study come to that conclusion? That's utter BS! I don't want to get off topic here but how about the racism of many ethnocentric Hispanics who think their ethnic group here illegally should be above our immigration laws and most of them are Democrats!
I say this because of what has gone on in Syria. Some of you are divided over Syria and yet your Speaker is forced to side with Obama about a military strike. I am sure the left is laughing all the way to the voting both in the next election when many of your own voters won't come and vote for another republican.
Of course they will vote for a Republican.
Obamacare caused the Democrats to lose a huge landslide in 2010. But in 2012 Obama got re-elected.
It doesn't matter what the Republicans do now about Syria. In 2016 that will be old news.
I am not referring to the Constitution. There is higher moral authority than that. You can disagree with me if you like but I am pro-life and think that abortion is just plain wrong and killing a human being is not within a woman's so-called rights, IMO. The only exception in my mind is where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Let's not get off topic though, shall we? I have read enough threads about pro-choice vs pro-life in here.
What you think is irrelevant to the Constitution, regardless of your "higher moral authority".
According to the Fourteenth Amendment, a foetus has no rights. Period.
What you think is irrelevant to the Constitution, regardless of your "higher moral authority".
According to the Fourteenth Amendment, a foetus has no rights. Period.
Sorry, but I can't tell- are you being facetious?
What the Supreme Court has "found" was not that the unborn cannot have legal rights (they actually do) but rather that the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn is not compelling enough to justify certain restrictions on a person's Due Process Right to Privacy in matters of reproduction.
Funny how no one noticed that before 1973, including the guys who wrote the 14th Amendment. For my money, if a constitutional right was hiding out for a hundred years in emanations from the penumbra of another right, it probably didn't want to be found.
Even honest pro-choicers will admit (sometimes only after a couple of drinks) that the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything that can reasonably be interpreted as creating a right abortion or denying rights to ZEFs. It's pretty well accepted by sensible people that the Due Process framing in this matter really was just a pretext for the Court to legislate from the bench. Pro-choicers just think that a right to abortion should exist- they like the result, so they look the other way on a line of decisions that' are otherwise pretty poorly reasoned and unconvincing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
