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.
Funny how the socialists had no idea what a woman was, in fact their Supreme Court nominee couldn’t either. Yet, they find out roe verses wade is going to be overturned and all the sudden they can define a woman.
In other odd news, socialists push government mandates for vaccines but scream bloody hell if they don’t have a choice to abort children.
Someone help me here..
Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not mention vaccines or mandates. Only right wing authoritarian followers do so. Your point is that you are follower of right wing authoritarians? That would be stating the obvious & is hardly necessary to restate.
How is it a violation of equal protection? It's no different than a homeowner not being charged when he shoots an intruder in his home. That's still a homicide, but the homeowner isn't charged. If someone kills another person for being annoying, they get charged. Same type of event, different outcomes.
It's very different. An intruder in one's home is uninvited. In 95% of unintended pregnancies, women have VOLUNTARILY participated in unprotected sex. They themselves invited a pregnancy. Since they invited it, there's no valid reason to kill the child in utero.
It's very different. An intruder in one's home is uninvited. In 95% of unintended pregnancies, women have VOLUNTARILY participated in unprotected sex. They themselves invited a pregnancy. Since they invited it, there's no valid reason to kill the child in utero.
Incorrect. There is NO other case in which someone can choose to kill another just for the sake of their own convenience. Unless everyone is allowed to kill others for their own convenience, it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Incorrect. There is NO other case in which someone can choose to kill another just for the sake of their own convenience. Unless everyone is allowed to kill others for their own convenience, it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Well there we go - no wonder you're perpetually confused. You are arguing something that doesn't exist.
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.
