GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

[AProudLefty]

when a person engages in sex, they should KNOW the possibility of pregnancy exists...........should they not?

Duh?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Only in the context of militias, though. That's how it's written.

you're reading it with a bias still..........you should know better.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nah - I do.

i'm not sure you do..........you still seem smitten by the notion of a supreme federal government when it isn't supposed to exist

 

[Truth Detector]

Answer to an extremely ignorant person? Why do I even bother?

Irony from an extremely ignorant, thread trolling moron. The stupid never know they are even stupid.

Apparently you haven't heard about the SCOTUS leak and few states passing laws banning contraceptives and plan B.

Apparently you don't know about Amendment X and rights reserved to the states. Apparently you don't know the Constitution and that it does not infer any rights. It LIMITS what the Federal Government can do. Dunce. ;palm:

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Correct. "Unborn children" is a hyperbole.

where did you get the understanding that 'unborn children' do not exist?

 

[BartenderElite]

when a person engages in sex, they should KNOW the possibility of pregnancy exists...........should they not?

Sure. But that has no relevance.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm not a Dem,

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Exactly. So why overturn Roe v. Wade?

because there is no unalienable right to murder ones children, already born or not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Duh?

so women should have the ability to avoid responsibility for their decisions?

 

[BartenderElite]

because there is no unalienable right to murder ones children, already born or not.

100% appeal to emotion right there.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure. But that has no relevance.

WHY does it have no relevance?

 

[BartenderElite]

so women should have the ability to avoid responsibility for their decisions?

Again, irrelevant. And in quite a few cases, no "decision" is made to have a baby.

 

[Earl]

Nah - I do.

You do not understand that the leaked abortion decision validates that the right to abortion is not a Constitutional right...hence, it is not an enumerated right and the states prevail.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

100% appeal to emotion right there.

would it make you feel better if I stated it as 'there is no unalienable right to terminate a pregnancy'????????

 

[Truth Detector]

How a pregnancy began has nothing to do w/ the discussion. Zilch.

Another painfully stupid claim. You seem to be quite full of stupid snowflake.

A right is a right, regardless.

Because you say so? Where is this list of rights enumerated within the Constitution? I've never seen them.

Are you sure you're supposed to be a libertarian?

Are you sure you can even come up with a coherent, intelligent argument?

 

[BartenderElite]

WHY does it have no relevance?

Why should it? Rights are inherent. How someone became pregnant, what their thought process was at the time, how aware they were, how they view abortion - none of that matters to the rights that they have.

 

[AProudLefty]

so women should have the ability to avoid responsibility for their decisions?

So what happens when contraceptives and birth control didn't work?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again, irrelevant. And in quite a few cases, no "decision" is made to have a baby.

it is completely relevant, except for those people that want to have no responsibility for any of their actions or decisions

 

[BartenderElite]

Another painfully stupid claim. You seem to be quite full of stupid snowflake.



Because you say so? Where is this list of rights enumerated within the Constitution? I've never seen them.



Are you sure you can even come up with a coherent, intelligent argument?

You sound upset about the "overturning Roe" thing from the other thread.

 

[zymurgy]

when a person engages in sex, they should KNOW the possibility of pregnancy exists...........should they not?

when we declare war - we know with a large possibility that someone will die. shouldn't it be illegal to declare wars knowing the ramifications under this logic?