Backlash builds after Dems vote to legalize abortion up to birth

Yes we know a 9 month old who hasn't passed through a vagina is subhuman unworthy of life.

No. Nine-month-old babies have a legal right to life whether they ever passed through a vagina or not (lots of babies are delivered by c-section). What we're talking about here, though, is not nine-month-old infants, but rather fetuses.
 
No. Nine-month-old babies have a legal right to life whether they ever passed through a vagina or not (lots of babies are delivered by c-section). What we're talking about here, though, is not nine-month-old infants, but rather fetuses.

So are babies in the womb = why we have INFANTICIDE LAWS that cover pregnant women whose babies are murdered, either with them or not.

Like the Scott Peterson DOUBLE MURDER of his wife ,Laci, and her unborn child.


Leftists want to "pick and choose" when a baby's life is "valid".

Screw that crap.

Only 4% of Americans think abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, unlike the Abort-o-crats and their failed infanticide bill.

 
I've never heard of a baby being put into a womb. Why would someone do such a thing? Or are you still trying to talk about fetuses while calling them babies?

Oh look; more silliass"word dancing" . YOU FOOL NO ONE, AND ONLY 4% of AMERICANS AGREA WITH YOU ON ABORTION.
 
....ONLY 4% of AMERICANS AGREA WITH YOU ON ABORTION.
The great thing is that I'm not requiring any of them to get an abortion. If they want to carry a surprise pregnancy to term, they are fully at liberty to do so, and I merely ask that they not hijack our shared government to try to make me do so. We can all decide for ourselves.
 
The great thing is that I'm not requiring any of them to get an abortion. If they want to carry a surprise pregnancy to term, they are fully at liberty to do so, and I merely ask that they not hijack our shared government to try to make me do so. We can all decide for ourselves.

THE HORRID THING IS THAT SOMEONE IS WILLING TO BUTCHER THEIR OWN CHILD UP TO THE POINT OF BIRTH.


UTTER SAVAGERY. BIRTH CONTROL IS FREE.
 
THE HORRID THING IS THAT SOMEONE IS WILLING TO BUTCHER THEIR OWN CHILD UP TO THE POINT OF BIRTH.


UTTER SAVAGERY. BIRTH CONTROL IS FREE.

Abortion is a form of birth control. If you're uncomfortable with the killing of a fetus, you're welcome to carry your own to term. Nobody is stopping you. The only question is whether you should hijack our shared government in order to impose your religious taboos on those who don't share your religion.
 
Abortion is a form of birth control. If you're uncomfortable with the killing of a fetus, you're welcome to carry your own to term. Nobody is stopping you. The only question is whether you should hijack our shared government in order to impose your religious taboos on those who don't share your religion.

Imagine for a moment how outraged and "uncomfortable" these forced-birthers would be if a Muslim-American sect managed to make female genital mutilation mandatory?
 
Imagine for a moment how outraged and "uncomfortable" these forced-birthers would be if a Muslim-American sect managed to make female genital mutilation mandatory?

Yes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are just so many things we disagree on, religiously. The country can only hold together because we have an agreement not to use our shared government to push that stuff.

Take divorce as an example. Conservatives may talk a good game about the sanctity of marriage, but when you look at that not in terms of excluding gay people, but instead in terms of how likely people are to remain true to their marriage, conservative societies tend to have a lot more divorce. How would they like it if Catholics got power and forced them to remain married forever to their current spouse? Or how about Jews or Seventh-Day-Adventists outlawing secular activities on Saturdays? Or Hindus outlawing beef consumption, or Jews and Muslims outlawing pork, or Adventists or Buddhists outlawing all meat-eating?
 
Extraordinary that so many Democrats voted for this barbaric bill.

Infanticide would have been next.
 
Yes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are just so many things we disagree on, religiously. The country can only hold together because we have an agreement not to use our shared government to push that stuff.

Take divorce as an example. Conservatives may talk a good game about the sanctity of marriage, but when you look at that not in terms of excluding gay people, but instead in terms of how likely people are to remain true to their marriage, conservative societies tend to have a lot more divorce. How would they like it if Catholics got power and forced them to remain married forever to their current spouse? Or how about Jews or Seventh-Day-Adventists outlawing secular activities on Saturdays? Or Hindus outlawing beef consumption, or Jews and Muslims outlawing pork, or Adventists or Buddhists outlawing all meat-eating?

Yeah but OUR religion is the one true religion so we have the right to impose our views on you, or else we'll cry about being persecuted and elect CINOs to represent our "values." -- The Reichwing Xtian Party
 

WOW!! WHAT A GREAT REBUTTAL OF NOT ONE THING I POSTED....AS USUAL, JUST SILLIASS LITTLE AD HOMS, FROM SOMEONE WHO THINKS BUTCHERING A BABY AT BIRTH IS FINE.

What an ignorant goy, not all people think fetus are babies

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
 
What an ignorant goy, not all people think fetus are babies

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT "JEWISH LAW" SAYS ?

IF YOU SUPPORT THE BILL THE ABORTOCRATS TRIED T GET THROUGH THE SENATE, THEN YOU THINK IT'S OK TO BUTCHER A BABY BEING BORN, JUST LIKE I SAID.
 
Back
Top