A group of Pro-Lifers showed up to a Pro-Choice demonstration, and among the small pro-life group was a pregnant woman who played her unborn baby's heartbeat on a loudspeaker. Many of the pro-choicers did not react well to this and went berserk. Deranged Pro-Abortionists Are Enough To Make Your Skin Crawl, Shouts Down Pregnant Mom [Video] - Lead Patriot video in the link
LOL, just as I thought, straight from LIEnews site... So many unanswered questions in other threads leads to another thread with no point
That totally biased — and ad / spyware packed — website does not show what you assert. There are hundreds of actual examples yet you choose one that doesn’t show any... and they are using Twitter as a source... Strange. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one That doesn’t give you the right to force pregnant women to be slaves to the state.
What is your point exactly? There are idiots screaming at each other on the extremes of pretty much all debates and topics, especially the difficult and emotive ones like abortion. I fail to see the benefit in giving any of them any attention though and indeed, I feel seeking to do so makes you no better than they are, feeding the noise, anger and hatred rather than focusing on the practical realities of the topic in question.
That sounds like a massive deflect. You know as well as I do that abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. And even to try to construe the Constitution as protecting abortion is a massive disingenuous stretch, at the very best. We have had other threads on that topic. No, I don't support those who say it's in the Constitution when it's not. (The vast majority of people who say they support the majority Roe v Wade opinion have never actually taken the time to read it and truly give it any real thought, nor would they be able to articulate even a basic summary of the reason it uses. It's total baloney when it comes to the legal logic of it's rationale.)
LOL, "total baloney" ? It's lasted 50 years.....and still stands !! No, the word abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution but that doesn't mean people can destroy people's right by taking away their right to bodily autonomy and privacy....every time you argue "Constitution", YOU lose You STILL have no pint in this thread
Tell you what... How about we have a panel of legal scholars composed of impartial people who don't give a crap about abortion, and any woman who is capable of explaining even the most rudimentary synopsis of the legal argument in Roe v Wade to them can get an abortion?
Yeah, you're right. It was a bit of a deflection and off topic. That said, I have a couple questions. 1. Can you point out in the constitution where the right to travel is located? 2. Would you support laws curtailing an Americans ability to travel either domestically or internationally?
I'll admit that does (on the surface) appear to be a good argument, and I will have to think about that. I will point out there's a federal law that was passed in 1910 called the White Slave Traffic Act. (The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in Caminetti v United States, in 1917)
Here , you "missed" the complete post Indlib: """""Yeah, you're right. It was a bit of a deflection and off topic. That said, I have a couple questions. 1. Can you point out in the constitution where the right to travel is located? 2. Would you support laws curtailing an Americans ability to travel either domestically or internationally?"""""
I will help you out. From James Madison. This is how the 9th amendment was born. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' https://constitution.findlaw.com/am...he Constitution,others retained by the people.
SO, if someone played a heartbeat that's still a beat, yes? Did anyone dance? Did anyone dance back and get served? Was it on?
Somebody's ignoring an INCONVENIENT post kazenatsu said: ↑ Tell you what... How about we have a panel of legal scholars composed of impartial people who don't give a crap about abortion, and any woman who is capable of explaining even the most rudimentary synopsis of the legal argument in Roe v Wade to them can get an abortion?""""""" FoxHastings : Why?
The point (which should have been obvious to you) was that if women were only allowed to get an abortion if they had any inkling of the actual legal logic used in Roe v Wade, none of them would be able to get one. Maybe you shouldn't tout a Supreme Court precedent for support for your side when you have very little idea what the rationale for that precedent actually was. And that I was pretty confident almost everyone on your side had no real idea.
So no one except law experts who can explain laws should have rights?? !! What a preposterous idea....is that from one of your "science fiction" films?? BTW, That would leave YOU out , too! If you couldn't explain in detail any law pertaining to you, you lose your rights...fair enough The funny part is whether YOU are "pretty confident" about anything has NOTHING to do with the fact that women have a right to abortion and they have abortions and don't really care what you are "confident" about...
Can we apply the same metric to originalist readings on the first and second amendment? Why is controlling women such a pressing issue for you?
We all see the pathetic attempts of deflection in this thread. If you are unable to even acknowledge discussions being made in good faith then likely your narrative is the incorrect one.
YOU wouldn't see a point to that, would you? Or a point to brainwaves, or even if the fetus could sing and dance, and do arithmetic. That would be totally irrelevant to you, in your frame of reference.
Wow! What an over exaggeration of what happened. Two people disagreed making fun of her and this somehow is a “crowd “going crazy”? With hyperbole like this it is no wonder the “pro-life” movement is discredited
