[quote=PitDAWG]You mean specifically. There are many vague constructs in the Constitution that said in general terms which cover many issues. Do you have any idea how many things have been ruled on that weren't named specifically but were found to be described by definition in the constitution? That's exactly why we have a SCOTUS. To interpret what the constitution means on a myriad of topics.
You just described when an issue becomes one for the states to rule on...like abortion is now. RvW was created by the SC out of thin air with no judicial reasoning other than what the justices "wanted". That's simply not their job or responsibility.
This quote from Magoo yesterday sums up the disaster that the socialists want - legislation from the bench:
"With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country," Biden said during a speech at the White House.
A 40+ year politician that pretends to not know how our system of government actually works. That is flat out irresponsible of the POTUS to think such a thing...let alone say it to the world. That comment is offensive to anyone with a lick of intelligence and/or education.
Magoo? Could you break out your childish translator and decipher this code for those of us who don't speak baby talk? Oh, the big bad socialist... You people have the nerve to say anything we (the left) do is bad while you trash the entire concept of freedom and democracy. Pfft.
Apparently Magoo needs a child-level code decipher-er to understand the responsibility of the SC and the fact that the SC should not even remotely consider what the people "want".
You mean the thinest minority of people while flying in the face of the overwhelming majority? lmao, you can't make this garbage up.
We have (3) separate and distinct branches of government...you should look it up.
Quote
No crap and one of those is now under the control of extremists representing less than 30% of the population. YOU ARE A MINORITY. The majority does not share your views. Your opinions don't matter to the majority on this topis. We don't care if you think GOD is on your side. What don't you get about that?
Huh? Where did I say anything about God? You are unhinged. Seems like Magoo isn't the only one who does not understand that there are (3) branches of government and a Constitution that has to be followed until amended. Ranting like an incoherent lunatic shows the world exactly why our government is set-up as it is...to protect the masses from the whims and irrationality of people just like you. Magoo should know better...and so should you.
I'll tell you what the hell I wanna tell you. I am not against abortion. I laid out my feelings on it a little while ago.
What I am against is extremists on either side telling people what they can and can't think. OCD rails on people all the time. Telling people they don't have a say. Everyone can have a say. He isn't the Lord of the Forum.
When was the last time the Extreme Court asked for your opinion? I know I didn't have a say. And since when should the minority rule democracy? Sorry, those questions don't fit your narrative and narrow worldview.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Not being snarky. I simply did not like you telling other people they have no say. They can speak if they like. You aren't their boss.
Here is what I posted about abortion not too long ago. Not sure how they align w/what you and Swish are claiming about me?
Quote
I have never made my views on abortion public on here. I have said I hate the extremists on both sides. People blowing up abortion clinics are extremists. It's mind boggling how they think it might be okay to kill a person to protect the rights ....I better stop there. I also hate those who are being violent because of the law.
As a man, I don't think it is my place to judge women if they have an abortion or not. I can say that I always believed that the man should take care of a child who is born from his seed and if he doesn't, he should be punished.
Personal story: My daughter practiced safe sex or no sex at all [probably not--LOL] until she was married. She and her husband immediately tried to have a child. She's miscarried twice. Those who think that casually having an abortion might want to consider that many women struggle to have a child. Well, she is pregnant now. There were some bad signs. She was told that the baby had fluid on her neck and would have heart issues. One specialist said the baby would be still-born. My daughter and her husband considered abortion if that was the case. I would have supported her no matter her decision. Thankfully, the fluid is gone and the baby is the right size for her age. The heart rate was good.
I don't know.........I think people should probably be more sensitive when discussing a topic such as this one. Some of these opinions are over the top and frankly, they sometimes infuriate me or deeply sadden me.
I am not against abortion like some extremists are. However, I do wish that people would do more to prevent pregnancy if they have no desire to have a child. While there are exceptions to any rule, birth control and abstinence, are generally quite effective. I don't think it's a good idea to put one's own pleasure ahead of everything else.
So I had thoughts about all this and I thought I might jot some down. This is not in response to anyone particular but will likely touch on things said.
When we talk about constitutional rights we need to understand what the constitution is and what it isn't. The constitution describes the three branches of government, empowers them with their authority and sets limits on them. It does not, nor has it ever, given us rights. Any rights you have are natural rights, these come from you being a human, not from the piece of paper. Your right to free speech was not created by the constitution, it was created by you being human. Some see this as coming from God, from nature, the universe. It does not matter where, it is outside us.
When we look at things like free speech the constitution guarantees that the government will not "abridged". The constitution places the limit on the government on what it can do with specific natural rights. They are written, I don't need to enumerate the list. Abortion is not on the list of specific rights that are off limits from the government, it is not a constitutionally protected right.
The idea it is not a constitutionally protected right leads to the question, is it a right at all? Some will say no, and the reasoning is not important. Some will say yes, again the reason is not important. It is a tricky question, but what the Dobbs v Jackson decision tells us is that it is not constitutionally protected and as such, the court corrected a bad ruling that protects it as a "constitutional right". I do think the reasoning in this was sound, people just don't like the result of that. To be honest though, the court did not ban abortion, it didn't make it illegal, it didn't place limits on it.
The constitution provides three separate but equal branches of government, each with their own responsibility. The legislative branch should decide on the legality of abortion, not the judicial branch, that is not their job. One of the weakness of the original Roe decision, and the concurring Casey decision is the opinion was written like law, it was legislating from the bench. That is a bad thing for the republic.
Someone mention how many people want abortion to be legal. Those people need to work the system correctly and work the legislative branch, they are there for the majority of people stuff. We let them know what we want when we elect them, if they don't do it we find someone who will (well, in theory at least). As a republic we do this through the arbitrary idea of states and those that represent the state.
The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is now dead. It isn't coming back, at least no time soon. Having legislators on TV yelling the court is illegitimate is counter productive and flat out wrong. The court did it's job, those legislators should do theirs if they want to protect abortion.
As a bit extra, I have discussed my views previously on abortion but I don't think in the context of the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson it matters at all. There is a lot of angst that boils down to people's feelings on the subject, those should be directed where they are appropriate, the legislative branch.
Defense Department to keep access to "reproductive health care" after Roe v. Wade's end
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Friday that the Pentagon is working to ensure that members of the military, their families and its civilian employees will still have access to "reproductive health care" after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Why it matters: The Defense Department currently does not have a policy to accommodate service members or employees who are seeking an abortion but are stationed in a state that has outlawed abortion, Politico reports.
Federal law currently allows military medical facilities to provide abortions only in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger, while the military's health program is allowed to cover abortions at private facilities for those same reasons only.
What they're saying: "Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families," Austin said in a statement on Friday.
"I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force. The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law," he added.
The big picture: The court's decision may further strain the military's recruitment efforts — already hampered by low employment and other factors — as potential recruits may fear being stationed in states that have banned abortions, according to Bloomberg.
Women make up around 20% of the military's 1.3 million-member active-duty force, and 95% of them are of reproductive age, according to Stars and Stripes citing department statistics.
US Senator Admits Desire for Return of Segregation
After the devastating reversal of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS this week which prohibits women from having bodily autonomy, US Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) used the opportunity to make another request from the US Supreme Court; reverse Plessy vs. Ferguson/Board of Education and reinstitute legal segregation of races.
Homer Plessy, a biracial Man, was arrested in 1892 for sitting in the Whites-Only section of a passenger train that was taking him from New Orleans to Covington, a short journey by standards of the day. The conductor of the train demanded Plessy move to the section reserved for Black people even though the White’s- only section of the train was empty, so Plessy refused.
Mr. Plessy deeply disapproved of segregation and the law instituted two years prior which included segregation on train cars. This led him to test the limits of the law itself and demonstrate it’s abuse and unconstitutionality.
He was charged and convicted in court by the presiding Judge, John H. Ferguson. Ferguson claimed in his ruling that segregation of the races was a constitutional law that still favored the “Separate but Equal” doctrine.
Mr. Plessy then sued Judge Ferguson for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Plessy and other Black activists and allies at the time had been attempting to mobilize the community to fight back against the avalanche of Jim Crow laws that were legitimizing bigotry and weaponizing legislation to harm Black Americans.
And he lost.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that “Separate but Equal” functioned in a way that satisfied the constitution, using that as justification for continued segregation and discrimination. According to History.com; “The Court denied that segregated railroad cars for Black people were necessarily inferior. “We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy’s] argument,” Justice Henry Brown wrote, ‘to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.’”
Only one Judge dissented from the ruling, Hustice John Marshall Harlan who had, himself, disagreed that slaves should be free or be granted any civil rights. However, he changed his position on the case largely because of the atrocious acts committed by White Nationalist groups like The Ku Klux Klan who has often created and taken the law into their own hands where it concerned the Black community throughout the South.
It wasn’t until 1954 when the Landmark ruling for Brown vs. Board of Education came down that the US Supreme Court revisited Plessy’s case from nearly 50 years prior when Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his ruling that “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and that segregation in public schools had been “inherently unequal.” The majority of the Supreme Court Justices sided with the plaintiff’s in the Brown case and had determined that the Black community was indeed being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
Overturning Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education means segregation would be returned to the individual states to determine instead of a federal law.
I’ve frequently spoken about how profoundly emboldened Trump acolytes serving in the highest echelons of government have become with their bigotry, but Senator Cornyn’s public missive, enthusiastically expressing his desire to use the majority Conservative Supreme Court to legitimize discrimination by enshrining it into law once again should absolutely terrify everyone. This archaic attitude regarding race should never be tolerated, especially from a lawmaker.
This is where we are, with the new Supreme Court comprised of Trump-Era conservative Judges willing to revoke rights to suit a religious ideology and show off their intolerance like a boy scout badge they’re proud of. This is unforgivable and certainly makes it evident what Cornyn’s intentions are.
Justice Clarence Thomas has signaled that he is urging the Supreme Court to also revisit other landmark rulings with the intent to overturn them, including equal marriage, contraception access and the decriminalization of gay sex. With all that’s happened, this should be considered an inevitability now that all laws not codified are the target.
It should be noted that the Texas GOP submitted a resolution to reject the results of the 2020 election and live in a fantasy world where the former President is still the President. They’ve also discusses seceding from the US, claiming that “Woke Culture” is destroying the country.
At this point, if Cornyn’s vile comments represent the entirety of the Texas political body, I’d be happy to see them go. They do not represent America, and it’s becoming more evident by the day. It’s also quite staggering that a man saturated by privilege and holding one of the most respected seat in the nation can boast about such divisive and hostile beliefs yet somehow still serve from that seat without a shred of shame.
We’ve normalized this behavior from our leaders now. They’re emboldened by their impunity. We as a people have accepted more than any population of any country ever should. We are lied to, manipulated, referred to as teams emphasizing their polarizing efforts to appeal to only one ilk of the American melting pot. Today, a Trump endorsed candidate for Illinois state Congress, Mary Miller, told those at her rally that “Hitler got one thing right… Whoever has the youth has the future.” She said, referencing the necessity of recruiting youth into the GOP movement.
They aren’t even being discreet about their prejudices anymore because they’ve never seen one of them pay any political consequences. America is a country where a President can attempt a coup by manipulating millions of people into believing they are victims, carry on with the big lie of a stolen election, commit more crimes than a Chicago gangster in the 30's…. and run for President again. We have come to expect and accept this corrosive behavior from powerful men. We feel powerless as a community, we’ve witnessed unthinkable assaults on our better sensibilities only to see no one pay any consequences. This has resulted in these politicians feeling incredibly brave- fearless even- because… what are you gunna do about it?
And I suppose that’s a fair question.
Until then, I’ll leave you with more commentary from this sitting Senator who will be running for re-election.
Just pondering Mussolini…
Disappointed at the shifting demographic of his State means white people won’t always be the majority.
More cops, more guns, pushing that Texas rumor that the State motto is actually God, Guns and Glory.
One thing some need to understand. The Courts ruling didn't ban abortion. It simply overturned Roe from making it a federal mandate which it never should have from the start. There are many examples of the law allowing community standards to have weight in determining if a law if just or unfair. Just as a broad brush example, that is why you see strip clubs being allowed in some places and not allowed in others. Those decisions are allowed for each community to make.
The standards of one community can vary from another. Some states allow gambling, some don't. It isn't the place for the Federal government to step in and say what is right or what is wrong. They leave that up to the states to regulate.
Women will still be able to get abortions. As we are starting to see, means are starting to pop up that will make that available to those who want an abortion, be it they might have to travel some distance to receive one.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Abortion survivors, in wake of Supreme Court ruling, reveal their 'trauma' but rejoice in a 'new dawn' Three women who survived their mothers' abortion attempts spoke about their lives after the Supreme Court's abortion decision
"I survived a failed saline infusion abortion attempt back in 1977," said Ohden.
"After being poisoned and scalded in the womb over a five-day period, I was accidentally born alive in the final step of that abortion procedure," she revealed.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Well, we all know what “states rights” is code for.
And people will still claim it doesn’t mean what we all know it means. One of the oldest dog whistles in the American books.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
One thing some need to understand. The Courts ruling didn't ban abortion. It simply overturned Roe from making it a federal mandate which it never should have from the start. There are many examples of the law allowing community standards to have weight in determining if a law if just or unfair. Just as a broad brush example, that is why you see strip clubs being allowed in some places and not allowed in others. Those decisions are allowed for each community to make.
The standards of one community can vary from another. Some states allow gambling, some don't. It isn't the place for the Federal government to step in and say what is right or what is wrong. They leave that up to the states to regulate.
Women will still be able to get abortions. As we are starting to see, means are starting to pop up that will make that available to those who want an abortion, be it they might have to travel some distance to receive one.
Watch out, they are going to call you an extremist. I mean I've told them this cap for years now and they just laugh at me.
I’ve been called worst around here. Extremist would be trump level trash talk at this point.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It's medical care if the mother has major problems with the pregnancy or birth. It's just done for convenience in most cases.
So if having a kid is inconvenient we should definitely force those women to have that child. Teach her a lesson right? I mean nothing like being raised by a parent that didn’t want you. That didn’t have space, time, energy, or money for you. That’ll make for a great outcome. Awesome.
I don't know why you insist in repeating this fairy tale over and over and over. You act like anybody born into any situation without two perfect and rich parents then their life isn't worth living and we just need to snuff them out in the womb. The reality is very few of the people on earth are born into that situation. Nobody has a perfect life and to tell you the truth who wants one? If everything is handed to you on a silver platter your whole life you don't appreciate them. My parents got married young.... yep Mom was preggers. Did they struggle with money.... yep sure did just like most Americans do. My wife grew up with only her father (yep you guessed it her mother didn't want anything to do with her) her step mother hated her as well. According to you her life wasn't worth living since her mom didn't want her, she would have been better of being slaughtered in the womb. Many of my friends grew up in homes with parents who were divorced once, twice, or even more often. Many grew up in homes where one parent left, of was killed, or died. A few lost both parents, yet in all my years none of them have told me... Gee I wish I was never born.
My brothers and I grew up just fine and happy without much money. My wife turned out just fine after growing up with a Mom who didn't want her, and a step mother that didn't want her either. She had a tough childhood, followed up by a wonderful 41 years of life, kids, and grandkids,and a old funny looking husband.
It doesn't have to be in the constitution. Are seatbelts in the constitution? No. But we have a law saying you have to buckle up because as a society we determined it was the right thing to do to save lives. You see, the government IS there to solve the problems of the day. If not, would ALL still be running around like poop-throwing monkeys fighting over scraps
Yet I don't hear you running around like a chicken with it's head cut off about losing your freedom. Why are we forced to wear them, they restrict our movement, and chafe our nipples. Besides why is it that kids have to be covered in bubble wrap and parents are forced to spend hundreds of dollars on car seats, but their kids don't have to wear them on a school bus. BTW just look around this thread and around the world. We are already and have been for a long time running around like poop throwing monkeys fighting over scraps.
Quote
Abortions aren't "killing babies" or "baby murder", and anyone with a 10th-grade education should know that and be able to wrap around it.
Any five year old knows abortion is killing babies. That's one thing that ticks me off. Call it what it is murder instead of trying to dress up the words to sound less offensive. Why don't you call it abortion when a mother kills her 1 month old child, or 1 year old child? Nope ya get all up in arms about how sick and twisted a woman is if she kills her babies outside of the womb, but if she kills him/her in the womb then oh hell yes it's all cool.
Okay you will now return to your rants about how it's all Christians fault for everything wrong in this world, and insult us Christians and those athiests, agnostics, Dems, and independants who are against abortion.
Who gives a damn, that is their right. It is only a problem for religious zealots!
It's not their right in Ohio now if a heartbeat can be heard. I have been hearing for years on these boards that abortion is legal so they are not breaking any laws. Well now they will be. The shoe is now on the other foot and you know how I have felt for the last 49 years.
So I had thoughts about all this and I thought I might jot some down. This is not in response to anyone particular but will likely touch on things said.
When we talk about constitutional rights we need to understand what the constitution is and what it isn't. The constitution describes the three branches of government, empowers them with their authority and sets limits on them. It does not, nor has it ever, given us rights. Any rights you have are natural rights, these come from you being a human, not from the piece of paper. Your right to free speech was not created by the constitution, it was created by you being human. Some see this as coming from God, from nature, the universe. It does not matter where, it is outside us.
When we look at things like free speech the constitution guarantees that the government will not "abridged". The constitution places the limit on the government on what it can do with specific natural rights. They are written, I don't need to enumerate the list. Abortion is not on the list of specific rights that are off limits from the government, it is not a constitutionally protected right.
The idea it is not a constitutionally protected right leads to the question, is it a right at all? Some will say no, and the reasoning is not important. Some will say yes, again the reason is not important. It is a tricky question, but what the Dobbs v Jackson decision tells us is that it is not constitutionally protected and as such, the court corrected a bad ruling that protects it as a "constitutional right". I do think the reasoning in this was sound, people just don't like the result of that. To be honest though, the court did not ban abortion, it didn't make it illegal, it didn't place limits on it.
The constitution provides three separate but equal branches of government, each with their own responsibility. The legislative branch should decide on the legality of abortion, not the judicial branch, that is not their job. One of the weakness of the original Roe decision, and the concurring Casey decision is the opinion was written like law, it was legislating from the bench. That is a bad thing for the republic.
Someone mention how many people want abortion to be legal. Those people need to work the system correctly and work the legislative branch, they are there for the majority of people stuff. We let them know what we want when we elect them, if they don't do it we find someone who will (well, in theory at least). As a republic we do this through the arbitrary idea of states and those that represent the state.
The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is now dead. It isn't coming back, at least no time soon. Having legislators on TV yelling the court is illegitimate is counter productive and flat out wrong. The court did it's job, those legislators should do theirs if they want to protect abortion.
As a bit extra, I have discussed my views previously on abortion but I don't think in the context of the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson it matters at all. There is a lot of angst that boils down to people's feelings on the subject, those should be directed where they are appropriate, the legislative branch.
So I had thoughts about all this and I thought I might jot some down. This is not in response to anyone particular but will likely touch on things said.
When we talk about constitutional rights we need to understand what the constitution is and what it isn't. The constitution describes the three branches of government, empowers them with their authority and sets limits on them. It does not, nor has it ever, given us rights. Any rights you have are natural rights, these come from you being a human, not from the piece of paper. Your right to free speech was not created by the constitution, it was created by you being human. Some see this as coming from God, from nature, the universe. It does not matter where, it is outside us.
When we look at things like free speech the constitution guarantees that the government will not "abridged". The constitution places the limit on the government on what it can do with specific natural rights. They are written, I don't need to enumerate the list. Abortion is not on the list of specific rights that are off limits from the government, it is not a constitutionally protected right.
The idea it is not a constitutionally protected right leads to the question, is it a right at all? Some will say no, and the reasoning is not important. Some will say yes, again the reason is not important. It is a tricky question, but what the Dobbs v Jackson decision tells us is that it is not constitutionally protected and as such, the court corrected a bad ruling that protects it as a "constitutional right". I do think the reasoning in this was sound, people just don't like the result of that. To be honest though, the court did not ban abortion, it didn't make it illegal, it didn't place limits on it.
The constitution provides three separate but equal branches of government, each with their own responsibility. The legislative branch should decide on the legality of abortion, not the judicial branch, that is not their job. One of the weakness of the original Roe decision, and the concurring Casey decision is the opinion was written like law, it was legislating from the bench. That is a bad thing for the republic.
Someone mention how many people want abortion to be legal. Those people need to work the system correctly and work the legislative branch, they are there for the majority of people stuff. We let them know what we want when we elect them, if they don't do it we find someone who will (well, in theory at least). As a republic we do this through the arbitrary idea of states and those that represent the state.
The idea that abortion is a constitutional right is now dead. It isn't coming back, at least no time soon. Having legislators on TV yelling the court is illegitimate is counter productive and flat out wrong. The court did it's job, those legislators should do theirs if they want to protect abortion.
As a bit extra, I have discussed my views previously on abortion but I don't think in the context of the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson it matters at all. There is a lot of angst that boils down to people's feelings on the subject, those should be directed where they are appropriate, the legislative branch.
Bingo.
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
LOL...I guess one could call him Uncle Sam.
This pales in comparison to what else he has been called these past few days.
It’s not a baby it’s a cell clump. And you know it. It’s not a heartbeat. It’s the electrical impulse of cells arranging themselves.
"Jesus was not killed by atheism and anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix. Beware those who claim to know the mind of God and who are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Beware those who cannot tell God's will from their own." -Barbara Brown Taylor
I’ll support any Ohioan that wants out of that craphole to travel to Oregon for a ‘camping trip’. Camping is legal in Oregon and we have plenty of beautiful places to do so.
If you’re gay, trans or in a mixed race marriage….. God's republican mobs are coming for you next. Better for you to go back into the closet and hide again.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
I am thankful a step has been taken to end this nations culture of death created by the Left.
I think it was God’s will to have all those abortions take place. God realized this planet was already overrun and was wanting us to curb it. You all turned your back on his will.
Humans are over rated and think of themselves as far more important than they are. God’s greatest creation, earth, would be better without us. That’s the truth. Bring on the asteroid.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter when life begins, It doesn't matter whether a fetus is a human being or not. That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize winning pediatric oncologist. NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person. That's it That's the argument. You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists. They cannot even harvest your organs after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission. Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.
I didn’t breed for a reason. I could see the scourge humanity was from a young age. This planet and it’s inhabitants are better off without more of us on it. When I’m gone it’s over. The religious nuts can take over. Let us fall under sharia law. I honestly don’t care. I just wanted to spend my little time left not surrounded by insanity. It’s too late for that I guess. I’m over humanity. It’s gross. Bring on the asteroid.
It’s not a baby it’s a cell clump. And you know it. It’s not a heartbeat. It’s the electrical impulse of cells arranging themselves.
"Jesus was not killed by atheism and anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix. Beware those who claim to know the mind of God and who are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Beware those who cannot tell God's will from their own." -Barbara Brown Taylor
I’ll support any Ohioan that wants out of that craphole to travel to Oregon for a ‘camping trip’. Camping is legal in Oregon and we have plenty of beautiful places to do so.
Well according to Bible, god ain’t pro life either. He did try to drown all of humanity after all, and let his own kid get crucified.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It’s not a baby it’s a cell clump. And you know it. It’s not a heartbeat. It’s the electrical impulse of cells arranging themselves.
"Jesus was not killed by atheism and anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix. Beware those who claim to know the mind of God and who are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Beware those who cannot tell God's will from their own." -Barbara Brown Taylor
I’ll support any Ohioan that wants out of that craphole to travel to Oregon for a ‘camping trip’. Camping is legal in Oregon and we have plenty of beautiful places to do so.
Shove your religion.
It's a baby and it's a heartbeat.
Show me a photo of a 6 week old heart. I challenge you.
Humans are over rated and think of themselves as far more important than they are. God’s greatest creation, earth, would be better without us. That’s the truth. Bring on the asteroid.
Humans are over rated and think of themselves as far more important than they are. God’s greatest creation, earth, would be better without us. That’s the truth. Bring on the asteroid.
Only after the Rapture
It’s Sunday, shouldn’t you be at church praying to your sky daddy? Shove. Your. Religion.
I don't have any web sites saved that show a babies heart at 6 weeks and it is so small that I will take your word that there are none out there. But here you go listen to the heartbeat 8 weeks into a pregnancy. Just listen to that little sucker go
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWHg5WcVEAIG3G1.png)
![[Linked Image from miro.medium.com]](https://miro.medium.com/max/700/0*DD4HG4xIzCXGUySo.jpg)
![[Linked Image from miro.medium.com]](https://miro.medium.com/max/700/0*CMurpBoSIHmr4NP7.jpg)
![[Linked Image from miro.medium.com]](https://miro.medium.com/max/576/1*U1-oQ19T91jJK-G4pmY4Ww.png)
![[Linked Image from miro.medium.com]](https://miro.medium.com/max/590/1*lJOgrxZjiWL8ixawEVSQMA.png)
![[Linked Image from miro.medium.com]](https://miro.medium.com/max/590/1*MPgS1jgMV48V-sSxX_fybQ.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
