Quote:In the United States, it is against the law to intentionally destroy the egg of a bald eagle. It's true. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, deliberately destroying – or even disturbing – a bald eagle's egg is punishable by a maximum $5,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

Why is this if its not a yet a bird and cant live outside that shell?

(07-08-2022 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 07:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 12:08 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe

Quote:An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed.

Quote:Out of 1,600 registered voters polled nationally between June 3-6, 2022, 53 percent said they support the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision “which recognized a Constitutional right to abortion.” However, when voters were asked if they would support or oppose Roe v. Wade, knowing that it allowed abortion up to birth, including late-term abortions when the unborn may feel pain, 56 percent of voters said they oppose Roe.

You seriously posted this complete nonsense push-poll cited in Breitbart? Even with these ridiculous caveats, still only 56 percent opposed it...in a poll from a pro-left group.

After a two week media blitz attacking the decision. Point is, I think most people actually agree that there is no "right to abortion" in the Constitution. Furthermore, there has been a very long history of soft pedaling and hiding the reality of what abortion actually entails. For instance, if most people are shown a sonogram video of a baby in the uterus desperately trying to escape being torn apart by a abortion doctors probe, their attitude toward abortion changes almost immediately.

There are two legitimate sides to this argument. I honestly get what both sides are saying. If you believe in democracy like I do, then its time for the voters to decide how this will be handled. Its how we have handled every difficult decision the nation has faced. Thats all overturning Roe-vs-Wade has done.

Hey, RWT... yes.

And you seriously don't get that I can't see what you post unless somebody quotes you?

UMBG.. It's funny.. He'll say something about you using Breitbart but he'll use some off the wall site for his nonsense and it's not to be questioned..

I remember Mach tried to use a message board as his back up once.

(07-08-2022 01:30 PM)gdunn Wrote:  UMBG.. It's funny.. He'll say something about you using Breitbart but he'll use some off the wall site for his nonsense and it's not to be questioned..

I remember Mach tried to use a message board as his back up once.

lol... i guess he thinks new agencies that pushed the false Russian Interference story for years and covered up the true Hunter's Laptop story are the only ones to be trus... uh, no -- that word doesn't fit.

I guess they're the only ones that can be used as source material.

Pro-Tip RTW -- they're called Fake News for a reason.

(07-08-2022 12:08 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe

Quote:An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed.

Quote:Out of 1,600 registered voters polled nationally between June 3-6, 2022, 53 percent said they support the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision “which recognized a Constitutional right to abortion.” However, when voters were asked if they would support or oppose Roe v. Wade, knowing that it allowed abortion up to birth, including late-term abortions when the unborn may feel pain, 56 percent of voters said they oppose Roe.

Roe v. Wade does not allow abortion up to birth. It still allowed states to ban it after viability (around 22 weeks). So that question had to mislead and effectively lie to voters in order to get 9% of them to change their minds. Note how they have to use the boogeyman of late term abortion in order to try to gain support for a full ban on it right at fertilization. They have to effective mislead and lie to the public in order to get their way. The same tactic these people used to constitute their Guardian Council.

(07-08-2022 08:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

scorpius Wrote:Just because it's "life" doesn't mean it's a "baby" or that it's "murder" if it's terminated. The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach. This is something that should only be regulated by religion, not governments. Those who want to allow government to take away our choice in this faith are effectively slapping the founders in the face by spitting on the whole concept of the separation of church and state.

I'll admit. the mental gymnastics are amazing.

Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

(07-05-2022 09:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:14 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:11 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 04:51 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022...ape-victim


Did I miss the pro-life (until it's born) crowd discussing this case in this thread?

Take it up with the folks in Ohio.

Gotcha. You’re good with 10 year olds forced carrying infest rape babies to term because another state deemed it ok. I see you.

Im good with democracy and the rule of law. You planning on running down there to help out or just bitcheing about it here. Move there and help get the law changes. Oh and dont try to bait me. It does not work.

Don’t hide. Own it. Own your party’s choices. You’re good with 10 year olds force carrying incest rape babies to term because another state deemed it ok. It isn’t going to stop at Ohio. I enjoyed a lovely Texas protest this weekend to fight similar laws here. The GOPand religious nut job right gets to own every one of these instances. Congrats. That’s some real evil ****

A hoax. Democrats lie.

Dumb fricks

Shocking

A week ago, @DanaBashCNN tried to trap me with a story about a 10-year old girl who got an abortion. I pointed out that nobody was asking about the pervert who raped that child. Now it looks like the story was fake to begin with. Literal #FakeNews from the liberal media.

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 12:08 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe

Quote:An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed.

Quote:Out of 1,600 registered voters polled nationally between June 3-6, 2022, 53 percent said they support the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision “which recognized a Constitutional right to abortion.” However, when voters were asked if they would support or oppose Roe v. Wade, knowing that it allowed abortion up to birth, including late-term abortions when the unborn may feel pain, 56 percent of voters said they oppose Roe.

Roe v. Wade does not allow abortion up to birth. It still allowed states to ban it after viability (around 22 weeks). So that question had to mislead and effectively lie to voters in order to get 9% of them to change their minds. Note how they have to use the boogeyman of late term abortion in order to try to gain support for a full ban on it right at fertilization. They have to effective mislead and lie to the public in order to get their way. The same tactic these people used to constitute their Guardian Council.

(07-08-2022 08:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

scorpius Wrote:Just because it's "life" doesn't mean it's a "baby" or that it's "murder" if it's terminated. The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach. This is something that should only be regulated by religion, not governments. Those who want to allow government to take away our choice in this faith are effectively slapping the founders in the face by spitting on the whole concept of the separation of church and state.

I'll admit. the mental gymnastics are amazing.

Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

If thats really the case--then why the Democrat uproar over the Supreme Court allowing the peoples elected representatives in Congress or state legislatures to decide abortion issues? This is a representative democracy. The American people generally get the legislation they desire---and when the majority doesn't get what they want---they fire those in charge and elect someone else who WILL give them what they want. If the majority really believes abortion is a "right" and Roe vs Wade is super duper awesome----then thats almost certain to be how Congress and the state legislatures will see it.

(07-09-2022 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 12:08 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe

Quote:An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed.

Quote:Out of 1,600 registered voters polled nationally between June 3-6, 2022, 53 percent said they support the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision “which recognized a Constitutional right to abortion.” However, when voters were asked if they would support or oppose Roe v. Wade, knowing that it allowed abortion up to birth, including late-term abortions when the unborn may feel pain, 56 percent of voters said they oppose Roe.

Roe v. Wade does not allow abortion up to birth. It still allowed states to ban it after viability (around 22 weeks). So that question had to mislead and effectively lie to voters in order to get 9% of them to change their minds. Note how they have to use the boogeyman of late term abortion in order to try to gain support for a full ban on it right at fertilization. They have to effective mislead and lie to the public in order to get their way. The same tactic these people used to constitute their Guardian Council.

(07-08-2022 08:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

scorpius Wrote:Just because it's "life" doesn't mean it's a "baby" or that it's "murder" if it's terminated. The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach. This is something that should only be regulated by religion, not governments. Those who want to allow government to take away our choice in this faith are effectively slapping the founders in the face by spitting on the whole concept of the separation of church and state.

I'll admit. the mental gymnastics are amazing.

Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

If thats really the case--then why the Democrat uproar over the Supreme Court allowing the peoples elected representatives in Congress or state legislatures decide abortion issues? This is a democracy. The American people generally get the legislation they desire---and when the majority doesn't get what they want---they fire those in charge and elect someone else who WILL give them what they want. If the majority really believes abortion is a right and Roe vs Wade is super duper awesome----then thats almost certain to be how Congress and the state legislatures will see it.

That will be the rallying cry of the Dems for midterms, protecting the rights of all women even ones in red states. So they will push for a federal law on it. I just don't see working on the middle class undecided voters.

"It's the economy stupid."

(07-08-2022 11:34 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

Quote:In the United States, it is against the law to intentionally destroy the egg of a bald eagle. It's true. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, deliberately destroying – or even disturbing – a bald eagle's egg is punishable by a maximum $5,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

Why is this if its not a yet a bird and cant live outside that shell?

Kill puppies in utero and these idiots would burn down a city in outrage.

(07-09-2022 12:14 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:14 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:11 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 09:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Take it up with the folks in Ohio.

Gotcha. You’re good with 10 year olds forced carrying infest rape babies to term because another state deemed it ok. I see you.

Im good with democracy and the rule of law. You planning on running down there to help out or just bitcheing about it here. Move there and help get the law changes. Oh and dont try to bait me. It does not work.

Don’t hide. Own it. Own your party’s choices. You’re good with 10 year olds force carrying incest rape babies to term because another state deemed it ok. It isn’t going to stop at Ohio. I enjoyed a lovely Texas protest this weekend to fight similar laws here. The GOPand religious nut job right gets to own every one of these instances. Congrats. That’s some real evil ****

A hoax. Democrats lie.

Dumb fricks

Shocking

A week ago, @DanaBashCNN tried to trap me with a story about a 10-year old girl who got an abortion. I pointed out that nobody was asking about the pervert who raped that child. Now it looks like the story was fake to begin with. Literal #FakeNews from the liberal media.

The story was just too fishy. If they came up with a 10 year old rape victim that quickly, they need to focus less on where an abortion can be obtained and more on preventing adolescent rape.

(07-09-2022 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

If thats really the case--

There's a lot to unpack here.

Quote:then why the Democrat uproar over the Supreme Court allowing the peoples elected representatives in Congress or state legislatures to decide abortion issues?

Because as I stated above since it's obviously a matter of faith, it should NOT be up to government to decide your choice in this. It should be your own. Of course Roe used the 14th amendment right to liberty (privacy) to make essentially the same argument. So by removing Roe, the Guardian Council essentially blessed government with the power again to ban something that is a matter of faith and privacy. OF COURSE there will be an uproar. Why wouldn't there be?

Quote: This is a representative democracy. The American people generally get the legislation they desire---and when the majority doesn't get what they want---they fire those in charge and elect someone else who WILL give them what they want. If the majority really believes abortion is a "right" and Roe vs Wade is super duper awesome----then thats almost certain to be how Congress and the state legislatures will see it.

That will eventually happen just like it has in just above every other developed democracy when they eventually legalize it. Back in the early 70's the Supreme Court made the process easier by just stating the obvious. We have a right to privacy in this. It was supported overwhelmingly by both parties. But now since the oligarchs needed the support of certain groups of radicals to maintain power, we have to deal with a Guardian Council throwing monkey wrenches into the system causing unnecessary oppression.

(07-09-2022 05:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

If thats really the case--

There's a lot to unpack here.

Quote:then why the Democrat uproar over the Supreme Court allowing the peoples elected representatives in Congress or state legislatures to decide abortion issues?

Because as I stated above since it's obviously a matter of faith, it should NOT be up to government to decide your choice in this. It should be your own. Of course Roe used the 14th amendment right to liberty (privacy) to make essentially the same argument. So by removing Roe, the Guardian Council essentially blessed government with the power again to ban something that is a matter of faith and privacy. OF COURSE there will be an uproar. Why wouldn't there be?

Quote: This is a representative democracy. The American people generally get the legislation they desire---and when the majority doesn't get what they want---they fire those in charge and elect someone else who WILL give them what they want. If the majority really believes abortion is a "right" and Roe vs Wade is super duper awesome----then thats almost certain to be how Congress and the state legislatures will see it.

That will eventually happen just like it has in just above every other developed democracy when they eventually legalize it. Back in the early 70's the Supreme Court made the process easier by just stating the obvious. We have a right to privacy in this. It was supported overwhelmingly by both parties. But now since the oligarchs needed the support of certain groups of radicals to maintain power, we have to deal with a Guardian Council throwing monkey wrenches into the system causing unnecessary oppression.

Speaking of radicals…….

(07-09-2022 05:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

If thats really the case--

There's a lot to unpack here.

Quote:then why the Democrat uproar over the Supreme Court allowing the peoples elected representatives in Congress or state legislatures to decide abortion issues?

Because as I stated above since it's obviously a matter of faith, it should NOT be up to government to decide your choice in this. It should be your own. Of course Roe used the 14th amendment right to liberty (privacy) to make essentially the same argument. So by removing Roe, the Guardian Council essentially blessed government with the power again to ban something that is a matter of faith and privacy. OF COURSE there will be an uproar. Why wouldn't there be?

Quote: This is a representative democracy. The American people generally get the legislation they desire---and when the majority doesn't get what they want---they fire those in charge and elect someone else who WILL give them what they want. If the majority really believes abortion is a "right" and Roe vs Wade is super duper awesome----then thats almost certain to be how Congress and the state legislatures will see it.

That will eventually happen just like it has in just above every other developed democracy when they eventually legalize it. Back in the early 70's the Supreme Court made the process easier by just stating the obvious. We have a right to privacy in this. It was supported overwhelmingly by both parties. But now since the oligarchs needed the support of certain groups of radicals to maintain power, we have to deal with a Guardian Council throwing monkey wrenches into the system causing unnecessary oppression.

First off, most other developed democracies actually have much more restrictive abortion laws than Roe vs Wade.

Secondly, faith has nothing to do with it. Thats a red herring. Its as much a science argument as it is a faith argument. The fact is, when it comes to abortion, there really is no ethical way to defend the middle ground. Its either the womens right to choose or life begins at conception--in which case abortion is murder. That said, the nation is pretty split on the issue and I tend to think Roe vs Wade represents the kind of compromise we should have seen from law makers long before that decision was handed down. I also agree with the current Supreme Court that the original 1973 ruling was totally political and never really had any basis in constitutional law.

For arguments sake----lets just pretend that Roe vs Wade was good constitutional law and a reasonable compromise when it was made in the early 1970's. The basis for Roe vs Wade revolved around fetal "viability". Since the early 1970's technology has come a long way. Viability today for "preme" is much different than it was in 1973---so even if one believes in Roe vs Wade was a good law at the time---it was at the very least due for an update due to technological advances. My sense is the 15 week Mississippi law or the Texas "heartbeat" law are more where the line should be in this day and age. Both are closer to European laws than Roe vs Wade.

(07-09-2022 12:32 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 12:08 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  OB/GYN: New Polling Dispels Abortion Misinformation, Shows Most Americans Oppose Roe

Quote:An organization representing thousands of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists released polling showing that most U.S. voters oppose Roe v. Wade and other radical abortion measures when properly informed.

Quote:Out of 1,600 registered voters polled nationally between June 3-6, 2022, 53 percent said they support the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision “which recognized a Constitutional right to abortion.” However, when voters were asked if they would support or oppose Roe v. Wade, knowing that it allowed abortion up to birth, including late-term abortions when the unborn may feel pain, 56 percent of voters said they oppose Roe.

Roe v. Wade does not allow abortion up to birth. It still allowed states to ban it after viability (around 22 weeks). So that question had to mislead and effectively lie to voters in order to get 9% of them to change their minds. Note how they have to use the boogeyman of late term abortion in order to try to gain support for a full ban on it right at fertilization. They have to effective mislead and lie to the public in order to get their way. The same tactic these people used to constitute their Guardian Council.

(07-08-2022 08:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

scorpius Wrote:Just because it's "life" doesn't mean it's a "baby" or that it's "murder" if it's terminated. The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach. This is something that should only be regulated by religion, not governments. Those who want to allow government to take away our choice in this faith are effectively slapping the founders in the face by spitting on the whole concept of the separation of church and state.

I'll admit. the mental gymnastics are amazing.

Bless your heart.. Let me guess, this statement is mental gymnastics to you:

"The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach."

You realize the belief that it's NOT murder is a belief by faith, right?

From the exact moment of conception a living growing being with human DNA and thus a member of Homo sapiens is in the uterus.

To remove it via abortion procedures is to end the life of that entity.

Murder?

Quote:Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.

So from this it would seem that several states intend to recognize it as murder.

Proud to live in Michigan now instead of Ohio.

Quote:Lansing — A ballot committee seeking to enshrine the right to abortion in the Michigan Constitution turned in 753,759 signatures Monday, a record amount that exceeds the state-mandated signature tally by more than 300,000.

A second ballot committee seeking to expand voting rights in the state constitution to include early in-person voting and late ballots from overseas military also exceeded the state's past signature record. On Monday, it collected and turned in 669,972 signatures.

The state Bureau of Elections in the coming weeks will review the validity of the Reproductive Freedom for All and Promote the Vote 2022 signatures to ensure the initiative has the required 425,059 signatures to appear on the November ballot. Based on its findings, the bureau will make a recommendation to the Board of State Canvassers for or against certification for the ballot.

Record signature numbers filed for Michigan abortion, voting rights initiatives

I'm guessing they didn't use the same inept firms the GOP gubernatorial candidates used.

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost just said that his office has no evidence of a raped ten-year-old child who was impregnated, including a request for lab results. He also noted that Ohio law would have allowed for an abortion in such a case.

quote:
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
...The Washington Post recently reported that it could not confirm the story attributed to Dr. Caitlan Barnard who has refused to speak with the media seeking to confirm the story, including the Post.

quote:
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
1h
Replying to
@JonathanTurley
...There should be a police report in Ohio because a doctor is required to report such a rape. In such a case, Yost's office would be involved through any lab testing that would be to be done to confirm DNA evidence. Yost says there is no such submission.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
1h
...What is curious is that Dr. Caitlan Barnard did television interviews on the rape case on MSNBC. Yet, she has not been willing to confirm that she notified police about a child rapist or any of the facts in the case, including why it was legally necessary to go to Indiana.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
1h
...Ohio allows for abortion not only to protect the life of the mother but also "to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
________

Frick off skyscreamers

lol... it sounded too "convenient".

This follows in the same path as every other argument the left makes for abortion -- they're all lies.

I hope this so-called doctor gets punished for this.

(07-12-2022 08:26 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  lol... it sounded too "convenient".

This follows in the same path as every other argument the left makes for abortion -- they're all lies.

I hope this so-called doctor gets punished for this.

Please, regale us now about stolen elections.

(07-12-2022 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 08:26 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  lol... it sounded too "convenient".

This follows in the same path as every other argument the left makes for abortion -- they're all lies.

I hope this so-called doctor gets punished for this.

Please, regale us now about stolen elections.

And you can tell us about deductibles.

(07-12-2022 08:26 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  lol... it sounded too "convenient".

This follows in the same path as every other argument the left makes for abortion -- they're all lies.

I hope this so-called doctor gets punished for this.

In a normal world, she would be punished. In this bizarro world we're in right now, she'll be hailed as a hero. Killing babies is apparently the most important thing to the left.