BillStime Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Billstime has not once mentioned his repeated lie about the President's position on the use of IVF You do realize, Trump's "crown" achievement was appointing right-wing judges in place to kill Row v Wade. This is the same law that protects fertility treatments. Trump may support IVF but leaving decisions like this to states allows states to ban abortion, IVF, Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Additionally, Trump never explicitly stated that he would not sign an abortion ban. When you've lost the Federalist: Everything Wrong With Trump's 2024 Abortion And IVF Messaging
daz28 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) 11 minutes ago, phypon said: Just read your edit. We def agree on that point. That is the tough question, when does life "begin". Some people have one opinion, and others have another. We both can agree that once outside of the womb and birthed into the world, abortion is off limits. I don't think this is a Christian issue (not sure why you feel the need to make that a point). This is an issue of people having a different stance on the issue regardless of religion or other metrics. The base point is, if it's left up to the states, rather than impressed on the population as a whole at the federal level, people's voices in their own communities are heard. Why is that a problem for you? Sorry, but this isn't a correlation/causation argument. The pro-life movement is a religiously driven movement, make no mistake. The more Christian you are, the more pro-life you are, and while nearly nothing is 100%, this is very close to it. My base point is that you're not free if the state, and I said 'state' before for a reason, is taking away any freedoms, which are fortunately defended by my country, even though they are basic indelible HUMAN rights. If I sound like a founding father, that's good, because I'm trying to. If you'll note, I already pointed out that abortion doesn't impress anything upon anyone else. That's the issue. The only thing being impressed is someone else's religion. 6 minutes ago, BillStime said: You do realize, Trump's "crown" achievement was appointing right-wing judges in place to kill Row v Wade. This is the same law that protects fertility treatments. Trump may support IVF but leaving decisions like this to states allows states to ban abortion, IVF, Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Additionally, Trump never explicitly stated that he would not sign an abortion ban. When you've lost the Federalist: Everything Wrong With Trump's 2024 Abortion And IVF Messaging I think these dummies forgot that Alabama DID do just that. The only thing that stopped them is the fear of losing votes. They basically tried to see if they could get away with it. It's the trump/GQP way. HMMM. Short memories. Edited April 8 by daz28 1
phypon Posted April 8 Posted April 8 8 minutes ago, daz28 said: Sorry, but this isn't a correlation/causation argument. The pro-life movement is a religiously driven movement, make no mistake. The more Christian you are, the more pro-life you are, and while nearly nothing is 100%, this is very close to it. My base point is that you're not free if the state, and I said 'state' before for a reason, is taking away any freedoms, which are fortunately defended by my country, even though they are basic indelible HUMAN rights. If I sound like a founding father, that's good, because I'm trying to. If you'll note, I already pointed out that abortion doesn't impress anything upon anyone else. That's the issue. The only thing being impressed is someone else's religion. I think these dummies forgot that Alabama DID do just that. The only thing that stopped them is the fear of losing votes. They basically tried to see if they could get away with it. It's the trump/GQP way. HMMM. Short memories. You don't have to be a Christian to disagree with your sentiment. All you're doing with a statement like that is parroting what you've heard in MSM. It's complete BS and when you do that you are the one making a correlation/causation argument. You talk about human rights and freedom of choice. You said: "You should be able to abort up until it would be able to survive outside the mother on it's own". With leaving it up to the states, go live in a state that aligns with your freedom of choice. I've already asked this, why is that a problem for you? Leaving if up to the states gives you your choice as well as the people that don't agree with you their choice to follow what they believe in. How is that not a solution for you? Doing it this way means that you are not impressing your ideology onto anyone else and the same time no one is impressing their ideology on to you. Freedom of choice, as you say. Not sure why leaving it up to the states is a problem for you since you are actually advocating for freedom of choice. Doing so completely aligns with your primary argument so I don't understand why you would have a problem with this.
Wacka Posted April 8 Posted April 8 30 minutes ago, daz28 said: The 10th Amendment doesn't mean states have a right to remove freedoms. It's actually intended to have quite the opposite meaning. The 10th amendment means what it says. ABORTION IS NOT A FREEDOM stated in the Bill of Rights. If you wants a nationwide ban or have it legal in all 50 states, pass an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, what the SC did is the only Constutional way, by leaving it up to the states. 1
daz28 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Wacka said: The 10th amendment means what it says. ABORTION IS NOT A FREEDOM stated in the Bill of Rights. If you wants a nationwide ban or have it legal in all 50 states, pass an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, what the SC did is the only Constutional way, by leaving it up to the states. Bodily autonomy is privacy. 14th Amendment. Privacy is the KEY to freedom. It means that what I do, if it has no bearing on you, is none of your business. The courts had already figured out that what I said was the common sense answer, with respect to viability, is the best solution. This whole issue is just Christo-fascists trying to have their way. Totally agree that we need new amendments for a changing world, but the slippery slope people pretend that an ever-changing SCOTUS is better than having well-defined articles. Like trusting former lawyers, who's job it is to twist laws, to give impartial interpretations is a great idea. If they were to put bodily autonomy on the docket for an Amendment, would you be for or against it? Edited April 8 by daz28
B-Man Posted April 8 Posted April 8 Since Daz has (dutifully) spun what President Trump clearly stated as his opinion, it might be best if we posted his announcement again. Take the four minutes and listen to the truth. . 1
Wacka Posted April 8 Posted April 8 Atheistic commie Nazis ⬆️ trying to determine hidden meanings in one sentence amendments.
BillsFanNC Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 It doesn't matter what Trump says or does. It's always filtered through their marxist lens to mean whatever they want it to mean. 2 1
daz28 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: Since Daz has (dutifully) spun what President Trump clearly stated as his opinion, it might be best if we posted his announcement again. Take the four minutes and listen to the truth. . He's saying whatever he thinks gets him the most votes. Ultimately, he's already had the effect they were looking for by court stacking. 8 minutes ago, Wacka said: Atheistic commie Nazis ⬆️ trying to determine hidden meanings in one sentence amendments. You don't believe you have a right to privacy? Should your medical records be the ward of the state? By that definition, they also control your treatment.
daz28 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: It doesn't matter what Trump says or does. It's always filtered through their marxist lens to mean whatever they want it to mean. The president probably has the least say of any player in the abortion issue anyways. Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ that has policy, and doesn't just do what the executive says to do under his understanding, or lack of or degree of respect for, the law. If people didn't refuse to walk out en masse, then we wouldn't even be talking about the fake electors plot, because the people who orchestrated it would still be in power.
phypon Posted April 8 Posted April 8 2 minutes ago, Wacka said: Commies gotta commie. ⬆️ When someone like him says "Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ" you know they are a commie.
daz28 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 Just now, Wacka said: Commies gotta commie. ⬆️ With a name like yours, I don't even have to bother to try to label you, like the external forces, that control thoughts, want everyone to do. Wacka will suffice. Karen is the biggest offender. He wants to label, censor, and if possible, remove access to other opinions and sources. Probably more fascists than communist, but we'll stick with fascists for now, because it's funnier watching you guys misuse commie. 2 minutes ago, phypon said: When someone like him says "Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ" you know they are a commie. You prefer loyalist?
4th&long Posted April 8 Posted April 8 The funny thing is you dumb asses will believe anything shitler says. Just like he didn’t raise $50 mil. He will say anything for a vote. LOL at you for being suckered in. And don’t come at me telling me you believe him because that will just confirm how *****en stupid you are!
phypon Posted April 8 Posted April 8 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: With a name like yours, I don't even have to bother to try to label you, like the external forces, that control thoughts, want everyone to do. Wacka will suffice. Karen is the biggest offender. He wants to label, censor, and if possible, remove access to other opinions and sources. Probably more fascists than communist, but we'll stick with fascists for now, because it's funnier watching you guys misuse commie. You prefer loyalist? YOU are the loyalist. You just don't see it. 1 minute ago, 4th&long said: The funny thing is you dumb asses will believe anything shitler says. Just like he didn’t raise $50 mil. He will say anything for a vote. LOL at you for being suckered in. And don’t come at me telling me you believe him because that will just confirm how *****en stupid you are! The funny thing is that all you people do is make everything about Trump. It's so much bigger than that. I'll say the same as I said to your friend, you just don't see it.
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, 4th&long said: He will say anything for a vote. To be fair, that applies to ALL of them. The key is not to fall into EITHER side's narrative. Falling into a cult is the worst case scenario, though. They have. If one disagrees with an argument, then the rest have to label them. NC has taken it a step Fuhrther, and wants the cult insulated here from ideas. Soon all you'll have here is silly memes and arrows with unfair, even ridiculous, labels for the posters you haven't censored(self-banned). Why he doesn't just go to BF, instead of trying to make this the carbon copy, is unclear. I'd assume it's because he wishes he had his own lil' DR's paradise.
Wacka Posted April 9 Posted April 9 Have had my user name since this board was formed almost 30 years ago in the 90s by SDS before it formally became TBD. Derived from my last name.
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 5 minutes ago, phypon said: YOU are the loyalist. You just don't see it. The funny thing is that all you people do is make everything about Trump. It's so much bigger than that. I'll say the same as I said to your friend, you just don't see it. You don't see how trump would be president if "Mike Pence did the right thing"? The "loyalist' almost pulled it off, except for ONE guy, and the PATRIOTS at the DOJ, that threatened to all quit. I really hope your bubble isn't that thick. Tell me factually, what part of what I just said is incorrect. 1 minute ago, Wacka said: Have had my user name since this board was formed almost 30 years ago in the 90s by SDS before it formally became TBD. Derived from my last name. So you always been whacka?
Wacka Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: To be fair, that applies to ALL of them. The key is not to fall into EITHER side's narrative. Falling into a cult is the worst case scenario, though. They have. If one disagrees with an argument, then the rest have to label them. NC has taken it a step Fuhrther, and wants the cult insulated here from ideas. Soon all you'll have here is silly memes and arrows with unfair, even ridiculous, labels for the posters you haven't censored(self-banned). Why he doesn't just go to BF, instead of trying to make this the carbon copy, is unclear. I'd assume it's because he wishes he had his own lil' DR's paradise. Projection and obfuscation is all they have. 1 1
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Wacka said: Projection and obfuscation is all they have. So you'd agree that any state(world view term) should not have any restrictions on your indelible freedom to bodily autonomy, or are you still insisting the state owns that? Is it even possible that ANYTHING could be more personal than your own body?? Edited April 9 by daz28
Recommended Posts