 |
That's not what we were talking about. But suppose Roe V Wade gets overturned some day. Does that mean that women will no longer have that "right"?
I ask because the signers of the Declaration would not agree with your approach or Tal's. They said we have certain inalienable rights because they were granted by, essentially, God. That is why that are inalienable, or you could say inseparable. Man did not grant them, so man cannot take the right to them away.
It's exactly what was being talked about! Keep up!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And the signers' women never had occasion to have an abortion? And God gave mankind free will.Quote:
I ask because the signers of the Declaration would not agree with your approach or Tal's. They said we have certain inalienable rights because they were granted by, essentially, God. That is why that are inalienable, or you could say inseparable. Man did not grant them, so man cannot take the right to them away.
I seriously doubt women with resources will stop seeing their oby/gyn, and as poor females realize that's the way to go neither will they be bullied.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The constitution GUARANTEES the free practice of ones religion.Quote:
I ask because the signers of the Declaration would not agree with your approach or Tal's. They said we have certain inalienable rights because they were granted by, essentially, God. That is why that are inalienable, or you could say inseparable. Man did not grant them, so man cannot take the right to them away.
https://www.ushistory.org/gov/10b.asp
the "establishment" clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official church, and the "free exercise" clause that allows people to worship as they please.
Guys, here's what you get when you "clean out the womb". So tell me what you think. Who got bullied here, Tal? All those clever arguments kind of sound shrill when you get confronted with the truth.
https://assets.lifesitenews.com/imag...615_461_75.jpg
All the more reason for males to keep their pants zipped.
When you are losing an argument, become as disgusting as possible. Do you have any end stage cancer pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your picture is a reflection of you, no one else.
The Declaration is not the law. The law is the US Constitution. The Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Mankind secures his/her rights by the consent of the governed.Quote:
Man did not grant them, so man cannot take the right to them away.
How stupid can you get? Destroying unborn children, which you support totally, is what is disgusting. You can look at that picture, go eat your dinner, and just try and forget it. That is also completely disgusting.Quote:
When you are losing an argument, become as disgusting as possible. Do you have any end stage cancer pics?
As to the source of our rights, the D of I completely disagrees with you as does Blackstone.
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . . And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. . . . The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature. . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
How sad. You see a pic like that of the destruction of unborn children and your response is to try and say something which I guess you think is funny. Pathetic. It would, of course, be too much for you to take a stand against this. No. Much easier to make funny posts.Quote:
All the more reason for males to keep their pants zipped.
How did that fetus get there?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I guess it's funny to you, and there is only one solution for that.
It's NOT funny!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then treat the issue seriously and stop with the "keep their pants zipped up" comments. It's sickening.
Then you behave yourself too. I really would love to pick your brain about stuff but am scared to even try anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Fire away. I answer questions. But I have to tell you that when you post pics like you did on the other thread, then your protests about being scared sound pretty fake as do your admonitions for me to behave.
Not nearly as stupid as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have no idea what I support but that never stops you from claiming that you do. They are not unborn children by the way. Potential unborn children or fetus or embryo or zygotes is more accurate. Your choice of words is never to discuss civilly, it is always to paint a false picture.Quote:
Destroying unborn children, which you support totally
You're the one posting the picture and making all the disgusting comments. Calm down.Quote:
You can look at that picture, go eat your dinner, and just try and forget it. That is also completely disgusting.
The D of I and Blackstone may disagree all they want. They are not the law.Quote:
As to the source of our rights, the D of I completely disagrees with you as does Blackstone.
I don't know from what 19th century tome you lifted this from but it's very outdated. In the country we both inhabit, your c/p has no legal standing, thank God. Divine law, law of revelation - puhleeze.Quote:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . . . . . . The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures. ...... . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
I know you three amigos will be happy about this. "Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam defends bill allowing abortion during labor"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...z3XkG9B950fNek
You don't know who Blackstone was. Enough said.Quote:
I don't know from what 19th century tome you lifted this from
You do know Northam's bill has tight restrictions and cannot be used if certain specific conditions are not present don't you? You make it sound as if a pregnant woman can just abort a child at delivery because she changed her mind. That's never been the case, nor was it ever written that way. Of course the winger version sound so much more insidious and easier to attack when you leave out the real details of the matter. Regardless its been tabled in committee of jurisdiction according to your link.
Oh? And what are those "tight restrictions"? Do you know?
It was tabled thanks to a slim republican majority.
I'll let you find your own truth JL, I've actually done my own homework.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgini...%20physicians.
Not that you wingers care about tragic and difficult circumstances. Framing it as a capricious wily nily decision is disingenuous, and factually incorrect.Quote:
"No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 AM. |