Liberal Forum

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:41 pm

No..they are not.  She was always free to seek an abortion in another state...which is exactly what she did.
 

Listen man, TEXAS was going to force her, That's all I am saying. Why is that so hard for your to understand? Jeez.

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 7:46 pm

So you support abortion but can't explain if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders?

Why is that then?
 

I don't agree with abortion on demand, but to answer your question, politicians are hypocritical fuking scum.

Skans » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am

The Texas Supreme Court upheld Texas' no-abortion law for a woman who's fetus was not viable due to a catastrophic genetic defect.  She was not allowed to have an abortion in Texas and had to go to another state to have one.  I have two comments about this:

1.  Democrats have been looking for a case like this one and funded her litigation.  This case went to trial, appeal and then to Texas' Supreme Court. So, yeah, it was a Democrat set-up. 

2.  This is not going to be good for Republicans.  I know there are a lot of Communists (Russian Communists and National Socialists) on this board who hate Republicans, but y'all better hold onto your dicks, because what's coming ain't good.

Son, democ rats making hay is the very LEAST of texas' problems. In 15 years, those jackasses are going to have a crime wave reminiscent of the 1980s. 

They have arranged things in such a manner that ANYONE can still get an abortion - except ignorant "urban" types for whom both the expense AND the logistics of interstate travel for a medical procedure are beyond their capacities. These are the people who raise the people who knock people over the head to get what they want. 
 

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 7:46 pm

So you support abortion but can't explain if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders?

Why is that then?

You get charged with double homicide because you killed the child she was carrying - duh. 

If it isn't your baby, you don't get to abort it. That's not hard math.

Look, the abortion issue is pretty simply a matter of competing rights. The fetus CLEARLY has a right to life and a compelling interest in living. No one should need that explained - though leftist hypocrites always do, and it never sticks, because they have a religious belief that it's not a baby until the cord is cut. It's a clump of cells until it takes a breath. 

News flash, AFTER you take a breath, you are still a clump of cells. Doesn't give people a right to kill ya. 

Anyway - COMPETING rights. The mother has a right to control her own body. The baby has a right to be born. So, when the mother says I wanna kill this kid (or "clump of cells," if that makes any leftist weirdos feel better), what we have here is a failure to communicate. No, wait - it's sets of competing rights.

The kid's very real and important right to live, and the mom's very real and important right to bodily autonomy. Both have their rights, and their rights conflict. So we need laws. 

I come down on the side of the mother - because:

1. She is an ACTUAL MEMBER OF THE POLITY - the baby is a potential member; and
2. It's an excellent way to keep the "urban" population down (I don't like being mugged while shopping); and 
3. Being pro-choice gets a fella more ******. 
 
 

Z09 » 12 Dec 2023, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 7:56 pm

And between you and the other idiot you've yet to explain how that makes sense ..

A Mother can kill her unborn...
But if I murder the Mother I get charged with two murders..

Wanna explain Harvard?

I just did.

Babies have a right to life. Mother's have a right to body-autonomy. 

Competing rights. We can't do a coin toss - that's barbarism. So ask both principles - the mom and the fetus - to make their case The mom usually makes a more compelling case. The fetus just sits there. 
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm

Your memory really sucks.

It was a SCOTUS nominee.

A woman, asked that question by another woman.

Nothing illustrates the utter bankruptcy of modern conservatism like that episode.

Pretty sure the inability to define "woman" demonstrates the bankruptcy of LIBERALISM, you stupid cuck. 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and argue that being STRUCK DUMB and being FORCED TO HEM AND HAW when asked to define "woman" is the very **** definition of utter intellectual bankruptcy, you panty wearing, panty DANCING, no game having beta cuck.     
 
 

ConsRule » 12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm

He/she/it apparently lives in a fantasy world where whatever he/she/it believes is really true.  You know, like the idiots who believe a male can transition to a female (and vice versa) when it is scientifically impossible.

Their cult actually relies on some weird form of pseudo-science - kind of like that religion tom cruise is into. 
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:56 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:56 pm

Answer the **** question and spare me your ignorant commentary.

NO QUESTIONS DICK SUCKER!
 

murdock » 12 Dec 2023, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 8:01 pm

I don't agree with abortion on demand, 

So when WOULD you support it? When it's forced?

Hey, I'm not gonna die on that hill, either Your tards, your yard apes - I'm not averse to a little persuasion. 
 

R.Suave » 12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 4:55 pm

A woman, asked that question by another woman.

Nothing illustrates the utter bankruptcy of modern conservatism like that episode.

This ^ right here ^ truly shows your character, you weak little fairy. 

Seven years ago - before Obama **** on women through title 9 - you understood what a woman was and wasn't. You weren't WILLING to pretend some fruitcake with a dick was a woman. When you went on a date with a woman, you EXPECTED her to have a vagina. You were not willing, at that time, to date a "woman" with a dick. If you wanted dick - not saying you did, back then, but IF you did, - you wanted it from a MAN. Because you understood that it is MEN who have dicks. Not women. 

You know this. I know this. Everyone on the board knows this. We all know that seven years ago, you could define woman without getting angry and emotional. And now, you cannot define woman AT ALL - and you get angry and emotional if someone ELSE is asked to; even a **** GROWNUP who is trying to be on the SCOTUS, for **** sake. 

You CHOSE to be confused about what is a woman - and now, you choose to be outraged that someone would DARE to ask a SCOTUS nominee to define woman.

If asking that simple question proves bankruptcy, then being unable to answer it proves infancy. 

You're cucked by your politics - what HAPPENED to you, boy?

 
 

Cannonpointer » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 pm

So when WOULD you support it? When it's forced?

Hey, I'm not gonna die on that hill, either Your tards, your yard apes - I'm not averse to a little persuasion. 
 

Use a condom you butchering scum!

Cannonpointer » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 pm

So when WOULD you support it? When it's forced?

Hey, I'm not gonna die on that hill, either Your tards, your yard apes - I'm not averse to a little persuasion. 
 

Suck my dick with your mom's ***.

murdock » 13 Dec 2023, 5:39 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 5:39 am

Suck my dick with your mom's ***.

 

sooted up Cyndi » 13 Dec 2023, 5:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 5:43 am

 

suck my dick with your moms ***.

murdock » 12 Dec 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 7:19 pm

Listen man, TEXAS was going to force her, That's all I am saying. Why is that so hard for your to understand? Jeez.
 

No they were not.  She always had the option to travel to another state.  You may not like that reality, but that's your **** problem.

Skans » 12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023, 9:29 am

The Texas Supreme Court upheld Texas' no-abortion law for a woman who's fetus was not viable due to a catastrophic genetic defect.  She was not allowed to have an abortion in Texas and had to go to another state to have one.  I have two comments about this:

1.  Democrats have been looking for a case like this one and funded her litigation.  This case went to trial, appeal and then to Texas' Supreme Court. So, yeah, it was a Democrat set-up. 

2.  This is not going to be good for Republicans.  I know there are a lot of Communists (Russian Communists and National Socialists) on this board who hate Republicans, but y'all better hold onto your dicks, because what's coming ain't good.

Yep that's how it goes. Women will be moving out of red states soon enough  

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 7:13 am

And did a member of Congress ask the woman if she could define a woman?

Simple yes or no...

Yes.

Do you consider it an intelligent question?

Yes or no.
 

ConsRule » 13 Dec 2023, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 7:29 am

No they were not.  She always had the option to travel to another state.  You may not like that reality, but that's your **** problem.

At risk of being prosecuted by Texas.

How many pregnancies have you carried to term?

THEN SHUT THE **** UP.

 

Z09 » 13 Dec 2023, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 7:11 am

So a woman can't define what a woman is...
And you blame conservatives?

i think any "conservative" asking that question is a **** idiot.

It entirely predictable that a simple minded child like yourself would be fascinated by the question.

My guess is that such a child wouldn't understand why its tenders talk about FISCAL cost.

Amirite?
 

R.Suave » 13 Dec 2023, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2023, 7:47 am

At risk of being prosecuted by Texas.

How many pregnancies have you carried to term?

THEN SHUT THE **** UP.

There is no prosecution for traveling, regardless of the reason.  Stop making **** up.

Oh..by the way, you don't need to have carried a pregnancy to term before you learn how to read.