I see, so because she has an ELECTIVE
INVASIVE procedure, that makes it ok to add an UN-ELECTIVE invasive procedure just because you like it.
And people wonder where the idea that conservatives are against women's rights comes from.
But there ARE restrictions on Fire Arms.
I can't mount of Morgan Gun to the bed of my F150, or shoot skeet with a RPG 7, or even own a fully automatic weapon.
But there ARE restrictions on Fire Arms.
I can't mount of Morgan Gun to the bed of my F150, or shoot skeet with a RPG 7, or even own a fully automatic weapon.
Restrictions that I'm ok with.
No it has nothing to do with me.
I chose to keep my children, well my wife and I chose.
Even with all of the false narratives and hyperbolic cries from the left about abortion one thing stays consistent.
That an abortion, 100% of the time ends a human life. It stops a beating heart.
So if additional regulations that do not take away the right of a woman to kill her baby might save a human life then I have no problem with it
In Texas we had a State legislator stand up with a "cort hanger" and " terpintime" barely speaking the language of English, demagoging this issue this week
It was par for the course when it comes to Liberal Democrats. Hypocritical with barely a grasp on the issue.
They are simply saying the person who wants an abortion must look at an ultrasound. What are the critics afraid of? That the person might change their mind,and realize that it's actually a life they are taking? They can still abort to their hearts desire,they would just have to face what they are really doing.
Requiring an ultrasound is just an increasingly desperate attempt by monotheists to guilt trip others into sharing values that they obviously don't share.................
If someone is solid in their belief that abortion is alright, viewing the child that person is about to murder, shouldn't bother them at all.
What are the critics afraid of?
They are simply saying the person who wants an abortion must look at an ultrasound. What are the critics afraid of? That the person might change their mind,and realize that it's actually a life they are taking? They can still abort to their hearts desire,they would just have to face what they are really doing.
If someone is solid in their belief that the government shouldn't be dictating medical procedures to you and your doctor, it would bother them substantially.
Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?
And we're getting off-topic here, because the key part of the blocked bill isn't about ultrasounds, it's about a ridiculous hospital admitting requirement that is medically unnecessary and drastically reduces the availability of a legal medical procedure. By government decree. Which is suddenly ok when Republicans do it.
The government has a right to protect life against murder.
Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?
The government has a right to protect life against murder.
This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.This is the same stance you take on firearm ownership then? As long as the limitation doesn't STOP it from being POSSIBLE in some fashion then the Government can do it?
Gun owners are taught to identify the target before firing. Shouldn't this requirement be carried over to abortion?
This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.
And until the government actually makes the killing of a baby through abortion illegal, this isn't a case of "murder" and as such that reasoning is not a legitimate government interest in the case.
I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.
I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.
Wrong.I don't agree. God decides what murder is, not some court.
This is not a valid comparison. It is incumbent upon government to distinguish the difference between fire arm ownership and the possible elimination of a life. Principles are worthless if one cannot recognize the fundamental difference between those two things on their face.
Then enlighten us, what else does it do that is so controversial?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?