Despite pouring loads of money into trying to defeat a pro life Democrat with a pro a******nist candidate of its choosing PP and its minions failed in yesterday's Illinois primary.
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want known is that Norma M, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, a couple years ago, decided to come clean. She said that she had wanted to take back her claim. but was told, too bad, it's not about you, you don't matter, it's about the right to choose. She says that her pregnancy had not been the result of rape, as it was told. She had been told to say that she was raped to make people feel sorry for her, see her as a victim,not as someone who made a bad choice reguarding casual sex.
maureenthannon wrote:
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want known is that Norma M, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, a couple years ago, decided to come clean. She said that she had wanted to take back her claim. but was told, too bad, it's not about you, you don't matter, it's about the right to choose. She says that her pregnancy had not been the result of rape, as it was told. She had been told to say that she was raped to make people feel sorry for her, see her as a victim,not as someone who made a bad choice reguarding casual sex.
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want ... (
show quote)
The t***h is the libs greatest enemy.
maureenthannon wrote:
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want known is that Norma M, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, a couple years ago, decided to come clean. She said that she had wanted to take back her claim. but was told, too bad, it's not about you, you don't matter, it's about the right to choose. She says that her pregnancy had not been the result of rape, as it was told. She had been told to say that she was raped to make people feel sorry for her, see her as a victim,not as someone who made a bad choice reguarding casual sex.
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want ... (
show quote)
There isn't any Pro-a******n crowd. There is a pro-choice crowd.
Bad Bob wrote:
There isn't any Pro-a******n crowd. There is a pro-choice crowd.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you BB!
Let's see? Some people believe god gave them the right to tell others they must give control of their bodies and health and beliefs away because their preachers said so. What senseless garbage.
MalG wrote:
Let's see? Some people believe god gave them the right to tell others they must give control of their bodies and health and beliefs away because their preachers said so. What senseless garbage.
Don't forget about the Catholics that even oppose birth control, just ask Crazyzealot.
maureenthannon wrote:
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want known is that Norma M, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, a couple years ago, decided to come clean. She said that she had wanted to take back her claim. but was told, too bad, it's not about you, you don't matter, it's about the right to choose. She says that her pregnancy had not been the result of rape, as it was told. She had been told to say that she was raped to make people feel sorry for her, see her as a victim,not as someone who made a bad choice reguarding casual sex.
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want ... (
show quote)
You forgot to add that she's now a pro-lifer.
crazylibertarian wrote:
You forgot to add that she's now a pro-lifer.
Good morning Crazyzealot, please tell us why you oppose birth control that prevents a******ns.
Bad Bob wrote:
Good morning Crazyzealot, please tell us why you oppose birth control that prevents a******ns.
And condoms and pertinent education that could have saved millions of lives and
pregnancies with their associated UNBORN FETUSES in Africa....
NB: late edit for increased snark effect.
maureenthannon wrote:
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want known is that Norma M, the Roe in Roe v. Wade, a couple years ago, decided to come clean. She said that she had wanted to take back her claim. but was told, too bad, it's not about you, you don't matter, it's about the right to choose. She says that her pregnancy had not been the result of rape, as it was told. She had been told to say that she was raped to make people feel sorry for her, see her as a victim,not as someone who made a bad choice reguarding casual sex.
Some thing that the Pro-a******n crowd don't want ... (
show quote)
It isn't just about her, its about the relative merits of the issues. Her subsequent trajectory is moot.
Do you understand the SCOTUS has certain criteria for the se******n of which cases it is called upon to deliberate? That it is the merit of the issues in the case that are factors since all humen have an equal right to peteition for redress or relief under the law.
And that the her individual subsequent behavior choices and stances on issues are not really special or pertinent to the court?
Or, dumbed down so you cannot fail to understand it....
So she changed her story, her mind and
degree of support from sympathetic fence sitters. Ideally, the court looked at the best evidence and logic at the time and made a ruling based on that.
If SCOTUS should again reinterpret the law, hopefully it will be based on new better evidence and rational deliberation, not "Some woman changed her story. Again."
Bad Bob wrote:
There isn't any Pro-a******n crowd. There is a pro-choice crowd.
A rose by any other name still smells the same. Calling i something else does no change what i is.
Liberty Tree wrote:
A rose by any other name still smells the same. Calling i something else does no change what i is.
So we are agreed that calling a turd a rose would not make it smell sweet....?
Liberty Tree wrote:
A rose by any other name still smells the same. Calling i something else does no change what i is.
Like murder for a******n and baby for embryo or fetus?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.