Dictatorial overtures: WH refusing Constitutionally legal subpoenas (Page 8): Only in your mind because the nature of my reasoning. Can you not grasp that if a woman is going to have...

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Singularity wrote:

What about your dead argument?

Only in your mind because the nature of my reasoning.

Can you not grasp that if a woman is going to have total and exclusive control of her body to terminate a healthy fetus.

Why shouldn't she have the total and exclusive Right to k**l her own healthy body?

Singularity

byronglimish wrote:

Only in your mind because the nature of my reasoning.

Can you not grasp that if a woman is going to have total and exclusive control of her body to terminate a healthy fetus.

Why shouldn't she have the total and exclusive Right to k**l her own healthy body?

How have you missed that I agree, but that it does nothing to help or revive your argument about a******n.

Yes. Emphatically, the same principle applies. Her body, her choices!

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

slatten49 wrote:

A reasonable presumption, whether one agrees or not.

Indeed and thank you.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Singularity wrote:

How have you missed that I agree, but that it does nothing to help or revive your argument about a******n.

Yes. Emphatically, the same principle applies. Her body, her choices!

Let's start a huge funding campaign to do just that.

We could call the addition to PP...Planned Victimhood...."must be eighteen or older"..

Singularity

byronglimish wrote:

Let's start a huge funding campaign to do just that.

We could call the addition to PP...Planned Victimhood...."must be eighteen or older"..

If a pregnant person terminates their own life, there would be no point in a followup a******n.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

alabuck wrote:

—————

Nor do you have the right to tell her what she can and can’t do with her body. Hence the quandary.

The quandary is that SCOTUS actually did give women a "right" to do what they want with their body. This was accomplished by finding a heretofore unknown "right" to privacy secreted within the Constitution.. In plain speak SCOTUS gave women the right to avoid responsibility and the right to murder their unborn children. There is a certain type of men who approve of a******n because it relives them of responsibility too.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Singularity wrote:

If a pregnant person terminates their own life, there would be no point in a followup a******n.

You miss my point, maybe just to be purposely obtuse.

Not just impregnated women.

Any woman or man, should have control over their own bodies.

Otherwise it's discriminatory.

A physically healthy person should be able to k**l themselves and even have the government fund the suicide facilities...after all it won't just be suicides at the facility.

We will have councilors to help people who are hesitant.

We could also give away pencils and other trinkets to supportive family and friends.

We can include it into "Medicare For All"

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

padremike wrote:

The quandary is that SCOTUS actually did give women a "right" to do what they want with their body. This was accomplished by finding a heretofore unknown "right" to privacy secreted within the Constitution.. In plain speak SCOTUS gave women the right to avoid responsibility and the right to murder their unborn children. There is a certain type of men who approve of a******n because it relives them of responsibility too.

True.

Singularity

byronglimish wrote:

You miss my point, maybe just to be purposely obtu... (show quote)

You think think I'm joking when I tell you your are right, that I agree with you? Physician assisted suicide for terminally ill persons has been legal in some form in 8 states for some time now!

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Singularity wrote:

You think think I'm joking when I tell you your are right, that I agree with you? Physician assisted suicide for terminally ill persons has been legal in some form in 8 states for some time now!

That's what I thought, immature games.

I never said that the person is sick or impregnated.

You play games, when you can't offer context of specific points.

Singularity

byronglimish wrote:

That's what I thought, immature games.

I never said that the person is sick or impregnated.

You play games, when you can't offer context of specific points.

I honestly don't see your point.

How are you planning to punish someone for committing an illegal suicide?

Singularity

Singularity wrote:

I honestly don't see your point.

How are you planning to punish someone for committing an illegal suicide?

and why would a person require an a******n if they aren't impregnated?

Tug484

alabuck wrote:

—————

Nor do you have the right to tell her what she can and can’t do with her body. Hence the quandary.

God said I knew you from conception.
No, he doesn't like murdering babies.

promilitary

Impeachment proceedings is well within the purview of Congress;
I agree, but not these proceedings. I wouldn't give them the time of day
until they have TAKEN A V**E.

Singularity

Blade_Runner wrote:

You are alluding to and quoting from Old Testament... (show quote)

What is applicable is that your awful deity is ok with, dictates the process for and lends an affirmative magical boost to make a******ns work if there is something about the conception of that pregnancy that pricks a husband's ego.

If the purported father's peace of mind regarding his sexual prowess and ability to properly satisfy his wife sexually is uneasy, a fetus can be sacrificed over his ambiguous claim of paternity.

If the god was ok with THAT as a reason to abort, I'd say the mother's peace of mind about having the baby counts as significantly.

The LAWS may change over time, yes. But the GOD and its revealed moral t***h is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever, right?

So the GOD is morally ok with a******n to ease a parent's troubled mind about its possible parentage. Its just inconvenient to recall that now that some of the other rules have changed.

Also,

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:17