Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Not me. I am laughing in your face because you can't offer up any rational argument in support of your position other than "its legal". Clearly, you aren't bright enough to make me boil.

Which explains why federal law as well as state law in 34 states establish the personhood of the unborn. Roe is at odds with legal precedent and eventually the court is going to have to address not a theoretical right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but what is actually being killed when an abortion is performed. Cases are working their way through lower courts even now. If the high court can't defend its previous decision any better than all of you pro choicers, roe is going to fall. Justice Blackmun, in the majority decision on roe saw the handwriting on the wall when he admitted that should legal precedent ever come into being establishing the personhood of the unborn, that roe would collapse. That precedent now exists in spades.

As I said, I encourage you to coontinue in your denial. Your outrage at roe being overturned will be that much sweeter to people like me.

Spoken like one who is eyeball deep in denial. So deep that you simply can't see the facts before your face.

<blockquote data-quote="palerider" data-source="post: 80480" data-attributes="member: 176">Not me.&nbsp; I am laughing in your face because you can&#039;t offer up any rational argument in support of your position other than &quot;its legal&quot;.&nbsp; Clearly, you aren&#039;t bright enough to make me boil.Which explains why federal law as well as state law in 34 states establish the personhood of the unborn.&nbsp; Roe is at odds with legal precedent and eventually the court is going to have to address not a theoretical right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but what is actually being killed when an abortion is performed.&nbsp; Cases are working their way through lower courts even now.&nbsp; If the high court can&#039;t defend its previous decision any better than all of you pro choicers, roe is going to fall.&nbsp; Justice Blackmun, in the majority decision on roe saw the handwriting on the wall when he admitted that should legal precedent ever come into being establishing the personhood of the unborn, that roe would collapse.&nbsp; That precedent now exists in spades.As I said, I encourage you to coontinue in your denial.&nbsp; Your outrage at roe being overturned will be that much sweeter to people like me.Spoken like one who is eyeball deep in denial.&nbsp; So deep that you simply can&#039;t see the facts before your face.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="palerider, post: 80480, member: 176"] Not me. I am laughing in your face because you can't offer up any rational argument in support of your position other than "its legal". Clearly, you aren't bright enough to make me boil. Which explains why federal law as well as state law in 34 states establish the personhood of the unborn. Roe is at odds with legal precedent and eventually the court is going to have to address not a theoretical right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but what is actually being killed when an abortion is performed. Cases are working their way through lower courts even now. If the high court can't defend its previous decision any better than all of you pro choicers, roe is going to fall. Justice Blackmun, in the majority decision on roe saw the handwriting on the wall when he admitted that should legal precedent ever come into being establishing the personhood of the unborn, that roe would collapse. That precedent now exists in spades. As I said, I encourage you to coontinue in your denial. Your outrage at roe being overturned will be that much sweeter to people like me. Spoken like one who is eyeball deep in denial. So deep that you simply can't see the facts before your face. [/QUOTE]

Verification