The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

You mentioned a permanent vegetative state. A fetus is not a permanent state. That’s the obvious point. So why compare the two?

Because a fetus is no different materially than a human body with no feelings, thoughts or ability to experience pain…other than one has the potential to change. If your argument is a fetus is not in a permanent vegetative state I thought you were arguing the potential of the fetus. If that wasn’t it, I apologize.

Regardless - if would like to know which you would choose if it is all equal human life. The scared child, or the 100 embryos?
 
Because a fetus is no different materially than a human body with no feelings, thoughts or ability to experience pain…other than one has the potential to change. If your argument is a fetus is not in a permanent vegetative state I thought you were arguing the potential of the fetus. If that wasn’t it, I apologize.

Regardless - if would like to know which you would choose if it is all equal human life. The scared child, or the 100 embryos?

You specifically mentioned a permanent vegetative state. That’s my issue. A fetus is not a permanent state.

If I told you someone would be in a vegetative state for the next 8 months, would you proclaim I have a right to kill them?
 
My only question is, why didnt they wait until after the mid terms before doing this? All the Republicans had to do was coast into November and it wouldve been a red swarm. But now they've unnecessarily made it more difficult on themselves and given Democrats a platform from which they can rally a LOT of swing voters around! This was such an unforced error on their part.
 
Regardless - if would like to know which you would choose if it is all equal human life. The scared child, or the 100 embryos?

I would also save the child over a 90 year old. I’ve never proclaimed all human life to be equally valuable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
My only question is, why didnt they wait until after the mid terms before doing this? All the Republicans had to do was coast into November and it wouldve been a red swarm. But now they've unnecessarily made it more difficult on themselves and given Democrats a platform from which they can rally a LOT of swing voters around! This was such an unforced error on their part.

That implies that this is political and Congress and the Repubs had anything to do with it.

I get it..if the SCOTUS is that involved in political timing then well..lets just burn this whole ****er down.
 
You specifically mentioned a permanent vegetative state. That’s my issue. A fetus is not a permanent state.

If I told you someone would be in a vegetative state for the next 8 months, would you proclaim I have a right to kill them?

No. I wouldn’t say you have the right to kill them. Are you saying because of the potential to be viable it is not right to kill them? I agree. If so, revisit my argument on potential you blasted.

If not, please answer my question on the 1 vs 100. For the 5th time. You avoiding that at this point is very telling.
 
My only question is, why didnt they wait until after the mid terms before doing this? All the Republicans had to do was coast into November and it wouldve been a red swarm. But now they've unnecessarily made it more difficult on themselves and given Democrats a platform from which they can rally a LOT of swing voters around! This was such an unforced error on their part.

That would have been full on political without a doubt , everyone is yelling about the decision being political and how SCOTUS is just a right wing political arm , but the timing at least shows they aren’t .
 
Question, has "Reproductive Freedom" officially replaced Pro-Choice as the new semantic go to for the left? Im starting to see it creep up everywhere now.
 
The Leftist Media (MSM) is heartbroken today on what the SCOTUS has ruled on.

Hell ... Democrats just want to burn it all down when it's learned you don't get your way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
No. I wouldn’t say you have the right to kill them. Are you saying because of the potential to be viable it is not right to kill them? I agree. If so, revisit my argument on potential you blasted.

If not, please answer my question on the 1 vs 100. For the 5th time. You avoiding that at this point is very telling.

Once again, why do you keep bringing up potential? We have already both agreed this is a living human. Not potentially a living human.

I’ve already answered it. Find post 8934
 
That’s what it will take to change the minds and soften the hearts of many pro-abortion advocates.

I’m just saddened by all the “men” on this board and in this country that have punted their responsibility to care for the weaker vessels.

We stand on the front lines of war.
We protect women and we protect children, including the unborn.

I appreciate the work you do. My wife is an MD. It’s hard work. Mentally and emotionally. It really is.
This
 
Again, I fixed your post.

You can justify government sponsored murder in your head but your stance is not consistent.

No, not a fan of the death penalty, only in a very few situations that modern prisons have fixed. It does not deter crime. It's not the Governments place to take human life. Also, the inconsistencies and statistics of the executed are immoral. You like statistics, go ahead and do your research. Plus, it's too expensive. Really, there is not an advantage to Government murder
I actually can. One is punishment for crimes committed. Thus, not murder, and perfectly consistent with Genesis 9:6, and Romans 13.

To argue that capital punishment of convicted criminals is the same as murdering innocent is, whew, quite an argument
 

VN Store



Back
Top