Infidel Dog

Does it matter. Dems don't seem to care that Trump is no longer being President. Pelosi and Shifty sure seem to be desperate to nail him for something. They're like Boris and Natasha going after Moose and Squirrel. And that's inspired the other side to consider doing to Biden what Dems with their RINO toadies are trying so hard to do to Trump. Ask Jon Voight. Ask MTG

I agree with you that there's no reason to think Trump will actually be convicted or even tried on something as out there as "treason" though. All those baseless charges against Trump have failed so far. And I doubt even an unrepenting witch hunter like Shifty Adam Schiff is nutty enough to try for a treason charge. Although maybe we should never doubt how far the nuttiness of a Democrat will take them. Shifty might even join the Squad for all we know.

And it would be even more interesting if you replaced Trump's name with Biden where I would say there's even more reason for criminal complaint if not impeachment. Think November after which the odds say it will be Republicans in control of the house.

Federally you mean...in the supreme court where the majority opinion is that this decision only applies to this case and nothing not related to abortion. And all that was decided was the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Meaning the States. You have something better than the constitution to decide such matters do you? Go ahead then, Your Honor. Give us the final non-constitutional decision on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health.

What are the arguments for abortion up to birth based on then. Not morality, you say? You seem to be saying, no. What then? Science? No. Lila rose just explained to you why that's not the case in the video above. Not morality. Not science? Politics then? I don't know. I prefer the first two if I have to choose, myself. These are decisions that will be decided by the states according to the Supreme Court decision. Seems like the better option to me. Easier to vote them down democratically if the state population doesn't agree.

What about it? All I'm saying is the Clarence Thomas concerns on substantiative due process don't necessitate the death of contraception or anything else.

We don't seem that far apart then, although I'm still open to being persuaded life begins at conception. Some 'life begins at conception' arguments are hard to deconstruct. And if there's life where does this right come from to end it. For now though I'm for saving whatever is a baby at as close to conception as possible because that seems like something that can be done.

So if I understand what you're saying then is you're not actually worried that American women are going to lose the ability to use contraception. Not sure if it was you or not but somebody on the previous page was suggesting that was some sort of fact. I said and continue to claim outright when you look into specifics that's not the case. He was using something some people talk about to suggest a now necessary boogey man, nightmare of a push for no contraception that was the ultimate consequence of the recent decision moving abortion law to the states.

Actually wasn't it "fetal viability?" Yeah it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey Current science says that's 20 weeks as I understand it. So are you saying that's specifically where you stand then? In agreement with the "Plurality Opinion" of a now defunct supreme court decision that baby killing becomes some sort of right after 20 weeks in the womb?

Thomas's musing seems to have something to due with something he calls "substantiative due process" and the idea that if the defining of them becomes a legal precedent in the abortion decision the Supreme Court may need to be consider how it affects previous decisions - one of which you mention. It's more something to consider from a legal standpoint Thomas was musing over in his 'opinion.' It remains to be seen what if any affect this will have on future decisions on matters other than abortion. Other justices suggested no affect. If you're saying it means American women won't be able to get contraception anymore that's nonsense or as said before wishful thinking on what you'd like to claim to make a point.

Killing babies isn't a right. If you're saying it isn't a baby at conception, very well, when is it? At some point it is a baby, right? When is that? When exactly do you lose what you seem to think is the right of you yours to endorse the ending of its life? As I recall you get all waffly when asked to nail down specifics about what specifically you're talking about when it comes to you or yours perceived right to kill or endorse the killing of babies. Let's try one more time. When specifically to you lose this imagined right to end life? Conception? Appearance of a heartbeat? Development of the nervous system? Start of brain activity? Viability outside of womb? First breath? Pre-School? Noticeable disagreement of you or yours political opinion?

You guys get away with these broad, claims too much. When one asks for specifics, more often than not, they turn out to be more just wishful thinking for some imagined thing to whine about based on some outlier comment. Show us specifically what you're talking about or sell your new religion, Malthusian narrative at a another doorstep.

I was having another discussion here with somebody else on this issue of Abortion law being returned to the states. I was suggesting new cultural and technological advancements would facilitate options for the contemporary girl or woman they didn't have in the days of back alley abortions. He didn't seem to think that was possible. I gave him a couple of examples. Here's another one: Biden’s HHS Unveils Website Directing Underage Women to Resources to Obtain an Abortion

They're doing that? Who is? How so? Can you show me? The only stats I can think of that anti-abortionists use to scare people straight (so to speak) are the ones from Planned Parenthood.

You mean this Malta: Yeah, I didn't bother reading that one past where it said "Malta," because it wouldn't have anything to do with an American Supreme Court decision. I went back to look though. This one, right? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61898437 Not sure what that has to do with American statistics on abortion. Best guess though is, nothing.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that only appears to be the case in the click bait title. Add a little context and that not exactly what it shows. It's referencing cases involving illicit drug use. This one, right? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544 "Substance use during pregnancy is considered child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes in 23 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research institute."

One more time then: What I'm asking for has nothing to with your personal medical records. Nor does the recent Supreme Court decision to move Abortion law back to the states.

It will be real easy to shut me up on this matter, Goddess. Show me a single state law that would limit a physician’s ability” to care for women with ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages.

The anti-abortion organization, Live Action, has some advice for you: https://www.liveaction.org/news/miscarriage-ectopic-delivery-not-abortions/ However if you have a non-anecdotal reference showing abortion statistics include ectopic pregnancies and this affects the recent Supreme Court decision moving Abortion law to the states I'd love to see it.

I saw that anecdote. Below the anecdote was this from anti-abortion organizations: " Live Action @LiveAction The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion The treatment for miscarriage is NOT an abortion The treatment for septic uterus is NOT an abortion There's a difference between losing a child & murdering a child Not a single pro-life law impacts these treatments 4:02 PM · Jun 24, 2022 15.0K 4.7K Lila Rose @LilaGraceRose The tsunami of pro-abortion disinformation has begun. Don’t believe the lies. Removing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is *not* abortion. Miscarriage management is *not* abortion. Pro-life states are banning the intentional destruction of human lives. Join us. 11:25 AM · Jun 24, 2022 8.0K 1.8K Lila Rose @LilaGraceRose Miscarriage management is not abortion. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion. If you’ve had a natural miscarriage, you have not had an abortion. There is a complete legal & moral difference between the tragic loss of a child & the intentional killing of a child. 11:00 AM · Jun 27, 2022

You like your memes though, Luz P. so here's one for you from the Babylon Bee. (Time for a comedy break, anyway.)

Another thing you slow learners don't want to accept, even though the posts above your infantile meme tell you about it is the Supreme Court didn't take away anybody's right to choose. It gave them choice on a closer to home basis. You can still "choose" to kill babies in New York right up to birth if you want. Don't want abortion regulated after the first trimester? Want it? Don't want the right to sue abortionists? Want it? You have the right to "choose" or choose to take away those and more with state legislation now. It's called democracy. Actually your federal, Progressive Socialist Democrats of America always had the right to to pass a federal 'baby-killing' law for you but they didn't. It's harder on a larger federal scale. Too many states would vote against them in the Senate. Federalism and all that. So state by state Americans didn't loose choice. They gained more. You just don't want to accept that because you don't want to accept that the majority of some states somewhere don't think like you do.

Missing an O in "choose," there, meme genius. Sorry pal. No sympathy for you or yours not having the right to kill babies. It's an unacceptable choice. Choose life or others will choose to protect it.

Way back when...decades even, I noticed we weren't supposed to be saying Indian anymore. All of a sudden you were kind of required to say native. That's when I started to notice this thing I now call Prog - although I didn't have a name for it at the time. It was like 'who decided we needed the name change? What was wrong with the old one?' None of the Indians I knew minded the original name and as I heard it "Indian" means 'Beloved of God'. The name even comes with a history of Europeans screw-up. They kind of liked that. I imagine what I now know to be Progressive Socialists or the thing I call Prog figured there was something wrong with the guys that owned the North American label, Indian, so they decided to pretend they saw something better than the inferior being they believed they saw and could take a superior pose to the hoi polloi with a name change. I've watched Progs change a lot of names since then. For all sorts of reasons. For example with "Global Warming" the climate stopped warming in the radical way they wanted it to so they just corrupted and adopted another label of Climate Change. We let them do crap like that. They'll call a beneficial - or at least necessary gas like carbon dioxide, Carbon. The idea is they want you to see beyond the inconvenient reality of it as clear and odorles and think of it as dark and smoky, entitling them to then call it "Pollution." Really it's what plants need to grow but don't waste your time trying to educate a Prog away from his fantasy label of 'pollution." They can disappear the two sexes in their minds by calling them "genders." Male and female, Man and woman - Poof, they're gone. Lately they seem to be changing the names and pronunciations of cities. Not sure why. It used to be Kiev. It was pronounced Kee-Ev. Now something somewhere decided it's Kyiv, pronounced Keeve. Apparently there was something wrong with Calcutta for some reason in the Prog mind so now it's Kolkatta.

My theory is that leak on the abortion decision pissed them off. Especially Roberts. Roberts has always been something like the Republican Joe Manchin of the Supreme Court. His MO says he'll move in any direction to protect the reputation of the SC. Whoever that dummy was who leaked the decision, thank you,