Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
That_Guy

Revealed: Amy Coney Barrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

DJGoody

Life does begin at conception.  The only difference between a fertilized egg and an adult is time and nutrition.  The 'Viability Argument' does not hold water.  Newborns are not viable.  Stick them in a corner and they will not survive.  Some adults with physical and mental disabilities are not viable alone, as well as some of the elderly.  

  • Best Post (+1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
28 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

Roe is flawed because the court said “if science cannot determined when life begins, then neither can we.”

So it permitted abortions. Unfortunately, that mindset contradicts itself. If you dont know when life begins, then you have no business permitting abortions because you just might be killing life when you do that. 

Erick knows this, so he likes to lead you down the rabbit hole and center his arguments on rights of the mother, illegal searches and other superfluous arguments that are subordinate to the central issue. 

Are you killing people or not when you commit an abortion? None of the rest matters unless you solve that first. 

 

Agreed. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
36 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

Roe is flawed because the court said “if science cannot determined when life begins, then neither can we.”

So it permitted abortions. Unfortunately, that mindset contradicts itself. If you dont know when life begins, then you have no business permitting abortions because you just might be killing life when you do that. 

 

Exactly. I've been making that exact same point around here for years.

:yes: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
49 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

Roe is flawed because the court said “if science cannot determined when life begins, then neither can we.”

So it permitted abortions. Unfortunately, that mindset contradicts itself. If you dont know when life begins, then you have no business permitting abortions because you just might be killing life when you do that. 

Erick knows this, so he likes to lead you down the rabbit hole and center his arguments on rights of the mother, illegal searches and other superfluous arguments that are subordinate to the central issue. 

Are you killing people or not when you commit an abortion? None of the rest matters unless you solve that first. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

 

Exactly. I've been making that exact same point around here for years.

:yes: 

 

Then the simple response to T_G is "Prove life doesn't start at fertilization".

  • Best Post (+1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
14 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

 

Good for her! More proof she's eminently qualified for the job.

 

12 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

 

Then the simple response to T_G is "Prove life doesn't start at fertilization".

 

*DING*DING*DING*

:yes:

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linewinder

Seems to me that choice should be applied before conception.

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
4 minutes ago, linewinder said:

Seems to me that choice should be applied before conception.

That would require too much common sense and forethought. . .

</sarcasm>

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
15 minutes ago, linewinder said:

Seems to me that choice should be applied before conception.

This assumes consent.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
Posted (edited)

BIDENSAMERICA.thumb.jpg.4d970aa6aa596881a2966ced4294d9e0.jpgHmmm....

Edited by RedSoloCup
  • Best Post (+1) 3
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

So...... She's Catholic?

It'll be interesting to see if the Democrats go down this bigoted rabbit hole against her again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
8 minutes ago, RedSoloCup said:

BIDENSAMERICA.thumb.jpg.4d970aa6aa596881a2966ced4294d9e0.jpgHmmm....

 

Yeah, tough choice...

 

 

NOT!

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 hours ago, That_Guy said:

This assumes consent.

 

So you STILL can't put together an honest "argument". As you know perfectly well, the overwhelming majority of those opposed to abortion (at least here at RN) have made it clear they would accept exceptions in cases of non-consent (i.e. rape), as well as incest and endangered life of the mother.

<_< 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
24 minutes ago, Shaky McSelfie said:

Nah, he just wants to ensure black babies continue to be aborted at higher rates that any other ethnicity. He is a disciple of Margaret Sanger. 

This.

I have always wondered, being the ardent supporter of both the indiscriminate killing of black babies and the party of slavery and the KKK, why he hates black people so much?

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

This is what you are going to hang your hat on lefties? She supported a Christian Group that believes life begins with the spark? How dare she!! Prior to Roe v. Wade we all believed this. Now you clowns run around beliving it's not human until you name it.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
4 hours ago, That_Guy said:

If you don't think vacuuming children out of the womb in pieces is barbaric then you have lost every ounce of what ever humanity you clung to.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
3 hours ago, That_Guy said:

This assumes consent.

Yes you mean 98.5% of all abortions. The other 1% due to rape / incest can be managed individually in a hospital as required by the person and their doctor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

Quote

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet the battle over exceptions for both has garnered outsized attention in the national abortion debate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
2 hours ago, RedSoloCup said:

BIDENSAMERICA.thumb.jpg.4d970aa6aa596881a2966ced4294d9e0.jpgHmmm....

No men of color in either photo.

  • Disagree (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
33 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

The other 1% due to rape / incest can be managed individually in a hospital as required by the person and their doctor.

How, exactly?

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 minute ago, That_Guy said:

No men of color in either photo.

 

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

First off, there are black people in the top picture. Why do you hate women & kids?

And it's impossible to determine if there are any black people in the bottom picture, since there are so many whose faces are completely covered.

:rolleyes: 

 

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...