Re: No Such Thing as a Fetal Person, According to SCOTUS
BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.politics.congress,alt.politics.corruption,alt.censorship,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.obama,alt.politics.scorched-earth,alt.politics.socialism.mao,alt.politics.trump,alt.global-warming,alt.conspiracy,alt.apocolypse,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,alt.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | Support the "Propaganda Wars Open Source Project" to encourage less violence and hate inside America's Borders. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/23/22 6:14 AM, David Hartung wrote: > On 11/22/22 17:51, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 10:49 AM, David Hartung wrote: >>> On 10/12/22 12:32, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 9:50 AM, David Hartung wrote: >>>> >>>>> That an unborn child is a person with the right to live is a fact; >>>> >>>> No, it is not a fact. It's your value belief and unsupported >>>> assertion. >>>> >>>> You *still* have never even attempted to make a case for it. That's >>>> because you know you're incapable of it. You cannot show that a >>>> fetus has a "right" to remain living inside the uterus of a woman >>>> who doesn't want it there. "Because I said so" carries no weight, >>>> but that's all you have. >>> >>> While you have never attempted to support your claim. >> >> "I have no need to support anything." >> >> Hartung — 22 Nov 2022, 4:07pm Shithole Time Zone > > Your point? > > > If a person is a legal description, then there is a description in the Constitution that contains the qualifiers that are required to be a person? -- -That's karma-