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? We have Democrats on the Supreme Court that can't even tell you what a woman is, is it any surprise that they also can't tell you what a person is? And if you can't define something shouldn't err on the side of safety? Why kill a human life that is or is NOT a person in your own mind? And why attribute RIGHT to a "person" that is or is NOT a "woman" depending on whether a human life in a uterus is a person and a woman and if you're a Supreme Court Justice and you can't tell me what a person and a woman is then should you be allowing someone to kill them or deny or offer them special rights to kill others based on their being or NOT being what ever you seem think they might or might NOT be? Pretty flimsy logic to base life and death decisions on... so the go to response of do no harm and killing is NOT the moral high ground, shouldn't the "SUPREME" thinkers of the Supreme Court be more cautious with your RIGHTS than to just make a wild ass guess at whether you should live or die, because they have no idea about who or what you are? -- -That's karma-