Make your case. You haven't a leg to stand on.So, you want to legalize murder?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Make your case. You haven't a leg to stand on.So, you want to legalize murder?
Murder is a crime with a legal definition. Abortion isn’t murder, even in states where abortion is illegal.So, you want to legalize murder, because my neighbor decided that life isn't begin until a child can feed itself. I shouldn't interfere, right? I mean, is a child really viable before it can keep itself alive?
I didn't say abortion was murder. I said, or implied, that having a policy of not interfering in any one person's definition of abortion would be making murder legal.Murder is a crime with a legal definition. Abortion isn’t murder, even in states where abortion is illegal.
No. Your "belief" is irrelevant.If you believe that life begins at conception, or heartbeat or brain activity, wouldn't decades of ended human lives, under Roe, be proof of harm?
So they are firing people with no plan to make government more "efficient".RFK Jr is going to go down as the worst cabinet pick ever....and that's saying a lot
![]()
A CDC vaccine committee meeting, the first of Kennedy's tenure at HHS, gets postponed
An HHS spokesperson didn’t say when the meeting would be rescheduled.www.nbcnews.com
Damn, your point must be really out there if no possible case can provide a leg to stand on.
But you made a stupid comparison to a living child, and abortion is by definition to an unborn child.I didn't say abortion was murder. I said, or implied, that having a policy of not interfering in any one person's definition of abortion would be making murder legal.
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’Without going back through pages to untangle it, what the heck is this thread about now? The thread title may need an update.
Precedent is strong in this one.
This is just a detailed detour regarding what I view as overreaction, by many here, to most everything Trump. The claim was made that objectively bad things were happening - i.e. Roe v Wade.Without going back through pages to untangle it, what the heck is this thread about now? The thread title may need an update.
And ,of course, you were wrong. I'd give you subjectively.This is just a detailed detour regarding what I view as overreaction, by many here, to most everything Trump. The claim was made that objectively bad things were happening - i.e. Roe v Wade.
I just pointed out the overturning R v W is not "objectively" bad for many, many Americans.
Even the MAGAs know the vaccine thing is a major f-up so the attention to it has been diverted.Without going back through pages to untangle it, what the heck is this thread about now? The thread title may need an update.
You clearly don't understand what it means to say something is objectively good or objectively bad. Something being the case objectively means it doesn't depend on the thoughts, feelings, or other mental states of people.And ,of course, you were wrong. I'd give you subjectively.
As I've said multiple times, the claim was made that overturning RvW was objectively bad.And it's not objectively true that other people are affected by someone else's medical decisions, whether it's an abortion, gender reassignment or a facelift.
That's the epitome of a subjective opinion so is meaningless without some proof, something you never provide.As I've said multiple times, the claim was made that overturning RvW was objectively bad.
That is not accurate.