Anonymous
12/02/2021 21:05
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
They’re probably approaching it from a self-centered perspective (shocker).
“I want the right to have an abortion if I needed one but I probably won’t need one so F the women who do. “
“I don’t want my kids to read this books so NO kids can read this book.”
“I want the right to have an abortion if I needed one but I probably won’t need one so F the women who do. “
“I don’t want my kids to read this books so NO kids can read this book.”
Anonymous
12/02/2021 21:00
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:
What’s pathetic is that they don’t really think it’s more important than banning books.
I suppose their thought about all the facets of their fascism: in for a penny, in for a pound.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 18:41
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous
12/02/2021 18:19
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
12/02/2021 17:49
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For anyone who doubts the value of so called “ideological purity tests” for the Party here’s Exhibit A. If you do not support a woman’s right to an abortion under any circumstances of HER choosing, you need to reevaluate your stance or turn in your membership card, so to speak. Your differing opinion or qualifiers on the subject are not welcome nor will they be tolerated. There’s no more debate. There’s no more dialogue. There’s no more “agree to disagree”.
The Republicans have their anti-woman purity test. It’s time the Democrats get serious about the pro-woman purity test.
It's certainly a deal breaker for me as a voter.
+2
I do not vote for politicians who don’t think I deserve full rights as a human.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 17:35
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
You’re almost there. What all of your examples have in common though is that those are things you do to other people
And the PP will say, bbbbbbut the fetus is a person.
You can legally kill a living breathing out-of-the uterus person in this country for a few reasons. I’m over this debate about when life starts. It’s irrelevant to the discussion of when it’s okay to end one. Because it clearly is totally okay in some circumstances. Just not this one because it would give women too much power.
Posted elsewhere about an interview with some conservative politician getting enraged at the idea of a teenage girl having the power to end a life.
It was shocking to hear him say it so concisely.
Yep!!! Women have the power to bring life into the world and, the flip side is we can choose not to. We can.
Yup. We control our baby factory. Not some white old dude.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 17:34
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:For anyone who doubts the value of so called “ideological purity tests” for the Party here’s Exhibit A. If you do not support a woman’s right to an abortion under any circumstances of HER choosing, you need to reevaluate your stance or turn in your membership card, so to speak. Your differing opinion or qualifiers on the subject are not welcome nor will they be tolerated. There’s no more debate. There’s no more dialogue. There’s no more “agree to disagree”.
The Republicans have their anti-woman purity test. It’s time the Democrats get serious about the pro-woman purity test.
It's certainly a deal breaker for me as a voter.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 17:25
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
For anyone who doubts the value of so called “ideological purity tests” for the Party here’s Exhibit A. If you do not support a woman’s right to an abortion under any circumstances of HER choosing, you need to reevaluate your stance or turn in your membership card, so to speak. Your differing opinion or qualifiers on the subject are not welcome nor will they be tolerated. There’s no more debate. There’s no more dialogue. There’s no more “agree to disagree”.
The Republicans have their anti-woman purity test. It’s time the Democrats get serious about the pro-woman purity test.
The Republicans have their anti-woman purity test. It’s time the Democrats get serious about the pro-woman purity test.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 17:11
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
You’re almost there. What all of your examples have in common though is that those are things you do to other people
And the PP will say, bbbbbbut the fetus is a person.
You can legally kill a living breathing out-of-the uterus person in this country for a few reasons. I’m over this debate about when life starts. It’s irrelevant to the discussion of when it’s okay to end one. Because it clearly is totally okay in some circumstances. Just not this one because it would give women too much power.
Posted elsewhere about an interview with some conservative politician getting enraged at the idea of a teenage girl having the power to end a life.
It was shocking to hear him say it so concisely.
Yep!!! Women have the power to bring life into the world and, the flip side is we can choose not to. We can.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 16:47
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
You’re almost there. What all of your examples have in common though is that those are things you do to other people
And the PP will say, bbbbbbut the fetus is a person.
You can legally kill a living breathing out-of-the uterus person in this country for a few reasons. I’m over this debate about when life starts. It’s irrelevant to the discussion of when it’s okay to end one. Because it clearly is totally okay in some circumstances. Just not this one because it would give women too much power.
Posted elsewhere about an interview with some conservative politician getting enraged at the idea of a teenage girl having the power to end a life.
It was shocking to hear him say it so concisely.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 15:43
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
Wow. You want people to be liberated from laws against incest. You SURELY are Republican scum.
I never, ever said that.
A PP argued the MS abortion law prohibits what someone can do with themselves. I said that's what many criminal laws do - prohibit conduct - and gave examples.
Incest and bigamy are both things you do to other people, usually without their consent.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 15:41
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
Wow. You want people to be liberated from laws against incest. You SURELY are Republican scum.
I never, ever said that.
A PP argued the MS abortion law prohibits what someone can do with themselves. I said that's what many criminal laws do - prohibit conduct - and gave examples.
Anonymous
12/02/2021 15:28
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Ya, privileged DC far left elitists should dictate what health laws the people of Mississippi want for themselves because. . . that's democracy.
The Mississippi abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with what Mississippians want for themselves. It is entirely about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do.
That's what criminal laws do.
In DC, I think it's illegal to engage in: bigamy, incest, and posing in obscene photos. The law prohibits doing it (i.e., DC law says you cannot do that with your own body).
Wow. You want people to be liberated from laws against incest. You SURELY are Republican scum.
Yeah, I don’t think that PP is making the point they think they’re making, nor are they aware that they’re making a whole other (and grosser) point on top of that.