Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Maybe a civil war is needed
The pussy Blue states will win again. Just saying...
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Maybe a civil war is needed
The pussy Blue states will win again. Just saying...
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Maybe a civil war is needed
The pussy Blue states will win again. Just saying...
What team would Ohio play for?
They'd be a border state like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, etc, in the last go around, and probably send troops to both sides. Virginia would split up again, with the new state of Northern Virginia staying with the Union.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the representatives of the states in Congress. Not state legislatures.
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Maybe a civil war is needed
Maybe. Or just follow the constitution.
Since when does a “libertarian” like yourself support the monolithic and despotic federal government? Over autonomous, self-governing and independent state governments?
Sanctuary states are the law of the land. Good luck changing that.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
I knew you missed slavery. Called it
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.” Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
They aren't but that's ok facts were never your strong suit Governor Wallace
Sometimes the pugilist knocks another so far out they're on Queer Street and don't even know it.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
I knew you missed slavery. Called it
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.” Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
They aren't but that's ok facts were never your strong suit Governor Wallace
Sometimes the pugilist knocks another so far out they're on Queer Street and don't even know it.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
I knew you missed slavery. Called it
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.” Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
They aren't but that's ok facts were never your strong suit Governor Wallace
Sometimes the pugilist knocks another so far out they're on Queer Street and don't even know it.
Comments
I don't have any better ideas. We all live here and we all need one rule on this. One.
Since when does a “libertarian” like yourself support the monolithic and despotic federal government? Over autonomous, self-governing and independent state governments?
Sanctuary states are the law of the land. Good luck changing that.
That appears to be the case here.
The north would fuck around and then run the south over
Again
Everyone knows you and trump are full of shit. There’s no way ever your white trash bullshit will ever be enforced in California.
I win again
You lost
Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
So was slavery, Colonel White
We all know that Sanctuary Cities are illegal. Only an idiot would claim different