Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Here's how Kobe protects the children
SFGbob
Member Posts: 33,183
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
Protect.
I don't think that word means what Kobe thinks it means.
-
Kobe thinks children should be given puberty blockers and have their breasts and dicks cut off because he is all about protecting children.
-
-
-
-
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
Pure evil.SFGbob said: -
Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong -
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong -
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially -
I'm for limited abortion choice(when you take a pill only) but that's it... this shit is barbaricSFGbob said:
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
First 3 months. Allowing an abortion at 8 months is nothing less than infanticide. Which is what all people who care about children do, right Kobe?Goduckies said:
I'm for limited abortion choice(when you take a pill only) but that's it... this shit is barbaricSFGbob said:
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
Democrats care
I'm not calling Durbin a pedophile though. -
If a photo is on the internet the child isn't exploited
New case law -
Death Cult Party.SFGbob said: -
Liberals have never met an ultrasound image they wouldn’t abort.SFGbob said:
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
We are in agreement here. Although philosophically there is never a morally logical or "right" place at which to draw the line - I've thought, read and talked about this for a long time - I've concluded that, although there's no reconciling it, first 3 mos makes sense and is a necessary albeit unpleasant reality for our society.SFGbob said:
First 3 months. Allowing an abortion at 8 months is nothing less than infanticide. Which is what all people who care about children do, right Kobe?Goduckies said:
I'm for limited abortion choice(when you take a pill only) but that's it... this shit is barbaricSFGbob said:
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):RaceBannon said:
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
-
Now do the % of the millions and millions of murdered babies each year which are African-American. Margaret Sanger and Gates senior knew what they were doing.PurpleThrobber said: -
I doubt TKS has ever looked at what Margaret actually said about exterminating blacks. TKS is that stupid and ill informed. Scary actually.RoadTrip said:
Now do the % of the millions and millions of murdered babies each year which are African-American. Margaret Sanger and Gates senior knew what they were doing.PurpleThrobber said: -
It's a reasonable compromise on a very shitty issue.creepycoug said:
We are in agreement here. Although philosophically there is never a morally logical or "right" place at which to draw the line - I've thought, read and talked about this for a long time - I've concluded that, although there's no reconciling it, first 3 mos makes sense and is a necessary albeit unpleasant reality for our society.SFGbob said:
First 3 months. Allowing an abortion at 8 months is nothing less than infanticide. Which is what all people who care about children do, right Kobe?Goduckies said:
I'm for limited abortion choice(when you take a pill only) but that's it... this shit is barbaricSFGbob said:
That's now the official position of the entire Rat party. They reject any limitation on abortion. They actually made this part of the party platform in 2016. The party of infanticide cares about the children.Goduckies said:Wtf
-
I'm still in favor of mandatory abortion
-
Pretend lawyer coming in hot.creepycoug said:
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):RaceBannon said:
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
The entire "right to privacy" is indeed made up as they interpreted it into being.
However, I think it should exist as an extension of the right to property.
There's a reason the government doesn't want the right to property to be upheld and rolled back to what the founders defined it as though. -
You can't have a surveillance state and a right to privacy
And we have a surveillance state -
Although it seems like a pretty good idea.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretend lawyer coming in hot.creepycoug said:
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):RaceBannon said:
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
The entire "right to privacy" is indeed made up as they interpreted it into being.
However, I think it should exist as an extension of the right to property.
There's a reason the government doesn't want the right to property to be upheld and rolled back to what the founders defined it as though. -
Right to privacy has a more constitutional basis than many other rights. Such as the right to an abortion, for instance.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretend lawyer coming in hot.creepycoug said:
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):RaceBannon said:
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
The entire "right to privacy" is indeed made up as they interpreted it into being.
However, I think it should exist as an extension of the right to property.
There's a reason the government doesn't want the right to property to be upheld and rolled back to what the founders defined it as though. -
As I said, the founders definition of property would easily include a "right to privacy" as part of the right to property.creepycoug said:
Although it seems like a pretty good idea.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretend lawyer coming in hot.creepycoug said:
Race channeling Billy Rehnquist and Byron the Wizard Buff in the great dissent, say that right to privacy is made up (which, going beyond abortion, is an interesting concept itself):RaceBannon said:
You need the Supreme Court to ban abortionLoneStarDawg said:
Look at this centrist hot takeRaceBannon said:Where we stand is the Supreme Court says legal in the first trimester
Oklahoma with the over reach. Colorado same. Guess which is the BIG issue in the coming months
Both Big 8 teams are wrong
States can regulate it 3 months plus one day
That's a legal hot take
Whether the mythical and tightly crafted "right to privacy" used by the Court actually exists is another story
After covid and vaccines especially
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here, he wrote.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
The entire "right to privacy" is indeed made up as they interpreted it into being.
However, I think it should exist as an extension of the right to property.
There's a reason the government doesn't want the right to property to be upheld and rolled back to what the founders defined it as though.
The government doesn't want an expansive definition of property.
It's actually one of the worst violations of the constitution perpetrated but no one realizes it because of the change of definition. Thought control a la 1984. -
Yes. Let’s bring abortion front and center for the mid terms. Always a winning issue for the right.
Many here are just playing for the dash, but few want to do what it takes play for the cash.
