The Courts (not specific to either party)

Thomas, the hypocrite married to a woman who tried to overthrow America's government, directly targets Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, but somehow left Loving v. Virginia out of his assent.

But make no mistake that same-sex marriage is on the same hit list as abortion, contraception, sex education.... and porn.

These Justices are young, relatively speaking. They have decades to keep this up.

 
knapplc said:
Thomas, the hypocrite married to a woman who tried to overthrow America's government, directly targets Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, but somehow left Loving v. Virginia out of his assent.

But make no mistake that same-sex marriage is on the same hit list as abortion, contraception, sex education.... and porn.

These Justices are young, relatively speaking. They have decades to keep this up.
Click to expand...
HEY...Come on.  

I think we all just need to settle the f#&% down.

 
teachercd said:
Anti-Choicers (we need to call them what they really are) seem to be getting their way on this one.

To all the anti-choicers, why do you hate that people can make choices?
Click to expand...
So does that mean pro-choicers are pro-death?  Of course not.      We've had this little tit-for-tat before.  Forget the names. The names only divide.   Most pro-lifers put the life of the baby in the womb as the first priority - that doesn't make them anti-choice.  I'm not anti-choice - that isn't my motivation.  My motivation is the preservation of the life in the womb.   Cannot the govt protect the life in the womb as well as provide for all of the woman's needs as well?  If we can fund wars overseas we can provide help to every woman who needs it while carrying that baby and have programs to assist the child after birth -   I'd like to find that rare political candidate who is pro-life in the womb and pro-life outside of the womb - who can bridge the divide between the 2 groups.  At this point I suspect that candidate would show up on the Dem side as I'm not sure when or if  the GOP will ever take the lead on domestic social/welfare issues. 

 
TGHusker said:
So does that mean pro-choicers are pro-death?  Of course not.      We've had this little tit-for-tat before.  Forget the names. The names only divide.   Most pro-lifers put the life of the baby in the womb as the first priority - that doesn't make them anti-choice.  I'm not anti-choice - that isn't my motivation.  My motivation is the preservation of the life in the womb.   Cannot the govt protect the life in the womb as well as provide for all of the woman's needs as well?  If we can fund wars overseas we can provide help to every woman who needs it while carrying that baby and have programs to assist the child after birth -   I'd like to find that rare political candidate who is pro-life in the womb and pro-life outside of the womb - who can bridge the divide between the 2 groups.  At this point I suspect that candidate would show up on the Dem side as I'm not sure when or if  the GOP will ever take the lead on domestic social/welfare issues. 
Click to expand...
I am fine with it being called Pro-Death.

Why are you not fine with it being called Anti-Choice?

It doesn't matter what your motivation is it only matters what it becomes.  Which as we all know, is Anti-Choice.

 
Back
Top