Biden threatened with communion ban over position on abortion

DreamRyderX

Active member
Babies are not aborted, fuckhead!
EVERYONE who supported slavery was free.
EVERYONE who supports abortion was born.
That's how oppression works......
"They're not really people" -- We've heard that lie before!!!

 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I've always thought that abortion was about a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate her own pregnancy? And, the right to control her own reproductive system. This is a privacy right, guaranteed to her by the Constitution.

Every women has the right to terminate her own pregnancy. The government does not select women and terminate their pregnancies. So if any woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, then don't have one! It is totally your choice. But trying to force other women to think like you, is just hypocritical and dangerous.

I can think of very few things worse, than forcing/shaming a mother to raise a baby that she doesn't want.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
I've always thought that abortion was about a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate her own pregnancy? And, the right to control her own reproductive system. This is a privacy right, guaranteed to her by the Constitution.

Every women has the right to terminate her own pregnancy. The government does not select women and terminate their pregnancies. So if any woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, then don't have one! It is totally your choice. But trying to force other women to think like you, is just hypocritical and dangerous.

I can think of very few things worse, than forcing/shaming a mother to raise a baby that she doesn't want.
We shall see......we shall see.....If SCOTUS gets involved, & comes to a decision....we shall see.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We shall see......we shall see.....If SCOTUS gets involved, & comes to a decision....we shall see.
What is your view on abortion? Do you think that a mother should NOT have the right to terminate her own pregnancy? Do you think that society and the government, should have the right to force all mothers to take all pregnancies to term? Should a mother have any rights to control, and make decisions concerning her own reproductive system? Should mothers who choose to terminate their pregnancies, be thrown in jail?

What if society and the government, mandates that all post pubescent males must wear a condom until they were 26 YO? Would you consider this an invasion of privacy? Telling a woman that she must carry her fetus to term, is also an invasion of her privacy.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
DRX is a hypocritical cunt who is so stupid he can not discern between a bunch of cells and a born child.........

But has no problem with actual born children shooting their "own momma".....or a sibling, or themselves. ("2nd y'all")

or desperate women turning to backyard butchers

Come up with more propaganda you lazy ignorant prick.......

shit i think monk got me a wee bit fired up with his rant.......... sorry.

carry on
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
What is your view on abortion? Do you think that a mother should NOT have the right to terminate her own pregnancy? Do you think that society and the government, should have the right to force all mothers to take all pregnancies to term? Should a mother have any rights to control, and make decisions concerning her own reproductive system? Should mothers who choose to terminate their pregnancies, be thrown in jail?

What if society and the government, mandates that all post pubescent males must wear a condom until they were 26 YO? Would you consider this an invasion of privacy? Telling a woman that she must carry her fetus to term, is also an invasion of her privacy.
He his the type of creature that gets on his high horse about contraception, then abortion, but braggs about freedom bullets.

the irony is to thick i am sick in my mouth

crap now i have to go all woke, grab my uke and make that a song...... DRX, ask god who should be allowed to to put a contraceptive device in the arm of a young lady because a fucking judge says so?......... yes...... Brittany Spears, as a famous case amongst many. your country and its legal system is fucked.... beyond all repair...... You don't have a leg to stand on let alone a high horse.

DRX quote your beloved SCOTUS about that fuckhead..... you can quote me also..... just don't fucking spell my name wrong
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member


Who Speaks For Them?
The LAW speaks for them. They are not fetuses are they? Newborns are viable outside of the womb, a fetus isn't, right? Live newborns CAN'T be aborted, right? So stop using a false equivalence, to falsely imply a connection. It's just another pro-life misleading lie.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard


Who Speaks For Them?
my two boys at that age didn't really sting two words together..... my eldest (now 8) said "bubble" as his first word...... my youngest's first word was "covid" (how depressing)

none of them mentioned abortion.......... so fuck off with your lies
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
EVERYONE who supported slavery was free.
EVERYONE who supports abortion was born.
That's how oppression works......
"They're not really people" -- We've heard that lie before!!!


say that about your beloved AR-15 dickhead...... and a foetus is not a child you idiot.... so show us a picture of a foetus....... not born babys in future.

and you would prefer some hillbilly hack using those implements or a fucking coat hanger in old mate billy bob's trailer?

over a doctor who knows what they are doing?

righty oh then
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
my two boys at that age didn't really sting two words together..... my eldest (now 8) said "bubble" as his first word...... my youngest's first word was "covid" (how depressing)

none of them mentioned abortion.......... so fuck off with your lies
Americans will make the laws that we Americans choose to live by, not laws you have to live by here in Australia, so if we Americans decide we don't want abortion to stay legal in America, all the screaming & carrying on by you, & your ilk, will never change our American laws.

That said.......as an Australian you are free to legally murder all the babies you wish, if that's your law.....& define it any way you wish to make you feel better about it.....just don't listen to his little screams as the abortionist rips him to tiny little pieces.........





 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Americans will make the laws that we Americans choose to live by, not laws you have to live by here in Australia, so if we Americans decide we don't want abortion to stay legal in America, all the screaming & carrying on by you, & your ilk, will never change our American laws.

That said.......as an Australian you are free to legally murder all the babies you wish, if that's your law.....& define it any way you wish to make you feel better about it.....just don't listen to his little screams as the abortionist rips him to tiny little pieces.........






If women who believe as you do, don't want to have an abortion, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ONE! But forcing women to NOT have have an abortion, is no different than forcing women to HAVE an abortion. Both are wrong.

Firstly, the Australian Abortion Laws are a lot stricter than the American Abortion Laws. Abortion Rights are protected by the American Constitution. So, you would need to add a new amendment to the Constitution to change it. The Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with changing the constitution. Its ONLY job is to interpret the the constitution. That's it!!

Secondly, only human beings can be "murdered", by definition. Not plants, not fingernails, not fish, pets, or embryos. There are NO "foeticide" laws, or "child in utero" laws that apply to any legally induced abortions. Either at the federal or the state level. But there are laws that protect the "child in utero", in the commission of a crime. But we are talking about "Legal Abortion", which is NOT a crime. So stop saying "murder in the womb", because it is legally and deliberately just a blatant lie!! All VIABLE HUMAN FOETUSES EXISTING OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB(NEWBORNS/BABIES), ARE PROTECTED BY THE SAME LAWS THAT PROTECT ALL HUMAN BEINGS!!

Thirdly, abortion is about a woman's right to privacy and control of her own reproductive organs. In most of the animal kingdom, it is the female that will protect her child with her own life. The human species is no exception. The physical and emotional attachment that any woman feels with what is growing inside of her, makes terminating her pregnancy, an extremely and emotionally devastating decision. Men can never feel this attachment or bond, and should only play a support role.

Finally, if you really want to stop women having abortions. You should lobby the government, to force all prepubescent males to choose between having a vasectomy, or wearing a condom until they are married, and able to support a family. Any male not wearing a condom, who impregnates a woman, will be arrested for a civil/criminal offence. The woman then has the right to have an abortion(if she chooses), and can sue for damages. Solves the abortion problem. Think it will ever be proposed??

Tell me something. Do you think that there are any circumstances, where terminating the pregnancy is justified(physical abnormality and retardation, mortal threat to the mother health, victim of multiple rapes, etc.)? If you say YES, then you are a hypocrite. If you believe that this is murder, then there should be no exceptions.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Abortion Rights are protected by the American Constitution. So, you would need to add a new amendment to the Constitution to change it. The Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with changing the constitution. Its ONLY job is to interpret the the constitution. That's it!!..........

..........Tell me something. Do you think that there are any circumstances, where terminating the pregnancy is justified(physical abnormality and retardation, mortal threat to the mother health, victim of multiple rapes, etc.)? .........

So called "Abortion Right's"..... are not granted, affirmed, or protected anywhere in the US Constitution......There is no 'Right to An Abortion' written anywhere within the US Constitution, or the 'Bill of Rights' from which the first 10 Amendments were based upon.

Roe v Wade was decided by the US Supreme Court, & they decided as stated in their judgment.....

Now, being it was only a decision rendered by the Court, a subsequent SCOTUS decision is capable of overturning the earlier 1973 decision by simply stating they find that that earlier decision was in error......in full or in part, & explain why they have come to that decision.

The latter decision, as in all SCOTUS decisions, is final, & can not be....would not be.....subject to appeal....there is no higher authority/court........The only way there can be a change, as I already explained, is if a subsequent....future.....Court takes it up & determines otherwise overturning the earlier decision.....in full or in part.....or the Constitution itself is successfully amended by the American People.....an extremely rare & difficult undertaking.

IMHO.....the SCOTUS will not completely overturn Roe, but simply return decision making, regarding any future abortion activity, back to the individual States, subject to some minor restrictions &/or guidelines.....as it was prior to the Roe decision....to a degree......


As to your last question.......IMHO......my answer is NO.......no exceptions......but, I don't make law, & I might only come to be asked to vote on any 'new' Constitutional Amendment regarding a 'new' Right.....a 'new' Right to Abortion......which might then be ratified by the American People, via rules set forth in Article V of the US Constitution......& at such time, subsequent to a successful ratification, then & only then, be protected by the US Constitution as amended.


 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member

So called "Abortion Right's"..... are not granted, affirmed, or protected anywhere in the US Constitution......There is no 'Right to An Abortion' written anywhere within the US Constitution, or the 'Bill of Rights' from which the first 10 Amendments were based upon.

Roe v Wade was decided by the US Supreme Court, & they decided as stated in their judgment.....


Now, being it was only a decision rendered by the Court, a subsequent SCOTUS decision is capable of overturning the earlier 1973 decision by simply stating they find that that earlier decision was in error......in full or in part, & explain why they have come to that decision.

The latter decision, as in all SCOTUS decisions, is final, & can not be....would not be.....subject to appeal....there is no higher authority/court........The only way there can be a change, as I already explained, is if a subsequent....future.....Court takes it up & determines otherwise overturning the earlier decision.....in full or in part.....or the Constitution itself is successfully amended by the American People.....an extremely rare & difficult undertaking.

IMHO.....the SCOTUS will not completely overturn Roe, but simply return decision making, regarding any future abortion activity, back to the individual States, subject to some minor restrictions &/or guidelines.....as it was prior to the Roe decision....to a degree......


As to your last question.......IMHO......my answer is NO.......no exceptions......but, I don't make law, & I might only come to be asked to vote on any 'new' Constitutional Amendment regarding a 'new' Right.....a 'new' Right to Abortion......which might then be ratified by the American People, via rules set forth in Article V of the US Constitution......& at such time, subsequent to a successful ratification, then & only then, be protected by the US Constitution as amended.



Do you honestly think that I would say anything, without being able to back it up? Although, you are correct that the words "abortion rights", is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution(like the separation of church and state). That's because abortion rights was NOT founded until 1973. It came in the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Court's ruling was based on the "due process" clause in the 14th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment(Privacy). When Norma McCorvey(Jane Roe), wanted to terminate her pregnancy in the 1st trimester, she found out she couldn't in the State of Texas. The Court ruled that a woman’s decision to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy fell under the RIGHT of PRIVACY, and therefore was protected by the Constitution. Remember, women have been having abortions, long before any rulings were made by any court.

"Most of the “privacy” rights found by the Court are not listed in the Constitution, and yet the Court—using substantive due process—has elevated these rights to Constitutionally protected status. While many agree with these privacy rights, others express concern that the Court has too much power when it can “create” or “find” Constitutional rights not listed in the Constitution."

Even Amnesty International disagrees with you.

https://www.amnesty.org.au/updated-abortion-policy/?cn=trd&mc=click&pli=23501504&PluID=0&ord={timestamp}&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyGM83PVySdbRw-CBIO7APP0bvQJ6SeKqMZ-yqzBbwDFQIrbaIy6f3UaAt31EALw_wcB

Please read the second website, for some historical background.


As to your last question.......IMHO......my answer is NO.......no exceptions......but, I don't make law,
So, if a mother dies from complications during childbirth, will YOU raise the child? If the pregnancy was the result of rape, will YOU raise the child? If the embryo/foetus is mentally or physically handicapped or deformed, will YOU raise the child? If the pregnancy was the result of incest, or the mother is underaged or handicapped, will YOU still help raise the child? Or, do you hate the child so much, that you would force a mother to raise a child she doesn't want, or is incapable of raising? How would you help her? By arresting her? Or forcing her to seek out "butchers" to do the job for her. Religions is only a belief. But having your pregnancy terminated is reality. So, other than shaming and threatening her, what can you do for her?

I think that you are probably just another well-meaning good person, who can't see the trees, because of the forest. A person's private choice to control their own reproductive system, trumps your archaic, oversimplified, and one-dimensional belief system. Life is just not binary.

I have seen what many young mothers go through before and after having an abortion. And, I may not always support their decision. But, I will always support their right to make it. I mean how dare anyone make this heart-wrenching decision for them. Just who do they think they are? Since you ignored my condom analogy, clearly you are not interested in any open-minded discourse.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
Americans will make the laws that we Americans choose to live by, not laws you have to live by here in Australia, so if we Americans decide we don't want abortion to stay legal in America, all the screaming & carrying on by you, & your ilk, will never change our American laws.

That said.......as an Australian you are free to legally murder all the babies you wish, if that's your law.....& define it any way you wish to make you feel better about it.....just don't listen to his little screams as the abortionist rips him to tiny little pieces.........





guns....... you loooooove them, don't give a fuck though about the damage they cause? However, if you don't realise that child could NOT have been aborted 15 minutes earlier than what that bullshit meme lies to you about...........

you are a fucking idiot!

how are your fictitious little screams when it's done by a trailer park backyard butcher with a coat hanger sounding ?
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Do you honestly think that I would say anything, without being able to back it up? Although, you are correct that the words "abortion rights", is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution(like the separation of church and state). That's because abortion rights was NOT founded until 1973. It came in the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Court's ruling was based on the "due process" clause in the 14th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment(Privacy). When Norma McCorvey(Jane Roe), wanted to terminate her pregnancy in the 1st trimester, she found out she couldn't in the State of Texas. The Court ruled that a woman’s decision to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy fell under the RIGHT of PRIVACY, and therefore was protected by the Constitution. Remember, women have been having abortions, long before any rulings were made by any court.

"Most of the “privacy” rights found by the Court are not listed in the Constitution, and yet the Court—using substantive due process—has elevated these rights to Constitutionally protected status. While many agree with these privacy rights, others express concern that the Court has too much power when it can “create” or “find” Constitutional rights not listed in the Constitution."

Even Amnesty International disagrees with you.

https://www.amnesty.org.au/updated-abortion-policy/?cn=trd&mc=click&pli=23501504&PluID=0&ord={timestamp}&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyGM83PVySdbRw-CBIO7APP0bvQJ6SeKqMZ-yqzBbwDFQIrbaIy6f3UaAt31EALw_wcB

Please read the second website, for some historical background.




So, if a mother dies from complications during childbirth, will YOU raise the child? If the pregnancy was the result of rape, will YOU raise the child? If the embryo/foetus is mentally or physically handicapped or deformed, will YOU raise the child? If the pregnancy was the result of incest, or the mother is underaged or handicapped, will YOU still help raise the child? Or, do you hate the child so much, that you would force a mother to raise a child she doesn't want, or is incapable of raising? How would you help her? By arresting her? Or forcing her to seek out "butchers" to do the job for her. Religions is only a belief. But having your pregnancy terminated is reality. So, other than shaming and threatening her, what can you do for her?

I think that you are probably just another well-meaning good person, who can't see the trees, because of the forest. A person's private choice to control their own reproductive system, trumps your archaic, oversimplified, and one-dimensional belief system. Life is just not binary.

I have seen what many young mothers go through before and after having an abortion. And, I may not always support their decision. But, I will always support their right to make it. I mean how dare anyone make this heart-wrenching decision for them. Just who do they think they are? Since you ignored my condom analogy, clearly you are not interested in any open-minded discourse.
Ok.....I'm glad to see your reply.

Firstly, I agree that you did a fair amount of investigation, & your conclusions....based on your investigation's findings......would back up your position, except that your major assumption relies on one flawed aspect......you state that the today's United States Supreme Court can't overturn a 1973 Supreme Court's decision. If that is a foundation of your argument, that's where your house of cards will most probably come thunderously tumbling down.

The decision that the 1973 Supreme Court rendered was based on the "opinions" held by that Court back in 1973, & being so, is subject of being revisited & challenged in 2021/2022.....or at any time in the future for that matter, by any subsequent Supreme Court. Those "opinions", regardless of how sound you may think the '73 Court's "opinions" were, they are nothing more than what they were.......mere "opinions", capable of being disagreed with, argued, & found incorrect.

There is no 'Right to an Abortion' in the United States Constitution, so today's Court would merely need to decide that the previous Court's "opinionated" decision, allowing abortion, was in error & was flawed, either in part or in full in the opinion of today's Supreme Court. Such a decision would, as are all decisions by the Supreme Court, would not be subject to appeal.

Now, if there was an amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically stating that a woman had a "Right to an Abortion", then there could be no argument. It would have to be accepted as a 'bona fide' Constitutional Right of the American People to an abortion......case closed.


That said, past United States Supreme Courts have overturned far more than 250 prior Supreme Court decisions. Even though Roe has been precedent for 47 years......longer than most cases that have been overturned......there have been quite a few 'opinionated' cases previously held as "settled law" for longer than Roe has stood, that have fallen before subsequent Supreme Courts with strong differing "opinions".

⮞ See: List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

Roe v. Wade is not "settled law" by any means, & being a 'Right to an Abortion' is not now, nor has it ever been a Right within the United States Constitution, it is fair game to any subsequent Supreme Court to decide contrary to the 1973 decision that you depend on.

⮞ Also, please see this relevant article by CNN: The Supreme Court has overturned more than 300 rulings. Is Roe next?


..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Firstly, I agree that you did a fair amount of investigation, & your conclusions....based on your investigation's findings......would back up your position, except that your major assumption relies on one flawed aspect......you state that the today's United States Supreme Court can't overturn a 1973 Supreme Court's decision. If that is a foundation of your argument, that's where your house of cards will most probably come thunderously tumbling down.
What is all these straw man about? Where do I state, that the supreme court CAN'T overturn it's own rulings? Nowhere. So, what foundation are you talking about? Who has stated that the Supreme Court CAN'T overturn its decisions? Times change, and Justices are human.


American law operates under the doctrine of "stare decisis", which means that any prior decisions by the courts should be maintained. Even if the current court would otherwise rule differently. And, that all lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. There are only two ways to overturn a supreme court's decision.

  • States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times(very rare).
  • The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations.
These are indeed no easy feat. So, can we please stay focused on the abortion topic?

There is no 'Right to an Abortion' in the United States Constitution, so today's Court would merely need to decide that the previous Court's "opinionated" decision, allowing abortion, was in error & was flawed, either in part or in full in the opinion of today's Supreme Court. Such a decision would, as are all decisions by the Supreme Court, would not be subject to appeal.

Now, if there was an amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically stating that a woman had a "Right to an Abortion", then there could be no argument. It would have to be accepted as a 'bona fide' Constitutional Right of the American People to an abortion......case closed.
I agree. Just like there is no specific mention in the Constitution, that states must be separated from religion. But, it has always been the court's rulings that have defined the INTENT and PURPOSE of all the Constitutional Amendments. Clearly internet commerce, abortion, or gun control, were also never a written part of the original constitution. The Constitution was meant to be fluid, adaptable, and dynamic. Not static.

I see you totally ignored all my questions, by deflecting to the fact that the Supreme Court COULD overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. Simply because it has overturned other decisions in the past. Since this decision has NOT been overturned, it is not relevant.

I don't blame you for ignoring my questions. To basically say, "tough shit", and force expected mothers to either take their pregnancies to term, regardless of their circumstances, or to be forced to seek out backyard butchers and opportunists looking only for their next buck. This only demonstrates the same insensitive callous selfish mindset, that we see in all religious fundamentalists. This is just another sad attempt by very insecure people to control the clock, by trying to force their personal beliefs onto others. Clearly you don't really care about the child. Unless, you think that it is great idea, that a child be raised by a mother that doesn't want him/her

What if the government addressed the problem of abortion, by arresting/fining all prepubescent males, who refuse to be vasectomized or to wear a condom? I'm sure you would be the first person in line bitching about your constitutional right of privacy. But, because it is only a woman's basic right to control her own reproductive system, it somehow gives you the right control it.

What I can't understand is, if a pregnant woman doesn't want to terminate her pregnancy, then she doesn't have to. But if any pregnant woman does choose to terminate her own pregnancy, her decision has absolutely nothing to do with you. What exactly is your role in the decisions made by any expected parents, or by any single parent? This is about CHOICE, not just RIGHTS!! So please no more pictures of NON-ABORTED newborns, or using the term murder. This is just another appeal to pathos, by disseminating disinformation, and by misrepresenting the facts out of context.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
What is all these straw man about? Where do I state, that the supreme court CAN'T overturn it's own rulings? Nowhere. So, what foundation are you talking about? Who has stated that the Supreme Court CAN'T overturn its decisions? Times change, and Justices are human.


American law operates under the doctrine of "stare decisis", which means that any prior decisions by the courts should be maintained. Even if the current court would otherwise rule differently. And, that all lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. There are only two ways to overturn a supreme court's decision.

  • States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times(very rare).
  • The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations.
These are indeed no easy feat. So, can we please stay focused on the abortion topic?



I agree. Just like there is no specific mention in the Constitution, that states must be separated from religion. But, it has always been the court's rulings that have defined the INTENT and PURPOSE of all the Constitutional Amendments. Clearly internet commerce, abortion, or gun control, were also never a written part of the original constitution. The Constitution was meant to be fluid, adaptable, and dynamic. Not static.

I see you totally ignored all my questions, by deflecting to the fact that the Supreme Court COULD overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. Simply because it has overturned other decisions in the past. Since this decision has NOT been overturned, it is not relevant.

I don't blame you for ignoring my questions. To basically say, "tough shit", and force expected mothers to either take their pregnancies to term, regardless of their circumstances, or to be forced to seek out backyard butchers and opportunists looking only for their next buck. This only demonstrates the same insensitive callous selfish mindset, that we see in all religious fundamentalists. This is just another sad attempt by very insecure people to control the clock, by trying to force their personal beliefs onto others. Clearly you don't really care about the child. Unless, you think that it is great idea, that a child be raised by a mother that doesn't want him/her

What if the government addressed the problem of abortion, by arresting/fining all prepubescent males, who refuse to be vasectomized or to wear a condom? I'm sure you would be the first person in line bitching about your constitutional right of privacy. But, because it is only a woman's basic right to control her own reproductive system, it somehow gives you the right control it.

What I can't understand is, if a pregnant woman doesn't want to terminate her pregnancy, then she doesn't have to. But if any pregnant woman does choose to terminate her own pregnancy, her decision has absolutely nothing to do with you. What exactly is your role in the decisions made by any expected parents, or by any single parent? This is about CHOICE, not just RIGHTS!! So please no more pictures of NON-ABORTED newborns, or using the term murder. This is just another appeal to pathos, by disseminating disinformation, and by misrepresenting the facts out of context.

start with the 2nd........ it's a fucking amendment so it has already been changed at least once.

that will piss DRX off more, a bragging, gun toting high horse riding hypocritical so called man preaching to women about how they can't choose what to do with their own bodies. where is the freedom in that? land of the free?........ those bible thumping, gun loving hypocrites should mind their own fucking business :biker
 
Last edited:
Top