AggieHammer2000 said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

" I am ok with the fed govt staying out of it completely. Small govt is good."

But you said earlier you are against states deciding. Are we down to cities or neighborhoods? You are clueless and grasping at straws to try and support something evil.

---

Never once said that I am against states deciding. I literally said I am ok with the decision. I only said other states that allow abortion should not be saddled with any issues from states that don't allow it. Everyone on this board is about personal responsibility, until **** gets real.

---

If Texas bans all voluntary, non-life threatening (to the mother carrying the baby) abortions/terminations, how would another state be saddled with that cost? If a girl leaves Texas and has an abortion at a PP in Nevada/Commiefornia, how would the state be saddled with those costs? Most PP earn federal funding (for whatever reason until Trump), how would that state be saddled with the burden?

Are you talking about taxes? Crime? What?

Conception is the miracle of life. A baby is created. God does not make mistakes.

Line Ate Member said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

" I am ok with the fed govt staying out of it completely. Small govt is good."

But you said earlier you are against states deciding. Are we down to cities or neighborhoods? You are clueless and grasping at straws to try and support something evil.

---

Never once said that I am against states deciding. I literally said I am ok with the decision. I only said other states that allow abortion should not be saddled with any issues from states that don't allow it. Everyone on this board is about personal responsibility, until **** gets real.

---

If Texas bans all voluntary, non-life threatening (to the mother carrying the baby) abortions/terminations, how would another state be saddled with that cost? If a girl leaves Texas and has an abortion at a PP in Nevada/Commiefornia, how would the state be saddled with those costs? Most PP earn federal funding (for whatever reason until Trump), how would that state be saddled with the burden?

Are you talking about taxes? Crime? What?

---

Go back to my profile and follow the thread. I was watching the Mavs and got a little caught up in the debate.

Clown Baby said:

---

Quote:

---

God does not make mistakes.

---

Mk, if you say so.

---

Spawns of Satan don't count

I would expect Satan's spawn to be a little more intimidating. Brian here looks like he has more toes than chromosomes, to be frank.

I ain't buyin it.

S***, maybe that's something we can all come together on. Only in the case of rape, incest, or Brian Stelter.

Clown Baby said:

---

I would expect Satan's spawn to be a little more intimidating. Brian looks like he has more toes than chromosomes.

I ain't buyin it.

---

This is just his human form, unassuming on purpose, right before he transforms into his true form

Line Ate Member said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

" I am ok with the fed govt staying out of it completely. Small govt is good."

But you said earlier you are against states deciding. Are we down to cities or neighborhoods? You are clueless and grasping at straws to try and support something evil.

---

Never once said that I am against states deciding. I literally said I am ok with the decision. I only said other states that allow abortion should not be saddled with any issues from states that don't allow it. Everyone on this board is about personal responsibility, until **** gets real.

---

If Texas bans all voluntary, non-life threatening (to the mother carrying the baby) abortions/terminations, how would another state be saddled with that cost? If a girl leaves Texas and has an abortion at a PP in Nevada/Commiefornia, how would the state be saddled with those costs? Most PP earn federal funding (for whatever reason until Trump), how would that state be saddled with the burden?

Are you talking about taxes? Crime? What?

---

Where do Federal tax dollars come from, unicorns?

Well the DNC is going to be losing one of its largest funds of kickbacks.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

aggiebq03+ said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Why should a state allowing abortion be saddled with the unwanted children of states that don't allow abortion.

---

Because the federal government should stay out of anything not explicitly written in the constitution. And only the federal government could force one state to pay for something in another state.

---

Good point. Now let's move on to immigration....

---

Let's instead stick to the topic of the thread. Happy to participate in an immigration thread if you have some points you want to discuss.

Frankly, I think everyone should tap the brakes on celebrating already. There is a lot of game yet to be played here and conservatives generally play prevent defense when they actually get a lead.

That aside, the two outcomes I've seen pushed by Democrats if Roe v Wade is overturned are confusing to me:

1. It will lead to many deaths.
- It doesn't already?

2. It infringes upon women's and men's rights and restricts freedoms.
- Since when did men have any say in a woman's right to choose according to a Democrat?

- Democrats are on record in the last two weeks that they want to limit free speech. Why is it ok to gut 1A, but not ok to punt a decision back to the states that has nothing to do with the constitution?

- What freedom is actually being limited? I would wager 90% of the population is within 3-4 hours of an abortion clinic via plane, bus, or car. This is no different than many other life threatening illnesses that require specialized diagnosis, care, and treatment. Are we going to start protesting that we don't have ALS specialty treatment centers in every county?

The abolition of stare decisis is quite shocking.

Thread started around 8 PM when I went to bed and already at 17 pages at 4 AM?

Gotta be some kind of record.

Artorias said:

---

Clown Baby said:

---

Quote:

---

God does not make mistakes.

---

Mk, if you say so.

---

Spawns of Satan don't count

---

Quote:

---

Thread started around 8 PM when I went to bed and already at 17 pages at 4 AM?

Gotta be some kind of record.

---

Nah, pretty sure the 2016 election thread grew faster.
Any football game thread grows faster, I'm sure.

Whoever leaked the documents should be aborted.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Liberals are concerned about women's "right to choose" whether to have a baby. That's fine. Women do have that right. They can choose not to have a baby by using contraception and refusing to **** a guy without a condom.

If they get pregnant though, that choice is no longer about whether to have a baby, because they have one. Now the choice is whether to kill a baby. I don't believe in that right at all, in any way shape or form unless it is a non-viable pregnancy that poses a danger to the mother.

Women can have their right to choose. It just ends at conception and the creation of another another human life.

---

In the case of error or accident, the women will carry to term and bear those related costs. What costs and burden should the male carry? It seems like you want the guys to have all the fun but the girls to pay all the bills.

ProgN said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

TyHolden said:

---

MSNBC saying this is what Libs need for November....prepare for Soros-paid wars on US cities

---

Yep, they think they were just handed the keys to absolute power come November as they can nuke the filibuster and do anything and everything they want.

---

I don't think Manchin would go along with that and they need his vote.

---

It's not just Manchin you have to worry about. What about Collins, Sinema, Murkowski, and Romney?

Quote:

---

It's not just Manchin you have to worry about. What about Collins, Sinema, Murkowski, and Romney?

---

None of them will nuke the filibuster over this

The single greatest moment, politically, in my lifetime. One day, the rest of America will feel the same way. When that day comes, we will have a recognizable country again.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

In the case of error or accident, the women will carry to term and bear those related costs. What costs and burden should the male carry? It seems like you want the guys to have all the fun but the girls to pay all the bills.

---

Ever heard of something called court-ordered "child support"?

Might be time to invest in companies who provide paternity testing

---

How is father determined before birth? And child support system is a controversial, inexact, and abused. It has its own set of unintended consequences.

I would argue when the solution is more government intervention into the private lives of its citizens we should be wary.

FincAg said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Clown Baby said:

---

Quote:

---

God does not make mistakes.

---

Mk, if you say so.

---

Spawns of Satan don't count

---

---

Quote:

---

How is father determined before birth? And child support system is a controversial, inexact, and abused.

---

Why would it be necessary to determine the father before birth? Child support may be all of these things and more, but you're never going to find a perfect solution to a problem derived from a lack of personal responsibility. Murdering the unborn wasn't exactly a universally accepted option either.