Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”

[DCPatriot]

I wish Tomi and the other fake Trump supporters skiddaddle to support Hillary, Evangelicals voted Trump in, no, not everyone did. There were protests or boycotts at Liberty but in the overall scheme, they are the prime reason he is in the White House, at least one of the top 3 reasons. Evangelicals are largely pro-life.  Any reasonable research shows all of this to be so.

Tomi Lahren has a method to her madness...doubling down on the NBC interview today.

1) She lost her job with BLAZE (Beck) for offering a Pro-Choice POV.

2) She recognizes NOW is the opportunity for her to grab on with somebody.  Even an alphabet network.
She can be a 'star' speaking from a Conservative woman's POV.

But make no mistake.  She is CONSERVATIVE in every other sense, and will have to bite her tongue raw.

[musiclady]

Exactly.  The child is being used as punishment by those who deny a woman the right to control her body at any point after the sex act.  It is they who are using the child as an instrument of punishment to punish the woman for not keeping her knees closed.

LOL!

Now I know you're not serious.   

btw, I will repeat this little fact that you deny.  A baby is not "her mother's body."  You, Oceander, were never, ever, ever your mother's body. 

You were you from conception.

That is science.  What you are claiming is a lie.

You are a science denier.

[roamer_1]

You are arguing that the convenience of a woman whose behavior has been irresponsible is more important that the life of a human child.

Which invokes my catch-all phrase:

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

What we had, once upon a time, was liberty.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

...and viability has, and always will be, an argument.
The last I've noticed, viability is scientifically being skewed closer and closer towards the time conception, dropping from months to weeks.
I'm reading that heartbeats and brain functions are happening in the womb sooner than previously thought.

And now, for a hypothetical:

Could you foresee a day when a pregnant women, wanting to abort, could, in fact, transfer the baby via "Brave New World" to a test tube type situation, whereby the father, who wanted the child, could bring it to term?

As the Shakespeare quote that Huxley borrowed from says "O, brave new world that has such people in't!”

Sure, it could happen.  And at that point, if the technology were available, the government could impose on the woman’s right to abort because it would be in a position to take over the gestation of the fetus. But it would have to do so in a meaningful way, not just in some empty artificial way. 

[roamer_1]

Until the fetus is viable, her right to control her own body trumps whatever rights the fetus may have.

The baby IS viable. Leave him alone.

[Oceander]

As far as viability goes, the same arguments can be made for some of the infirm and aged.

Really?  They are intimately connected to another human being’s blood supply and housed inside that human being’s own body?

[Oceander]

The baby IS viable. Leave him alone.

When it reaches actual viability, then you have a claim; until then, you do not.  Until then, you are simply an interloper who wishes to control another human being against her own wishes. 

[musiclady]

Hardly.  You don’t know anything about me, you just know that I don’t subscribe to your own religious convictions, and you hate me for that. 

Your patronizing misogyny is breathtaking, particularly considering that you are a woman.

Wow.

You've just jumped off the deep end without a life preserver. 

But I think you've caught the disease of calling anyone with whom you cannot win an argument based on truth, a "hater."

Pretty funny, considering that you make a pretense of being so cerebral and all.  Your leftist religion has apparently turned your brain to jello.

Abortion kills human beings and does irreparable harm to women.

And you know it.

We'll talk again if and when you recover your rationality.   Until then.........

Bye.

[Right_in_Virginia]

NO.

She is the only female here who has no respect for her own gender.

Big whoop. You clearly have no idea what "respect" means @musiclady. 

Besides, I've known you for years and have long thought you were part of the super secret Christian Sanhedrin.  Let the record show you've not done anything to convince me otherwise.

BTW-- it has long been other women who have driven the pregnant woman to the closet in search of a coat hanger.  Sadly, little has changed.

[Oceander]

Wow.

You've just jumped off the deep end without a life preserver. 

But I think you've caught the disease of calling anyone with whom you cannot win an argument based on truth, a "hater."

Pretty funny, considering that you make a pretense of being so cerebral and all.  Your leftist religion has apparently turned your brain to jello.

Abortion kills human beings and does irreparable harm to women.

And you know it.

We'll talk again if and when you recover your rationality.   Until then.........

Bye.

Just feeding your own hatred back at you.  You apparently haven’t read what you’ve been posting. 

[roamer_1]

When it reaches actual viability, then you have a claim; until then, you do not.  Until then, you are simply an interloper who wishes to control another human being against her own wishes.

The baby IS viable, at any given time if left alone. Leave the baby be.

[musiclady]

Which invokes my catch-all phrase:

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

What we had, once upon a time, was liberty.

The left has never been interested in human liberty.

And they clearly are continuing to succeed in taking it away from us....

It's interesting how they distort vocabulary and the meaning of words to make their specious arguments, isn't it?

[DCPatriot]

Please!   Everyone take a deep breath.

Leave the thread for a half hour if you're getting into it with somebody.

Thank you!

[roamer_1]

It's interesting how they distort vocabulary and the meaning of words to make their specious arguments, isn't it?

They're not distorting vocabulary... It is their view that is distorted. They cannot see.

[musiclady]

Just feeding your own hatred back at you.  You apparently haven’t read what you’ve been posting.

Yeah.............. actually I have.

You don't respect women.  You don't respect liberty.   And you vomit the propaganda of the left.

If you don't like that being pointed out, then don't make such ridiculous arguments.

Devil's advocate or no, your words make you look foolish, illogical, irrational and unscientific ........

[Oceander]

The baby IS viable, at any given time if left alone. Leave the baby be.

No, it isn’t. It is only viable if it is capable of living outside the uterus. Until that point it is not viable.  It might become viable at some point, but until then it is nonviable. 

[musiclady]

They're not distorting vocabulary... It is their view that is distorted. They cannot see.

But the left has a long history of changing language to convince the gullible that their lies are truth.

There is no better illustration of that than in the argument in favor of murdering the pre-born human.

[GrouchoTex]

Sure, it could happen.  And at that point, if the technology were available, the government could impose on the woman’s right to abort because it would be in a position to take over the gestation of the fetus. But it would have to do so in a meaningful way, not just in some empty artificial way.

@Oceander

Not necessarily the Government taking over the fetus, per se.
Let's say there was an registry, like for organ transplants.
The biological father would have first choice, followed by her own adult family members, etc.
If they passed on the opportunity, there could be to a pre-approved adoption registry, like they do for organ transplant recipients.

Hey, just a thought.

I'm pro-life, and I'd like to see abortion curtailed as much as possible, by these means, or morning after pill availability, or whatever it would take.
I'd rather find a solution to it than holler at one another across the table.
I'm pro-life enough to be anti death penalty, but not anti self-defense, but those are discussions for another time and place.

[goodwithagun]

Why don't you just throw a choke collar around your woman and tie her up in the backyard till you're needing her.   After all, it's the Lord's design that she be good for only two things in this whole damn world.

Literally nobody has said that. Quit lying, pro abortion @Right_in_Virginia .

[Oceander]

Yeah.............. actually I have.

You don't respect women.  You don't respect liberty.   And you vomit the propaganda of the left.

If you don't like that being pointed out, then don't make such ridiculous arguments.

Devil's advocate or no, your words make you look foolish, illogical, irrational and unscientific ........

No, actually, you haven’t.  That’s evident because you think you’ve made some sort of argument when all you’ve done is spew bile about how evil anyone who would countenance abortion is, and thrown out ad hominems about how such people don’t respect women. As if turning a woman into an involuntary incubator - a mere thing - for the sake of a zygote that cannot live outside the uterus is the epitome of respect. 

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Not necessarily the Government taking over the fetus, per se.
Let's say there was an registry, like for organ transplants.
The biological father would have first choice, followed by her own adult family members, etc.
If they passed on the opportunity, there could be to a pre-approved adoption registry, like they do for organ transplant recipients.

Hey, just a thought.

I'm pro-life, and I'd like to see abortion curtailed as much as possible, by these means, or morning after pill availability, or whatever it would take.
I'd rather find a solution to it than holler at one another across the table.
I'm pro-life enough to be anti death penalty, but not anti self-defense, but those are discussions for another time and place.

I can see that working.  It’s too bad the technology isn’t here now. 

[Oceander]

They're not distorting vocabulary... It is their view that is distorted. They cannot see.

Right back atcha, sport. 

[GrouchoTex]

I can see that working.  It’s too bad the technology isn’t here now.

@Oceander
I am hoping it isn't that far away.
As we all know, couples can already have another woman carry a baby for them, fertilized outside of the womb and implanted.

[roamer_1]

No, it isn’t. It is only viable if it is capable of living outside the uterus. Until that point it is not viable.  It might become viable at some point, but until then it is nonviable.

No. That is an artificial benchmark, every bit as artificial as saying the child is not viable until 10, or 12, or 18 years old.

IN FACT: Left to the natural order of things, the baby IS viable, or the abortion would be unnecessary.

[Oceander]

No. That is an artificial benchmark, every bit as artificial as saying the child is not viable until 10, or 12, or 18 years old.

IN FACT: Left to the natural order of things, the baby IS viable, or the abortion would be unnecessary.

You can twist words all you want, but the fact of the matter is, until the fetus has the present ability to survive outside the uterus, it is not viable. Pull a two-week fetus out of the uterus and it will not survive no matter what technology you throw at it.  It is not viable.