Author Topic: Tomi Lahren: Conservatives Who Go After Roe “Might as Well Spit on the Constitution”  (Read 12194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,842
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Ahh.  So now this little baby of which you are so solicitous is just a “consequence”, a punishment to be visited on naughty girls who don’t keep their knees together before marriage. 

Doesn’t sound like you’re all that concerned about the child after all.  Just about punishing “loose” women.

I never said that..to me a baby will always be a miracle...
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Oceander

  • Guest
I never said that..to me a baby will always be a miracle...

I agree.  But using the terminology of consequences takes away the miracle and justifies its continued existence as an instrument of punishment for a woman who didn’t keep her knees together.

Offline endicom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,113
Really?  They are intimately connected to another human being’s blood supply and housed inside that human being’s own body?


Dependent on the goodwill and monetary support of others. Not independently viable.


Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,842
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Wait... last night you were saying abortion shouldn't be permitted for just "the claim of rape".  Have you changed your mind?

No..not saying that at all. I was referring to how a baby was conceived..sex by mutual agreement or rape......the baby is still a baby no matter how it was conceived.
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
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.

I admit that I hate that millions of babies have been slaughtered in the name of "women's rights" and control over "her own body," both of which are lies (which you have used).

I admit that I hate the lie that people arguing for the torture and painful death of babies are using women as an excuse for their evil.

Abortion is evil.  It mutilates babies and harms women.

I'm sorry that you have been so inculcated with leftist propaganda that you believe what you've been saying here.

On other subjects where you are more rational, I will be happy to discuss issues with you.

On this one, you are a merely a puppet for the woman hating left, and I am the staunchest defender of women's rights on this board.

We will never agree..

(That's not hatred.  That's reality).
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
I agree.  But using the terminology of consequences takes away the miracle and justifies its continued existence as an instrument of punishment for a woman who didn’t keep her knees together.

Incorrect...under the scenario I proposed, she has the CONSEQUENCE of carrying the baby to term and then the father who wanted the child would have the honor, joy and responsibility of raising it.   I don’t believe a 9month consequence for a contract she entered into voluntarily is too much to ask in contrast to the taking of an innocent life. 
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,842
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
I agree.  But using the terminology of consequences takes away the miracle and justifies its continued existence as an instrument of punishment for a woman who didn’t keep her knees together.

Abortion has become birth control which I remember was argued that it never would become that..people too lazy to use some sort of contraception can always rely on an abortion.

I have read that most people who get abortions have done it several times
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline goodwithagun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Gender: Female
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 10:51:09 pm by goodwithagun »
I stand with Roosgirl.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
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.

Yes, undoubtedly. But it is their uninformed and myopic view that allows for it.

To wit: How many women still believe in abortion after having held child to breast? Every mother I know instinctively knows that the child is not for her, but that she is for the child. An instinct so primitive and profound cannot be modernized by sophistry.

Rudyard said it best:
Quote

   But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
    Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
    And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
    The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

    She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
    May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
    These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
    She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

    She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
    As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
    And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
    Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

    She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
    He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

   Excerpt - The Female of the Species, by Rudyard Kipling


There is *nothing* - NOTHING that a woman can EVER do, that will ever mean more than that which these few would deny. There is nothing more noble. There is nothing more honorable. There is nothing more important than that child she has. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, indeed.

Those that would sully such a thing for the mere escape from consequence are woefully blind, and bent upon coarser things...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 10:52:55 pm by roamer_1 »

Offline goodwithagun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Gender: Female
Yes, undoubtedly. But it is their uninformed and myopic view that allows for it.

To wit: How many women still believe in abortion after having held child to breast? Every mother I know instinctively knows that the child is not for her, but that she is for the child. An instinct so primitive and profound cannot be modernized by sophistry.

Rudyard said it best:
There is *nothing* - NOTHING that a woman can EVER do, that will ever mean more than that which these few would deny. There is nothing more noble. There is nothing more honorable. There is nothing more important than that child she has. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, indeed.

Those that would sully such a thing for the mere escape from consequence are woefully blind, and bent upon coarser things...

The most empowering experience ever: growing a human being and physically bringing it into this world.
I stand with Roosgirl.

Offline the_doc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,171
The right was ALWAYS there.  It is a natural right of a human being to have self-determination over his or her destiny.   The Constitution was established to protect our natural rights from the tyranny of the State.   

Sixty years ago the government could forbid the use of contraceptives.  Forty years ago the government could force a pregnant woman to reproduce.   Yes,  science has advanced greatly since the 70s, but so has our respect for the rights and equality before the law of women.   

The patriarchy is dead.   Get used to it.

A baby in the womb is a being, and he or she is definitely human.  He or she is therefore a person.  The baby has unalienable rights--the most important of which is the right to life--even if the baby cannot "self-determine its destiny."  And your point about a woman's right to self-determination does not give a woman the right to murder her baby--because the BABY has the right to life.

The baby is not just "part of the woman's body."  Such a notion is anatomically repugnant, not to mention morally repugnant.  It is an anatomical and philosophical fraud designed to cover up the fact that abortion is one person murdering another person.

Your points about what the government did 60 years ago and 40 years ago have nothing to do with anything in the argument.  We are talking about your supposed "right to murder"--which you have (alas, very stupidly) styled as a lovely thing of "self-determination";  we are not talking about government overreach in the past.  You are just muddying the water with the legal manure of bad law-making.  And speaking of bad law-making in the past, Roe v Wade was a horrific overreach of law-making by a bunch of reprobates in black robes.  If I recall correctly, the crucial claim of "Constitutionality" in the Roe v Wade decision was not about "self-determination" except as such "self-determination" was falsely centered on the right to privacy--which is a completely nonsensical right when it supposedly concerns a right to murder.  (Your side's supposed "right of privacy" is certainly not some kind of Fourth Amendment thing "woven through the entire fabric of the Constitution."  And it goes without saying that your argument that the Constitution was established to protect our natural rights from the tyranny of the State is just self-righteous window-dressing--since no one has the natural right to commit murder.)

As the brilliant Christian intellectual John Silber once pointed out (in a famous debate with Madelyn Murray O'Hair, I believe) you do not have even have an unrestricted right of self-determination.  Laws are necessary for protection of our rights.  And speaking of self-determination--specifically, the argument that a woman has "the right to do as she wishes with her own body"--Silber went on to say she doesn't even have the unrestricted right to wiggle her own index finger.  It's because she has no such "right" when her finger is on the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a baby's head. 

In short, your argument about natural rights is monumentally stupid. 

I hate to say that to someone whom I have tried to maintain as a friend here on TBR, but your phony "Constitutional argument" goes way beyond the pale.  As a person who would still hope to call you a friend, I have to be faithful enough to you to confront you with the fact that you have neither genuinely legal nor genuinely moral legs to stand on.  Unfortunately, you just don't care enough to face your own hypocrisy.  You just want women to be able to murder their kids.  (Are you pro-Agenda 21, too?  Most of the really powerful liberals in the world seem to love Agenda 21.  [And a lot of white liberals evidently do want black women to be able to abort their babies.  It's Margaret Sanger's attitude secretly updated.]) 

My bottom-line point is that the spirit of liberalism is the spirit of murder.  It is conspicuously evil.  It is so conspicuously evil as to be sick, even downright DISGUSTING.  That is the reason why Roe v Wade should be overturned.  It's an evil ruling.  We've had more than one of those in the past, of course.  But I think Roe v Wade is probably the worst.

By the way, our whole world is monstrously sick in our day.  Children are being raped, tortured and murdered by ghouls all over the world.  I respectfully urge you to get well away from the liberals.  Demeaning unborn babies as non-persons who can be sacrificed without penalty or even remorse is the tip of a horrible iceberg of wickedness in our day.  The whole mess of murdering kids for convenience or for power is probably the biggest scandal in the history of mankind.  And the revelations about this network are going to break soon.         
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 11:04:52 pm by the_doc »

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
Abortion has become birth control which I remember was argued that it never would become that..people too lazy to use some sort of contraception can always rely on an abortion.

I have read that most people who get abortions have done it several times

Sanger's eugenics at work.
The largest percentage of women having abortions are poor and African-american, just like Sanger wanted.
No one wants to hear that or believe it.
I had someone tell me the other day that if you are poor and southern, it was harder to get an abortion.
I pointed out to her that one of the largest PP clinics in the nation was in Houston, so that didn't wash.
It seems to be rich white liberal women who speak out the loudest in favor of it.
Wonder why? Sanger's eugenics philosophy?
Could be Tomi Lahren is just that, a rich liberal white woman.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 10:59:36 pm by GrouchoTex »

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
You can twist words all you want[...]

I twisted nothing, The very reason *for* the abortion is to curtail the child's viability. That is indeed the matter of fact.

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,432
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Ahh.  So now this little baby of which you are so solicitous is just a “consequence”, a punishment to be visited on naughty girls who don’t keep their knees together before marriage. 

Doesn’t sound like you’re all that concerned about the child after all.  Just about punishing “loose” women.

Well, it's sure clear your type don't, if the baby is torn to pieces, burned by saline solution and so on.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
The most empowering experience ever: growing a human being and physically bringing it into this world.

And I cannot honor that enough.
There is no woman more powerful than a woman surrounded by her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. That is what these few would take away.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Sanger's eugenics at work.
The largest percentage of women having abortions are poor and African-american, just like Sanger wanted.
No one wants to hear that or believe it.
I had someone tell me the other day that if you are poor and southern, it was harder to get an abortion.
I pointed out to her that one of the largest PP clinics in the nation was in Houston, so that didn't wash.
It seems to be rich white liberal women who speak out the loudest in favor of it.
Wonder why? Sanger's eugenics philosophy?
Could be Tomi Lahren is just that, a rich liberal white woman.

65% of all US abortions are hispanic & black babies.

Its ironic that those screaming loudest for the 'right to choose' seem to be the same kind who will whip out the race card on a dime.

Oceander

  • Guest

Dependent on the goodwill and monetary support of others. Not independently viable.



Then not comparable. 

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Oceander

  • Guest
I twisted nothing, The very reason *for* the abortion is to curtail the child's viability. That is indeed the matter of fact.

It’s not viable until it can live outside the uterus.  You can twist words all you want, but what matters is whether, at the point in time the woman attempts to abort it, it can live outside the uterus.  If it cannot, then it is not viable, no matter what it might become later on. 

You are simply playing empty word games because you have no real argument to make. 

Offline goodwithagun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Gender: Female
And I cannot honor that enough.
There is no woman more powerful than a woman surrounded by her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. That is what these few would take away.

I just don’t understand why pro abortion women want to make it easier for men to use them. The irony of claiming empowerment, yet supporting a horrific execution method so that men can just use their holes and walk away. Yay feminism.
I stand with Roosgirl.

Oceander

  • Guest
Incorrect...under the scenario I proposed, she has the CONSEQUENCE of carrying the baby to term and then the father who wanted the child would have the honor, joy and responsibility of raising it.   I don’t believe a 9month consequence for a contract she entered into voluntarily is too much to ask in contrast to the taking of an innocent life. 

Nonsense.  You want to turn the unconsenting woman into a thing to be at the disposal of the father, and subject to his control.  You want to give him greater rights over her body than you would give her over her own body.


Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
It’s not viable until it can live outside the uterus.

Then there is no need for abortion. It is not viable, and will be reabsorbed, as you have so deftly put it. There! Problem solved!

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
65% of all US abortions are hispanic & black babies.

Its ironic that those screaming loudest for the 'right to choose' seem to be the same kind who will whip out the race card on a dime.

Or maybe not so ironic.

Abortion disguised as a "woman's right" is a diabolical cover for the Progressive desire to rid the world of undesirables.

Their pretense at caring about race and defending minorities is merely part of that cover.

Unfortunately, the radical left has succeeded in convincing the gullible that they are sincere in their concern for both minorities and women.

They don't give a rip about either group.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Nonsense.  You want to turn the unconsenting woman into a thing to be at the disposal of the father, and subject to his control.  You want to give him greater rights over her body than you would give her over her own body.

More fantasy with no basis in truth.

But you have the leftist jargon down pat, for sure, ludicrous as it is.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Oceander

  • Guest
A baby in the womb is a being, and he or she is definitely human.  He or she is therefore a person.  The baby has unalienable rights--the most important of which is the right to life--even if the baby cannot "self-determine its destiny."  And your point about a woman's right to self-determination does not give a woman the right to murder her baby--because the BABY has the right to life.

The baby is not just "part of the woman's body."  Such a notion is anatomically repugnant, not to mention morally repugnant.  It is an anatomical and philosophical fraud designed to cover up the fact that abortion is one person murdering another person.

Your points about what the government did 60 years ago and 40 years ago have nothing to do with anything in the argument.  We are talking about your supposed "right to murder"--which you have (alas, very stupidly) styled as a lovely thing of "self-determination";  we are not talking about government overreach in the past.  You are just muddying the water with the legal manure of bad law-making.  And speaking of bad law-making in the past, Roe v Wade was a horrific overreach of law-making by a bunch of reprobates in black robes.  If I recall correctly, the crucial claim of "Constitutionality" in the Roe v Wade decision was not about "self-determination" except as such "self-determination" was falsely centered on the right to privacy--which is a completely nonsensical right when it supposedly concerns a right to murder.  (Your side's supposed "right of privacy" is certainly not some kind of Fourth Amendment thing "woven through the entire fabric of the Constitution."  And it goes without saying that your argument that the Constitution was established to protect our natural rights from the tyranny of the State is just self-righteous window-dressing--since no one has the natural right to commit murder.)

As the brilliant Christian intellectual John Silber once pointed out (in a famous debate with Madelyn Murray O'Hair, I believe) you do not have even have an unrestricted right of self-determination.  Laws are necessary for protection of our rights.  And speaking of self-determination--specifically, the argument that a woman has "the right to do as she wishes with her own body"--Silber went on to say she doesn't even have the unrestricted right to wiggle her own index finger.  It's because she has no such "right" when her finger is on the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a baby's head. 

In short, your argument about natural rights is monumentally stupid. 

I hate to say that to someone whom I have tried to maintain as a friend here on TBR, but your phony "Constitutional argument" goes way beyond the pale.  As a person who would still hope to call you a friend, I have to be faithful enough to you to confront you with the fact that you have neither genuinely legal nor genuinely moral legs to stand on.  Unfortunately, you just don't care enough to face your own hypocrisy.  You just want women to be able to murder their kids.  (Are you pro-Agenda 21, too?  Most of the really powerful liberals in the world seem to love Agenda 21.  [And a lot of white liberals evidently do want black women to be able to abort their babies.  It's Margaret Sanger's attitude secretly updated.]) 

My bottom-line point is that the spirit of liberalism is the spirit of murder.  It is conspicuously evil.  It is so conspicuously evil as to be sick, even downright DISGUSTING.  That is the reason why Roe v Wade should be overturned.  It's an evil ruling.  We've had more than one of those in the past, of course.  But I think Roe v Wade is probably the worst.

By the way, our whole world is monstrously sick in our day.  Children are being raped, tortured and murdered by ghouls all over the world.  I respectfully urge you to get well away from the liberals.  Demeaning unborn babies as non-persons who can be sacrificed without penalty or even remorse is the tip of a horrible iceberg of wickedness in our day.  The whole mess of murdering kids for convenience or for power is probably the biggest scandal in the history of mankind.  And the revelations about this network are going to break soon.         

More drivel and nonsense.  You can bandy the word “murder” around all you want, but it doesn’t cut it, because all sorts of killing of one human by another is routinely not only permitted, but celebrated. 

Shoot an innocent kid by accident because you thought you were defending yourself, and you don’t get charged with murder, for example.