Another "victory" for progressives

How about a dead baby, which the mother decided she wanted?? How many dead babies have resulted from a vaginal probe?? Links, please... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Yeah, she decided she wanted it after the general anesthetic didn't materialize. Mother of the year, for sure.

Oh my fucktard brothers... Your hypocrisy is exceeded only by your false morality!

I'm a bit perplexed at everyone's willingness to accept the allegations contained in a lawsuit.....filed by a anti-abortion law firm mill.... representing a plaintiff who probably wants millions of dollars.....as being 100% true, accurate and/or correct.

They rarely are, and I bet in this case, that there will be quite a different story told by the defendants regarding what occurred once they have a chance to respond to the allegations. It will be interesting to see what the real facts are, as they are developed in the case. I'll bet things didn't play out exactly as alleged in the plaintiff's lawsuit. Originally Posted by timpage

Yeah, since we only have one side of the story, all we can do is guesstimate based upon the one side we know.

Of course, some people only care about people before they're born and after they turn 18 and can join the military. That time inbetween? Fuck 'em.

I'm a bit perplexed at everyone's willingness to accept the allegations contained in a lawsuit.....filed by a anti-abortion law firm mill.... representing a plaintiff who probably wants millions of dollars.....as being 100% true, accurate and/or correct.

They rarely are, and I bet in this case, that there will be quite a different story told by the defendants regarding what occurred once they have a chance to respond to the allegations. It will be interesting to see what the real facts are, as they are developed in the case. I'll bet things didn't play out exactly as alleged in the plaintiff's lawsuit. Originally Posted by timpage

The same way you libtards are willing to accept the O'Blunder administrations' explanations for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc., etc., I guess??

There have been hearings on these issues, with witnesses under oath responding to questions by the elected representatives that represent your viewpoint on the matter. You know, the ones who got their asses handed to them by Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder while blustering and posturing like the idiots they are.

It's not over with but each side has had a fair chance to publicly present their positions. So, no. Not the same thing. I don't expect you to understand that since you are obviously a fucking knuckledragging retard, but you can try to grasp it in the interest of fairness. Good luck.

The same way you libtards are willing to accept the O'Blunder administrations' explanations for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc., etc., I guess?? Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Come on WTF, knock off the lying. I said "nut cake" not case. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Boy what a liar I am! You said nut cake, I said nut case. potato, patato

The policy you question is about abortion and not medical butchery. That is your claim. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If, and I can not stress if enough, what the lady claims is true, then it is a question about medical butchery, not abortion.

Also when you use the word "seems" it leaves open the possibility of flyers. Meaning that not everyone is a nut cake with left wing tendencies but occassionally there is just an apolitical nut cake. Of course if you found a right wing nut "case" then I'm sure that you would specify just how rare that was. Wouldn't you? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nut cakes/cases by their very nature are rare. If shootings were common, then we would call someone who didn't shoot another, a nut case/cake. What I said is that they come from both sides of the political spectrum. Only hypocrites can see it as a left/right issue.

Yeah, she decided she wanted it after the general anesthetic didn't materialize. Mother of the year, for sure. Originally Posted by timpage

Chick wanted an abortion...... unless the abortion hurts!

There have been hearings on these issues, with witnesses under oath responding to questions by the elected representatives that represent your viewpoint on the matter. You know, the ones who got their asses handed to them by Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder while blustering and posturing like the idiots they are.

It's not over with but each side has had a fair chance to publicly present their positions. So, no. Not the same thing. I don't expect you to understand that since you are obviously a fucking knuckledragging retard, but you can try to grasp it in the interest of fairness. Good luck. Originally Posted by timpage

Cite one complete, unequivocal answer that either one of those two gave the Congress. Also, whats the answer to where O'Blunder was on the night of Benghazi??

FYI; Toby Maquire, Tom Hanks, Raquel Welch, Celine Dion, Jay-Z, David Geffen, R.K. Rowling, and Oprah were all born poor. Terrible what happened to them. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

where's your born poor & stayed poor list at?

Cite one complete, unequivocal answer that either one of those two gave the Congress. Also, whats the answer to where O'Blunder was on the night of Benghazi?? Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

You can parse the answers and shove each one of them up your ass. If your incompetent senators weren't smart enough to elicit incriminating responses from witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination, then write a letter to your idiot senators who are so incompetent, or bereft of facts, that they can't get an answer that pleases you. Maybe the reason none of the dumbass questions that got asked didn't get the answers you hoped for is because there was no scandal, there was no intentional misconduct, there was no coverup. If you feel differently, then write your duly elected representative and bitch to them. They had their chance, they came away with shit.

You can parse the answers and shove each one of them up your ass. If your incompetent senators weren't smart enough to elicit incriminating responses from witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination, then write a letter to your idiot senators who are so incompetent, or bereft of facts, that they can't get an answer that pleases you. Maybe the reason none of the dumbass questions that got asked didn't get the answers you hoped for is because there was no scandal, there was no intentional misconduct, there was no coverup. If you feel differently, then write your duly elected representative and bitch to them. They had their chance, they came away with shit. Originally Posted by timpage

As I suspected, you've got nothing...

Chick wanted an abortion...... unless the abortion hurts!


Originally Posted by WTF

Who's choice was it to make? Apparently you oppose a woman's right to choose. So I guess if a woman ever decides to have an abortion, she is no longer allowed to not have one, even if she doesn't want it.

The right to choose is the right to choose. If she changed her mind because it hurt too much, THAT IS HER RIGHT! Instead, you would FORCE her to have the abortion, EVEN THOUGH SHE DECIDED SHE DIDN'T WANT IT!

Don't fucking tell me again, any of you libtards, that you are pro-choice. It's obvious you are not. Fucking hypocrites.

I'm a bit perplexed at everyone's willingness to accept the allegations contained in a lawsuit.....filed by a anti-abortion law firm mill.... representing a plaintiff who probably wants millions of dollars.....as being 100% true, accurate and/or correct. Originally Posted by timpage

NAILED IT!

Well put Timpage.

So because she filed a lawsuit because her rights were violated, the allegations are automatically lies? That's a pretty weak argument. If the judge or jury find out that the allegations are true, she deserves a large judgment. Her right to choose was violated. I think there should be criminal charges as well.

How strange, people who believe in abortion do not believe in a GOD...