"If you think republicans won’t try to ban in vitro fertilization, reminder that when Democrats voted last session to keep birth control legal in America 96% of republicans in Congress voted no. 96%!"
,
The Roman Catholic Church forbids, under the pain of mortal sin: Abortion, IVF, all contraception, (except the rhythm method, which guarantees unwanted pregnancies), including vasectomy. Period.
If fundamentalist Christians, Catholics and other religionists want to practice their religious prohibitions where reproduction is involved, they are free to do so. But fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, and other religionists have no right to force other religions and non believers to do the same.
Democrats should make sure that Americans know this.
Say it.
Say it loud and clear.
Contraception is next on the table.
We were assured that reproduction rights were safe, because of 50 years of settled law, then came Dobbs. An Alabama Supreme Court judge just gave zygotes "personhood," with the same rights as our living, breathing children, the result of which has suspended IVF treatments in that state.
49 comments:
Is this part of Biden's "Scare the Women" campaign? Abort 'em if ya got 'em!
Abortion is frowned upon in the Buddhist faith and communities too. Because it is considered taking a life. The action of abortion will affect the person's karma in a negative way. Yet it is acknowledged and recognized there are conditions/reasons (medical/scientific) for abortion and in these cases negative karma will likely not develp. Contraception is of no concern.
Every spiritual path views abortion in negative light. But the RCC in its insatiable desire to control the personal lives of its flock has caused untold damage societally.
Too bad Buddhism or Hinduism or Daoism isn't the primary faith and belief system of the US. If so we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Or the constant argument over gun rights or seeing the constant mass murders we do.
The USA would probably be far better off without the controlling aspect of Christianity, especially the RCC orthodoxy. As well as the control freaks in the gop.
The Meddling Maniacs of the gop under the influence of the archaic beliefs of the RCC and Evangelicalism delight in trying to control everyones life down to the most personal of matters.
They should basically be told to go pound sand.
Like most bills in congress it is never just a plan bill designed to do one thing. This bill mandates employers and insurance plans must provide contraception. If you recall the government takeover of healthcare to control their charges, commonly referred to as obamacare, was sued by Hobby Lobby before the SCOTUS. This is just another attempt to get around a court ruling and reestablish government control of it's citizens because after all the government knows what is best for you.
Les
Thanks for that information. Certain religions place a "one-size-fits-all" prohibition on abortion, and we've seen the terrible results of that dehumanizing kind of restriction:
Forcing 10-year-old children (or any female) to bear the result of a rape;
Forcing a woman or girl to continue a doomed pregnancy that could result in her death or permanent damage to her reproduction organs;
Ignorance by the anti-abortion lawmakers about what an ectopic pregnancy is, resulting in doctors being fearful of treating a certain-death condition, for fear of losing their medical licenses.
There are more, but those came to mind immediately.
As others have said before, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
It is also beyond hypocritical to listen to fundamentalist religionists talk about the "sanctity of life," when we all know that the leading cause of death in children in this country is firearms, and those same religionists will do nothing about that.
Joe Conservative said...
"Is this part of Biden's "Scare the Women" campaign? Abort 'em if ya got 'em!"
No. It's actually and factually the Fundamentalist Religionists' "Scare the Women" campaign.
The facts bear this out.
It was Conservative JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS who said he wanted to revisit Griswold vs. Conn., not Joe Biden.
And Justice Alito wants to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, which guarantees people the right to marry the person they love.
Both of these justices are very conservative Catholics. They're the ones who arevscaring girls, women, millions of other Americans, not Joe Biden.
You seem confused about this.
Yes Shaw, the sanctity of life is something i personally believe should be considered. All sentient beings life should be considered sacred. But not in relation to some imaginary "supreme gid being.
The key to a truly rational approach is to understand that each human life form is in control of his or her personal life and no one elses. Period. For any reason unless that human life form is unable to make approriate life sustaining decisions for themselves.
What is happening in the American political arena right now, supported by Christian reified dogma, is nothin short of evil.
And apparently my friend from the other side, Skuds, thinks the president of Hobby Lobby should be allowed to impose his beliefs on people. I would have thought better of him that he would continue to use meaningless talking points about Obamacare. You either want people to have health insurance they can afford or you don't want people that can't afford to have it.
Republicans don't want to BAN contraception. They just don't want to have to PAY for it. Big Difference.
If HB 1426 is approved, hospitals would be required to give women on Medicaid who have given birth the option to receive a contraceptive implant in the arm.
Pay for your own damn implants, you cheap lazy f*cks!
Shaw... here's something to consider for all the ppl who are saying conservatives and the MAGA extremists do not want to ban birth control, despite the facts...
"Contraception Can Cause Abortions. Here's How.
It is a medical fact that the morning-after pill (a high dosage of the birth control pill) and most if not all birth control drugs and devices including the intrauterine device (IUD), Depo Provera, the Patch, and the Pill can act to terminate a pregnancy by chemically altering the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so that a newly conceived child (human embryo) is unable to implant in the womb, thus starving and dying. This mechanism of action is termed a pre-implantation chemical abortion.
One need only explore the websites of individual abortifacient brand-name drugs to verify their abortion causing effect.
This information is from Pro Life Wisconsin, heavily supported by conservatives and GOP partisans. Clearly one does not need to be a genius to understand that if Pro Life groups believe that popular birth control options like the "patch", the "pill" and IUDs induce abortions, as shown in the quote above then it would follow that they will oppose birth control.
Sadly, as is true with so many issues today, people on the right do not like to be confronted with the truth of their positions.
As we can see from some of the comments here.
That's sraight up questionable at every kevel. republicans are voracious liars -fj. Too bad you fail to recognize it.
Shaw... here's a Catholic perspective on how popular birth control methods cause abortions, and as such, can be banned in states that oppose abortions.
"Whether one says that pregnancy begins at conception, which is the most logical beginning, or that pregnancy begins at implantation, when the embryo attaches to the mother’s endometrial lining, the fact remains that a new human has begun to live either way, and—in this case, when contraception is used—the developing embryo is deliberately expelled from the womb, causing its death."
How does the extreme MAGA crowd respond to this viewpoint?
-FJ
!
"Pay for your own damn implants, you cheap lazy f*cks!"
That's NOT why Justice Clarence Thomas wants to "revisit" Griswold v. Conn. He and many other Conservative on and off the SCOTUS do not believe there is a privacy clause supported by the Constitution that allows people to freely use contraception.
Griswold v. Connecticut originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The law made it illegal to use "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Currently, the right to contraception is protected by two landmark Supreme Court decisions, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). In Griswold, the Court recognized that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the right of married people to obtain contraceptives.
Why would a justice on the SCOTUS want to "revisit" the right to privacy that is settled law? It has NOTHING to do with tax-supported contraception; it has to do with the right of private citizens to chose to use contraceptives at all.
"Pay for your own damn implants, you cheap lazy f*cks!" -- The Battle Cry of supremely selfish Libertarians!
Here are more:
"Pay for your own damn books! We don't need to support libraries; we don't read!"
"Pay for your own damn fire fighting equipment. We don't need to support local and regional fire departments! We'll fight our own fires. And crimes! We don't need no damn publicly supported police departments!
"Pay for your own damn roads! We don't need to support local highways and interstates! We don't travel out of our villages and towns!
"Pay for your own armies! We don't want to fight your own damn wars!"
Joe "Truth 101" Kelly
Libertarians don't want to support ANYTHING they don't use, believe in, or have themselves.
Libertarian world view is "I got mine; the Hell with you."
In Griswold, the Court recognized that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the right of married people to obtain contraceptives.
Sounds like Judge Thomas has a point. The imaginary "privacy" right that lead to the UnConstitutional Roe abortion decision should be overturned. If couples had a "privacy right" to a product they wouldn't need "pricay" in order to use it. It's like saying I have a Constitutional privacy right to both porn and cocaine, and so we must allow the manufacturing of both products.
the fertilized egg remains a single cell. That's not the picture/ graphic you present in this post. It's multi-celled.
Funny how those with no soul and even less compassion want to dictate the personhood of a cell mass. It's ALWAYS been about CONTROLLING WOMEN and breeding more white people.
They will say, "But Black women are having abortions too!" Yeah, forced birth with zero post-natal care, zero childcare, and zero public healthcare is what they want for them.
This is what they call "pro-life".
Joe Conservative said...
"the fertilized egg remains a single cell. That's not the picture/ graphic you present in this post. It's multi-celled."
When the fertilized egg starts dividing, it becomes a blastocyst -- multi-celled. When it is first fertilized by a sperm, it is ONE CELL.
For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.
(That would be when the "morning-after" pill is taken. A single cell is NOT a "baby.")
After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two. (That's still not a "baby.)
Some 15 hours later, the two cells divide to become four. (That's not a "baby.)
And at the end of 3 days, the fertilized egg cell has become a berry-like structure made up of 16 cells -- a blastocyst, depicted in the post below. (a blastocyst is not a "baby.")
Joe Conservative
"The imaginary "privacy" right that lead to the UnConstitutional Roe abortion decision should be overturned."
No.
In the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy is implied by the guarantee of due process for all individuals, meaning that the state cannot exert undue control over citizens' private lives.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from warrantless searches of places or seizures of persons or objects, in which they have a subjective expectation of privacy that is deemed reasonable.
Certainly the expectation of privacy that is reasonable would mean that the State has no business in telling people how to conduct their sexual lives nor whether they should be forced to carry a pregnancy brought on by rape, or a pregnancy that endangers their lives, whether or not they should become parents at all -- among the most private of personal private issues there is.
That should read: "...how to conduct their consensual sexual lives..."
-FJ! "Pay for your own damn implants, you cheap lazy f*cks!"
White privilege raises its ugly head again.
Don't forget that -FJ is here to stir things up. He probably doesn't believe much of what he writes.
This gives FJ something to do when he runs out of saliva from drooling over his Trump trading cards. If it keeps him off the streets I'm all for it.
When sperm enters egg, there are now two cells.
sperm, male reproductive cell, produced by most animals.
The egg cell or ovum ( pl. : ova) is the female reproductive cell, or gamete, in most anisogamous organisms (organisms that reproduce sexually with a larger, female gamete and a smaller, male one). The term is used when the female gamete is not capable of movement (non-motile).
Truth ism it's more than two...
As in many other living things, chromosomes in humans always come in pairs.
Illustration: The pairs of chromosomes line up along the center of the cell
Unlike in “normal” cell division (mitosis), in meiosis the chromosome pairs first line up along the center of the cell.
Illustration: The chromosome pairs are separated and move to opposite sides of the cell
The pairs separate there. The individual chromosomes then move to opposite sides of the cell, together with their attached copy. The cell membrane starts pinching inward to form two separate cells.
Illustration: During the second cell division, the copies of the chromosomes separate
A second cell division follows: The copies of the chromosomes separate.
Illustration: Four sex cells develop from the parent cell
So the parent (original) cell gives rise to four sex cells. The nucleus of each sex cell contains half of the original genetic material.
Illustration: In men, the four sex cells develop into sperm cells
In men, these cells develop into sperm cells.
Illustration: In women, only one egg cell is formed during meiosis
In women, only one of the four sex cells becomes an egg cell that can be fertilized. During meiosis, it receives most of the cell body of the parent cell. The three smaller cells – referred to as polar bodies – break down and disappear.
Illustration: One egg cell and one sperm cell combine during fertilization
If a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, the nuclei of the two cells combine.
Grafik: Eine neue Zelle mit vollständigem Erbgut ist entstanden
A new cell with a complete set of genetic information is produced – one half is from the mother, and the other half is from the father. The fertilized egg cell can now start developing into a baby.
joey 101, Healthcare is not mandatory and neither is serfdom. If you don't think you are paid enough or you don't think the benefits are enough then you can find a different job with a different company. I know that goes against the government knows better but that is all part of a free market economy which is a controversial subject to some.
Birth control is a personal choice so why should should any company be required to pay for it if they object. I do support the personal choice of abortion because most individuals who get an abortion should not be required to raise an unwanted child.
Mike, your statement on white privilege implies that only non whites cannot afford birth control. Doesn't that make you a racist?
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
"When sperm enters egg, there are now two cells."
What is a single-celled fertilized ovum called?
zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm).
Why is zygote called a single cell?
The male gamete is sperm, while the female gamete is ovum(egg cell). The sperm and the egg cell merge during the fertilization process. To produce the zygote, the contents of the sperm cell are transported into the egg.
As a result, the final output is a single-celled zygote.
You also forget to count the cumulus oophorus cells in the corona radiata... with Lord know how many cells... surrounding (and attached to) the zona pellucida.
Ya realky think yer smart -fj.
LMAO!
Well skud, Mike is likely closer to right than you are methinks. Probably because you never seem to shed your reified conditioning on anything. You simply go to yoyr reactionary default mode.
Leslie, Mike's statement was racist and it seems your lack of understanding what he said says a lot about you, no offense of course. He being able to pay for you own implants says nothing about who should pay but mike said that was white privilege or only whites can afford to pay which is a racist statement.
Yup, says a lot about you fer sure dude. No doubt about it. Glad you see that.
Skudsy is resorting to the old "you have a smelly butt" ploy. In this case making accusations of racism. His and the default setting of our friends on the right is when they have no sensible argument to demand who is paying for something or claiming some form of discrimination.
I'm the first to say that life can be unfair. I have no problem using government to even the field between the haves and have some or little at all. I am my brother's keeper.
Joe, I do remember this tact when anyone had anything to say about barry so it does seem this is practiced by the left and right. A helping hand by the government benefits the receiver a helping hand for life benefits the government because it develops to total dependency. What will the current administration give away next to buy more votes?
Skud forgets our Constitution's provision for the general welfare. It just happens Republicans prefer to give the rich and corporation HUGE tax cuts and subsidies while DENYING food and healthcare to the needy.
Saying it "develops to total dependency" ignores the fact that almost all welfare recipients get jobs.
If your GOP talking point is valid, please explain why Connecticut has the LOWEST number per capita on welfare but is a BLUE state?
https://www.statsamerica.org/sip/rank_list.aspx?rank_label=censgovtre_exp_1_c&item_in=040
I understand the assertion made by our many faced troll, meaning there are items I disagree with in the tax code which pay for things I've no interest in funding. And if I were the only contributor for all the monies being spent then yeah, I would have a say. But here's the thing - I'm not the only person chipping into the revenue account, I'm joined by my fellow citizens, some who are just as fussy about benefits I receive.
That said, since we are talking about sex let's talk about the huge blue elephant in the room Viagra, Cialis, and other male enhancement medications. These medications are oddly enough never mentioned in the same breath as birth control hormones (which by the way do more than prevent pregnancy, they are absolutely necessary for anyone suffering with endometriosis). I wonder why skud believes birth control is a personal choice but male enhancement is a societal issue that must be funded by all.
skud, I don't believe the words you use mean what you think they mean. White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people. Shall we talk about redlining? How about the many times a black neighborhood which is thriving is destroyed when the white city council votes to place harmful industry next to or in place of that same neighborhood? I've receipts if you need them. Binders of them in fact.
Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said "I'm the first to say that life can be unfair. I have no problem using government to even the field between the haves and have some or little at all. I am my brother's keeper."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!
The whole point of government is to combine our resources so those who can't do what others do aren't penalized. Not every one has the same abilities, connections, health, intelligence. But each and every citizen deserves housing, health care, and food. There is no more wilderness to go ones own way. Everything is owned. Everything.
My solution? Universal Basic Income and Medicare for All. Should get us headed in the correct direction. Oh wait, there are those who NEED to punch down on someone, hence our current benefit and medical programs. Perhaps someone (I didn't SAY me, but I was thinking it) needs to punch on them for a while, see how they like it. Maybe they learn, maybe they don't. Either way I'll have fun.
skudrunner: "A helping hand by the government benefits the receiver a helping hand for life benefits the government because it develops to total dependency."
Skud, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you ever, ever saying Donald Trump, or any tax-cutting Republican, was "buying votes" by giving tax cuts to the rich and middle class.
Trump made the billionaire tax cuts permanent, but those for the middle and working classes will come to an end in a few years.
BTW, Trump has said if he's re-elected, he plans on more tax cuts. Do you consider that "buying votes" and making the people who receive them "dependent" on government?
"Trickle down" tax cuts have NEVER worked. Giving people a living wage or even a guaranteed minimum income PUTS MONEY IN CIRCULATION. And there are more of us than there are billionaires.
Ronnie Raygun's trickle down was but a ploy to get the gullible (like me when i was 28 yrs. old) to accept the preferential treatment the repubs give to the wealthy and corporations.
Grey, I am not a supporter of socialism so your ideas are not something I support. I do support everyone deserves to have basic healthcare. Maybe if our elected elite didn't waste so much we could provide it. After all we provide healthcare and housing to illegals so why not our own citizens.
Ms. Shaw, You are correct I didn't say any republicans were buying votes by pushing tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a gift because you are still paying taxes just less. I do not support tax cuts or tax increases but I do support everyone paying their Fair Share. Giving people a living wage starts with giving and the idea that it puts money in circulation follows that it has to come from somewhere. Support Fat Tax which eliminates all deductions so billionaires cannot use deduction to lower their taxes. Churches and charities need to lose their tax exempt status so the millionaires can't use them as a tax dodge.
Maybe you shouldn't support the permanent tax cuts the elitist Trump gave wealthy corporations while sun-setting the tax relief for middle and lower class folks in 5 years.
You're cute skud. I get my daily chuckles reading your humor.
socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So skud doesn't believe in roads, police, hospitals, libraries, fire protection... Good to know skud. Do your neighbors know? I bet when there is a fire you are grateful for the firefighters who come to help.
Unless you have your own private way of getting from point A to point B, you are taking public roads paid for by your taxes, which is a form of socialism. Unless you have your own private security force, unless you have your own team of medical professionals you interact with socialism every freaking day. How do you not know this skud? You, who claims to know so much?
skud, if you truly supported everyone paying their fair share you'd be in favor of increasing the tax rate on the very rich and corporations (but I repeat myself). After all, they are the ones who practice publicizing the risks while privatizing the profits. They haven't paid their fair share since Eisenhower was in office.
By the way I see you use a MAGA talking point that the migrants receive government benefits like housing, food assistance, and medical care. OK - all of those things are considered basic necessities. If they didn't have housing you'd be complaining, like you do, that they are the unhoused. If they didn't get food you'd be complaining that they were begging on the streets to feed themselves and family. And, if they didn't show up at all you'd be complaining that the lower level jobs are impossible to fill because no one wants to do the work for the amount of money offered. How do I know? I read your comments skud and I remember.
skud, and many con/repubs would be fine if, in the wealthiest nation on the planet, the government would give out begging bowls and basic first aid kits. Then the rest of course would be up to them.
Repubs and cons subscribe to the... i got mine, screw you attitude.
Absolutely definitely not their sister/brother's keeper that's for certain.
Leslie, I still think taxes on corporations are to high so you are correct I favor the permanent tax cuts to corporations because taxes are a pass through.
Grey, Socialism means Roads, police, hospitals, etc is a very broad brush but you meant it to be a snark response to my post. If I am not mistaken seizure of income from the 50% who pay it goes to support those institutions along with RE taxes, road tax for those who own RE and drive but you knew that. What is the fair share for the "rich" to pay. What is the "fair" share for corporations to be taxed so they can pass it along to the consumer. After all why not take the excess income and give it to those who choose not to increase their income.
How many "migrants" are looking for work and how many are even interested in working. What you meant to say is the jobs they may take aren't fit for a citizen therefore we should keep the border open. If you don't contribute to the government seizure of income you are fine with giving away tax dollars to assist illegals even at the expense of our own citizens.
It's a good thing we have migrant workers to do the menial work the spoiled whittle cry baby Americans won't do cause they don't get paid enough.
Oh wait. Or is the fault of US business greed?
I'm sure you've got it all nailed down skud.
skud, when I said this: "So skud doesn't believe in roads, police, hospitals, libraries, fire protection... Good to know skud. Do your neighbors know? I bet when there is a fire you are grateful for the firefighters who come to help.", that was snarky.
When I said this "Unless you have your own private way of getting from point A to point B, you are taking public roads paid for by your taxes, which is a form of socialism. Unless you have your own private security force, unless you have your own team of medical professionals you interact with socialism every freaking day. How do you not know this skud? You, who claims to know so much?", I was making a point. I don't do snark when presenting a debating point. You should know that though, being that you read my comments. It is revealing that you don't.
Bernie Sanders has legislation proposed which addresses this issue: The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would impose tax rate increases on companies with CEO to median worker ratios above 50 to 1. If the CEO did not receive the largest paycheck in the firm, the ratio will be based on the highest-paid employee. I'm sure it's dead in the water with our current Congress because it would help the working poor.
skud nattering about how if corporations don't get tax relief they will pass on the costs to consumers is laughable. Guess what skud, corps enjoy the lowest taxes in ages and what did they do? THEY INCRASED THEIR PRICES DURING THE PANDEMIC AND WHEN THE COVID SUPPLY ISSUES ENDED THEY DIDN'T LOWER THEM TO REFLECT THE LOWER SUPPLY COSTS. It's GREED, pure and simple.
skud said "After all why not take the excess income and give it to those who choose not to increase their income."
skud, that is the most hateful thing you've ever posted. It reeks of your privilege. It stinks of so many ism's I'm just gobsmacked you said it. I knew it was your belief as previous comments have hinted at such but for you to say there are any humans who CHOOSE NOT TO INCREASE THEIR INCOME!!!!
How many jobs do you think I've held at one time to make ends meet skud? HOW MANY??? I'll tell you. I worked three jobs, got four hours of sleep in order to do it too. Totally wrecked my health because no health care as it was stripped from the job because COROPORATIONS CLAIMED THEY WERE TOO BROKE SO THEY FOISTED THE RESPONSIBLITY OF HEALTHCARE ONTO THE GOVERNMENT AND HERE WE ARE TODAY with privileged humans like yourself looking down on those who had no good choices, only bad ones.
There are no illegal people skud, only undocumented immigrants and migrant workers. Your use of slurs I'm sure reflects your regret in not being able to use the ones that get you socially condemned for being a racist.
We forget the past at our own peril - does no one else remember the reason for all the pensions going away and replaced by 401K's? Does no one remember the stripping of health care? Bad faith actions by the business executive to politician to lobbyist cycle created this mess and yet there are those who continue to act as if it's just us poor folk and immigrants (but I repeat myself) trying for a better life who are responsible.
skud, I'd say do better but you know, I'm not sure you can.
Grey, See you took the initiative to increase your income so you proved my statement correct. Many choose not to work harder and settle for what the have. I applaud you for taking steps to increase your income. Working multiple jobs is not easy and a lot of people choose not to.
Your statement that there are no illegals just undocumented immigrants is classic. People who cross the border, don't check in at designated crossings are not illegal, WOW. I guess the same can be said for someone who shoots and kills another person are not murderers, just untried individuals.
Taking from the top 1% who pay 45% of all income tax will do little to help the 49% who do not pay any.
I do agree we should eliminate lobbyists and make it a criminal offense for any politicians to accept favors from and company. That would eliminate fact finding trips to St Thomas in January and other incentives designed to create favor for companies or individuals.
There is skud, in actual fact, no illegal people.
For to say a person is illegal is to say that the creator then would be illegal. A rather nonsensical position.
A more accurate statement wiuld be... a legal person was seen illegally crossing the United States/Mexican border into the United States.
Grey One talks sass is correct. And as usual you skud are again wrong.
Skud always defaults to the radical Right's demeaning and degradation of people they hate.
Would Skud consider himself an "Illegal" when he runs a red light or exceeds the speed limit? Why not? He would be driving illegally.
Why aren't Trump's 1/6 thugs considered "illegals"? White privilege? Politically privileged? Are they really "hostages" and "martyrs"?
Why are asylum seekers "illegals" when the multiple felony indicted Trump isn't?
Trump is more illegal by both severity and numbers of offenses. AH, but he's the "victim" and enforcing the law against him is "illegal persecution".
Hmm. What seems to be the pattern here?
You absolutely nailed it Dave D. Abslutely. There is no reasoned or rational rebuttal to that. Other than, i know otherwise simply because i know. A great argument or rebuttal it does not make.
The Associated Press Stylebook has long discouraged the use of the word “illegal” to describe a person, because only an action can be illegal. Apr 4, 2023
Post a Comment