Wendy Davis: Kennedy retirement 'jeopardizes' women's rights

The truth comes out. The Democrats have now instantly thrown off their fake concern over 2500 children separated on the border, over fear that future millions might no longer be brutally separated in the womb.

The woman should always be in control of their bodies at all times. You do remember what was happening before January 22, 1973 don't you?

Democracy is up for grabs, to the highest bidder.

What does ripping children apart and selling the pieces have to do with "Democracy is up for grabs, to the highest bidder"?

You do remember what was happening before January 22, 1973 don't you?

Lots of things were happening before January 22, 1973. Nobody is going to keep you from ripping babies apart Ron. Your false god of abortion is safe.

Pay attention "FAKE" Adam, if you was paying attention to this topic, you would have know what the answer to this question, "PAY ATTENTION!"


I won't entertain that Bull 💩 ripping babies apart. NO!

Now answer the question, the answer is in this blog.

You do remember what was happening before January 22, 1973 don't you?

In January 1973 I was waiting to turn 17 so I could drop out of school. I wasn't then and never have been very interested in abortion, but I do know it kills the baby and often the baby is ripped limb from limb in the process.

Let me ask you this “Did you view video report?”

Sure and there was nothing said about "what was happening before January 22, 1973". Your false god of abortion is safe Ron but it will always be a false and cruel god, notwithstanding your self title of "deacon", "teacher of the white man's bible".

I'm telling you Ron, "Kennedy retirement 'jeopardizes' women's rights" is false, untrue. Your false god of abortion is safe. Babies will continue to be torn asunder by their mothers.

Did you view video report?”

Wake up Ron. I SAID YES NOW WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

You baby killer.

YOUR WORDS: Wake up Ron. I SAID YES NOW WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

I asked you Did you view video report?”

What are you saying yes too FAKE ADAM?

What's wrong with you Ron? You can't really be that lacking in reading comprehension. Abortion is killing and you know it.

I asked you Did you view video report?”

What are you saying yes too FAKE ADAM?

I answered your question twice. Sure means yes and yes means yes. You're a cold-blooded killer Ron, and of course you can't defend yourself on that so you can only fall back to your pathetic video.

The only thing you did was to say "YES" twice "FAKE Adam. What are you saying yes too?

Whatever your question was is what I said yes to. You're a cold-blooded killer Ron.

YOUR WORDS: Whatever your question was is what I said yes to. You know full well what my question you FAKE adam.

I asked you Did you view video report?”

What are you saying yes too FAKE ADAM?

YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

Let me ask you this “Did you view video report?”


Friday, June 29th 2018 at 5:46PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Sure and there was nothing said about "what was happening before January 22, 1973". Your false god of abortion is safe Ron but it will always be a false and cruel god, notwithstanding your self title of "deacon", "teacher of the white man's bible".

Friday, June 29th 2018 at 6:58PM
Steve Williams | delete

Sure to WHAT?

You only asked one question Ron. Do you remember what it was? This is beyond boring, either you want to talk about some unknown nominee and the absolutely terrifying surety of the overthrow of legal infanticide, or you don't. I'll ask just once, do you or don't you because if you don't then the hell with you.

I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same topic. So, what are you saying "SURE TO?"

I asked you Did you view video report?”

What are you saying SURE too FAKE ADAM?

YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

Too bad you want to act like a dummy. Why'd you even bother posting this sky-is-falling nonsense Ron?

Wendy Davis: Kennedy retirement 'jeopardizes' women's rights

SUBJECT

1. Are you kidding me....?

2. In human biology TWO, male/female, decide to have intercourse

3. TWO, male/female, decide to have intercourse and KNOW that another human being can develop

4. THEN, one decides that the human life developed should be TERMINATED...…..NO, NEVER....

5. Human Rights, Male Rights and the Rights of the Developing Life are the MOST important

6. If the trump$ette MIND..Kennedy…or ANY trump$ette minded judge wants to OVERTURN

a. Abortion
b. Gay Marriage
c. LBGTV cartoonism

……………..OK with me...………..

OFF SUBJECT

ps

"...….....Your false god of abortion is safe Ron but it will always be a false and cruel god, notwithstanding

your self title of "deacon", "teacher of the white man's bible".

Friday, June 29th 2018 at 6:58PM
Steve Williams | delete

Now that statement is True as RACISM is..... FAKE

....And deacons Teaching IS....antiAdaam and the Fate of COLORED racists will come home to roost.…

Still can't answer if you saw this video report or not WOW!!! YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

You or "FAKE ADAM" can point in this blog where I said anything of RACISM or being racists. That is just the Smoke and the Bull 💩 you bring with you "SMOKEY."

I asked you Did you view video report?”

What are you saying SURE too FAKE ADAM?

YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

I can guarantee Ron, in your video nothing was said about "what was happening before January 22, 1973".

I did not ask you what you can guarantee with "FAKE Adam and that is something we can agree with. What I asked you was: Did you view video report?”

YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

You asked me this Ron, then you ignored my answer and asked another question. You want us to believe your pestering with questions is actually a discussion, but everyone knows you are a crock of ****.

You do remember what was happening before January 22, 1973 don't you?


Thursday, June 28th 2018 at 10:17PM
Deacon Ron Gray

Calm down man, I don't give a damn about your foul language. This question would be just to over your head to answer, if you had not seen this video report, Bottom Line.


Did you see this video report Steve? YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

GOT IT!!!!

Wake up Ron. I SAID YES NOW WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Friday, June 29th 2018 at 11:31PM
Steve Williams | delete

What are you saying "YES" to you "FAKE" Adam?

What are the possibilities UNREAL Ron? What could I possibly be saying yes to?

Wendy Russell Davis[1] (born Wendy Jean Russell;[2] May 16, 1963) is an American lawyer and Democratic Party politician from Fort Worth, Texas. Davis represented District 10 in the Texas Senate from 2009 to 2015. She was previously on the Fort Worth City Council. She is now a public speaker and political commentator, as well as the founder of Deeds Not Words, a non-profit for engaging young women in politics.

All I ask you was Did you see this video report Steve? You can say YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

GOT IT!!!!

It's even simpler to talk about Wendy Davis.

On June 25, 2013, Davis held a thirteen-hour-long filibuster to block Senate Bill 5, a measure which included more restrictive abortion regulations for Texas.[3] The filibuster played a major role in Senate Democrats' success in delaying passage of the bill beyond the midnight deadline for the end of the legislative session, though it ultimately passed in a second session. The filibuster brought Davis national attention, leading to speculation about a run for governor of Texas.[4] She subsequently ran for governor of Texas in 2014, but lost to Republican Party nominee Greg Abbott, 59–38 percent.[5]

On June 25, 2013, Davis performed a filibuster to block Senate Bill 5, a proposal to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards that hospital-style surgical centers do, and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.[42] She attempted to hold the floor until midnight, when the Senate's special session ended, after which it would no longer be able to vote on the measure.[43] Following an 11-hour filibuster—ending three hours short of midnight—Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst ruled that Davis had gone off topic, forcing a vote on whether the filibuster could continue.[44] Despite Republican efforts, parliamentary inquiries from Leticia R. Van de Putte and others as well as raucous cheering and yelling from the political activists gathered in the Capitol carried on through midnight and the close of the special session.[45] Following the deadline, Republicans indicated that a vote had taken place and passed, while Democrats declared that the vote had taken place after midnight, making it void.[45] Dewhurst later conceded that the bill was dead.[46][47] The next day, Governor Rick Perry called for a second special session to allow for another attempt to pass the abortion restrictions, as well as to address other issues.[48][49] The bill was eventually passed by both the House and the Senate in the July 2013 second special session,[50][51][52] prompting one commentator to state that "Wendy Davis won the battle, but Rick Perry won the war."[53] The bill was signed by Gov. Rick Perry on July 18, 2013.[54]

All I ask you was Did you see this video report Steve? You can say YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

You are acting like "SMOKEY" now. All I ask you Steve was Did you see this video report Steve? You can say YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!

I can also say YES or I can also say NO, and not you nor anyone else will misunderstand my meaning. You seem to be some kind of sicko control freak Ron.

No... "FAKE Adam, I just want to talk on the same subject. Did you see this video report Steve? You can say YES, I saw this video report or NO, I did not see this video report, simple as that!!!


If you can't answer a simple question then dismiss yourself from this blog because your motive is not the continue to promote a free flowing conversation on this subject.

Dismiss Yourself NOW!!!

I could also answer the question in the form you demand Ron and the conversation would still be over. It would mean that I'd failed in my attempt to keep our conversation honest.

Try it and see, if not "Dismiss Yourself from this blog, NOW!!!

YES, I saw this video report

It is about time "FAKE" Adam. I see that you went through all of that avoidance to try and control this scenario, in your own mind.


Now if you saw this video with a decent recollection of this subject matter, can if recall the program that this report highlighted, can you recall that?

NO, I can't recall that program.

I know that you have a very short attention span but it was the main program featured in this report, this is if you understood what you saw in the video report.

Is that a question Ron?

No Steve, that was a statement. Here a question: What Law was highlighted in this video report?

There was NO law highlighted in this video report Ron.

You could not have watch this video report with any understanding Steve. WOW!!!

I have a very good understanding of this report Ron, going back to the day you posted it, during all the time you senselessly repeated your idiotic question. And now I find out what I knew all along, that I tried to keep you honest about, that you have no understanding at all of your own post.

Then answer the question Steve: “What Law was highlighted in this video report?”

I say there was NO law highlighted in this video Ron. If you think otherwise then speak up man.

Nice try Mr. FAKE , come back to this blog when you see this video report and you are ready to hold a conversation on what you saw.


Excuse Me....

Maybe your dumbass thinks Roe v. Wade is a law?

Yes I do think ROE V WADE is still the law of the land and your dumbass thinks that Roe v. Wade is not a law? Is that right?

Roe v. Wade is a RULING on the law. The underlying law is the Constitution, and your video does not even mention the Constitutional law protected by this Supreme Court ruling, much less HIGHLIGHT that law.

The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit s*xual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt...

Roe v. Wade, (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, and overturning all state laws outlawing or unduly restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in US Supreme Court history.

That's correct Ron, and it's not in danger. There are too many persons like you who deny personhood to the unborn.

I believe that, this decision should be between the mother, the father and GOD and not the government and we should not penalize, and make the woman a criminal in this country for her decision.

OH the constitution is the supreme LAW in this land of this land and immigrants should understand that.

If the female, without the male she laid with gets an abortion SHE SHOULD be Prosecuted...…

………..Forget about the Supremes ….. the unborn CHILD is NOT her's to terminate...…………..

If that is the case Robert, both the man and the woman should by prosecuted under the LAW because that woman did not get pregnant by herself, that would be a fairer LAW.

Thank you for that clear statement without all of that SMOKE you bring to the table, Thank You.

How many fathers have you known to be a determinant in the decision Ron?

When does personhood start?

"....If that is the case Robert, both the man and the woman should by prosecuted under the LAW because that woman did not get pregnant by herself, that would be a fairer LAW.

Thank you for that clear statement without all of that SMOKE you bring to the table, Thank You. ..."

Wednesday, July 4th 2018 at 11:30AM
Deacon Ron Gray

*****************************************************************

Finally, you ACCEPT the law of Musa(as), , the commandments, the law of Torah and the law

of African Asian judeoIslaamic Monotheism.....STONE both those Commandment breakers

Robert, Stoning!!! I said both the man and the woman should by prosecuted under the LAW because that woman did not get pregnant by herself, that would be a fairer LAW.

Ron, when does personhood begin?

When you can draw your first breath of air, on your own. Steve, that is the reason why we as a people celebrate our birth-date and not the day of conception or the day of the first heart beat.

Human life starts at birth. If you think I am wrong, just walk around in a cemetery and you will see the head-stones that will mark the beginning of life and the end of life. Steve, I don't care which cemetery you go to, they are all the same.

You can't become a person until you are born, bottom-line.

The medical term applied to a situation when a baby dies while still in its mother’s womb is called Inter Uterine Death (I.U.D.).

I have held a 5 month old aborted, KILLED, placed in a jar of formaldehyde, child in my hands Ron. I had no doubt then or now that I was holding a person. If what you just said is representative your kind of criminal mind, then I PRAY for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade. You have never uttered a more disgusting statement you unreal, no personhood, criminal deacon.

Only in your little bitty, twisted, sorry ass mind, is where you can accuse of some one of talking about a birthday being criminal but your dumb ass. Nobody in the face of history world would accuse anyone of having a criminal mind but you Adam "FAKE."

I guess if I wish you a Happy Birthday to you, that would be criminal as well, would it? WOW!!!

There's only one reason you would deny personhood Ron, just as it's been done before in America's history. Just as has been done in America's past you deny personhood to justify the criminal denial of the rights of persons.

The reality Ron is that abortion is not about who is a person and who is not. Mother and unborn child are both persons and the rights of mother and unborn child are intertwined and must be balanced.

Hey Adam "FAKE Ass, now you want to talk about "PERSONHOOD." Now let us take a look at this term "PERSONHOOD" for a moment. "PERSONHOOD" is the quality or condition of being an individual person.

Point out in the blog where I wanted to deny personhood to any body?

Right here Ron:

"You can't become a person until you are born, bottom-line."

Answers to the question of when human life begins and when personhood begins have varied among social contexts, and have changed with shifts in ethical and religious beliefs, sometimes as a result of advances in scientific knowledge; in general they have developed in parallel with attitudes to abortion[6] and to the use of infanticide as a means of reproductive control.

Since the zygote is genetically identical to the embryo, the fully formed fetus, and the baby, questioning the beginning of personhood could lead to an instance of the Sorites paradox, also known as the paradox of the heap.[7]

Neil Postman has written that in pre-modern societies, the lives of children were not regarded as unique or valuable in the same way they are in modern societies, in part as a result of high infant mortality. However, when childhood began to develop its own distinctive features (including graded schools to teach reading, children's stories, games, etc.) this view changed. According to Postman, "the custom of celebrating a child's birthday did not exist in America throughout most of the eighteenth century, and, in fact, the precise marking of a child's age in any way is a relatively recent cultural habit, no more than two hundred years old."[8]

Ancient writers held diverse views on the subject of the beginning of personhood, understood as the soul's entry or development in the human body. In Panpsychism in the West, David Skrbina noted the various kinds of soul envisioned by the early Greeks.[9]

Generally, the question of the ensoulment of the fetus revolved around the question of when the rational soul entered the body, whether it was an integral part of the bodily form and substance, or whether it was pre-existent and subject to reincarnation or pre-existence.

The Stoics, holding a belief in the pneuma, held that the soul enters the body when the newborn takes its first breath.

Aristotle developed a theory of progressive ensoulment. In On the Generation of Animals, he declared that the soul develops first a vegetative soul, then animal, and finally human, adding that abortions were permissible early in pregnancy, before certain biological processes began. He believed that the female substance was passive, the male active, and that it required time for the male substance to "animate" the whole.[10]

Hippocrates and the Pythagoreans stated that fertilization marked the beginning of a human life, and that the human soul was created at the time of fertilization.

According to Hinduism Today, Vedic literature states that the soul enters the body at conception.[11]

Concepts of pre-existence are found in various forms in Plato, Judaism, and Islam.

The Jewish Talmud holds that all life is precious but that a fetus is not a person, in the sense of termination of pregnancy being considered murder. If a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy, an abortion is permitted. However, if the "greater part" of the fetus has emerged from the womb, then its life may not be taken even to save the woman's, "because you cannot choose between one human life and another".[12]

Some medieval Christian theologians, such as Marsilio Ficino, held that ensoulment occurs when an infant takes its first breath of air. They cite, among other passages, Genesis 2:7, which reads: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."[13]

The Early Church held various views on the subject, primarily either the ensoulment at conception or delayed hominization. Tertullian held a view, traducianism, which was later condemned as heresy. This view held that the soul was derived from the parents and generated in parallel with the generation of the physical body. This viewpoint was deemed unsatisfactory by St. Augustine, as it did not account for original sin. Basing himself on the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22, he affirmed the Aristotelian view of delayed hominization.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo held the view that fetuses were "animated" (using Aristotle's term for ensoulment) near the 40th day after conception.[6] However, both held that abortion was always gravely wrong.[14][15][16]

In general, the soul was viewed as some kind of animating principle; and the human variety was referred to as the "rational soul".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_...

You never did point out your accusation in the blog where I wanted to deny personhood to any body?


Now, you make may point clearly, you are person with all legal rights to live until you are born, bottom-line."

I don't believe that was your point Ron. My point is that personhood begins with the zygote.

Just as Hippocrates believed.

Point out to the readership on Black In America where in this blog here I wanted to deny personhood to any body?


Now Adam "FAKE" ass answer that question. I believe that this is the second time I asked you this very same question.

Ron, when does personhood begin?

Thursday, July 5th 2018 at 2:26AM
Steve Williams | delete

Point out to the readership on Black In America where in this blog where I wanted to deny personhood to any body? You have not done that task yet but you are willing to bare false witness again me WHY Adam "FAKE" ass?

YOUR QUESTION: Ron, when does personhood begin?

MY ANSWER: At birth, being born alive Adam. Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

You can't have personhood until you become a natural person. Steve, you have to be born alive to reach that goal.

No damn zygote can take the privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability for nothing.

A zygote IS a natural person Ron.

Not yet Steve.

Yes Ron because that is the moment the DNA of mother and father combine and form a new person, genetically and for life.

Do you have a birthday?

That's your argument for Roe v. Wade Ron? Do I have a birthday?

That is what I thought. All of your legal, medical and financial responsibilities are base on your birthday, even your social security, now refute that, can you do that?

I'm not talking about legal, medical, and financial responsibilities Ron. None of those define personhood.