A far-left pro-abortion group disrupted a church service at St. Joseph’s Catholic Cathedral in Columbus, Ohio Friday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The group of Marxists barged into the church, knocked over a table and shouted profanities. “Two, four, six, eight this church teaches hate!” the protesters shouted. “Roe is the floor, we…
5 comments

Welcome to Dissenter

The Comment Section of the Internet
www.thegatewaypundit.com
2021/01/pro-abortion-group-storms-catholic-church-knocks-table-shouts-profanities-video/

And the police were where exactly? They were most likely protecting more important people like PantiFag and Burn Loot Murder.

loading...

Wow. Not a smart move on the people looking to make murder, "legal." This snowball they're creating, they won't be able to stop it someday. I wish them luck when that happens..

loading...

I'd PAY to have that happen at a mass I'm at....

loading...

People are engaging in a #religious/#spiritual debate. That is correct. However, the #Federal #Government can’t engage in a religious/spiritual (i.e., separation of church and State). #Roe V Wade and the more recent case, Planned Parent Hood vs Casey both confirmed that it is a question of liberty.

There is no legal definition of when a person becomes protected under the #Constitution before birth. Until some point established by the #States, a baby is not a unique person with protection. Therefore, the State can’t restrict a mother’s #liberty to protect something that it does not acknowledge has protection.

Now, you can argue from a religious and spiritual perspective that this should not be. I am not telling you it isn’t. I am just saying that the core issue in the courts is when does a baby become an individual that has Constitutional protection.

Many would seemingly fight for a person’s protection to happen at the moment of #conception. But be wary. Once the child is protected under the Constitution, the State has an “interest” in protecting that child, and that “interest” comes at the cost of the mother’s liberty.

BTW: I am no Constitutional scholar so check all of this out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. But I say again, this is not (can not be) a religious/spiritual debate because you have no right to force your religion/spirituality on anyone else. The Constitution protects people from that.

loading...

People are engaging in a #religious/#spiritual debate. That is correct. However, the #Federal #Government can’t engage in a religious/spiritual (i.e., separation of church and State). #Roe V Wade and the more recent case, Planned Parent Hood vs Casey both confirmed that it is a question of liberty.

There is no legal definition of when a person becomes protected under the #Constitution before birth. Until some point established by the #States, a baby is not a unique person with protection. Therefore, the State can’t restrict a mother’s #liberty to protect something that it does not acknowledge has protection.

Now, you can argue from a religious and spiritual perspective that this should not be. I am not telling you it isn’t. I am just saying that the core issue in the courts is when does a baby become an individual that has Constitutional protection.

Many would seemingly fight for a person’s protection to happen at the moment of #conception. But be wary. Once the child is protected under the Constitution, the State has an “interest” in protecting that child, and that “interest” comes at the cost of the mother’s liberty.

BTW: I am no Constitutional scholar so check all of this out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. But I say again, this is not (can not be) a religious/spiritual debate because you have no right to force your religion/spirituality on anyone else. The Constitution protects people from that.

loading...
Log In
Dissenter
connecting...