Report: Tomi Lahren ‘Suspended’ by TheBlaze

[Deleted]

And it's still the same thing. You step out of line with the politics of your employer and you get fired. It's the same on the far left as it is on the far right. You aren't making the case that the left is worse...you're making the case that they both are equally bad.

Yes, the actions of maintaining ideological orthodoxy is equally bad, its just that one side does this equally bad thing a whole lot more than the other.
Again, Currently - You might want to look up HUAC.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe it wasn't the fact she's pro life, but that she exhibited sufficient critical thinking skills to point out that small government is incompatible with wanting the government to tell you what you can do with your own body. Anathema.

Is the left universally in favor of legalizing prostitution?
And way more importantly, protecting the life of the citizens is a core part of the point of the state, you cant make it smaller than that.

[Mormolyce]

Is the left universally in favor of legalizing prostitution?
And way more importantly, protecting the life of the citizens is a core part of the point of the state, you cant make it smaller than that.

Er... no? Not that I speak for the left. What are you getting at?

Fetuses aren't citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

Then is she just my shill, parroting what I think since she has the same opinion I have had for over 25 years?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Deleted]

Er... no? Not that I speak for the left. What are you getting at?

small government is incompatible with wanting the government to tell you what you can do with your own body.

This argument for having abortions be legal, works just as well (actually better) on prostitution.
Yet strangely, people who are pro-choice, because a woman has a right to choose, are remarkably fine with restricting women's choices (and men's but whatever) in this area.

Fetuses aren't citizens.

Black people aren't people.

[Adam Jensen]

Damn, how does one get banned from "The Blaze"?!?!!?!?!

Did she say God wasn't real?

She failed to stay lock-step on Republican issues.

Now she's forever tainted as a hard core commie left-wing RINO.

[Mormolyce]

This argument for having abortions be legal, works just as well (actually better) on prostitution.
Yet strangely, people who are pro-choice, because a woman has a right to choose, are remarkably fine with restricting women's choices (and men's but whatever) in this area.

You asked me if they're universally in favour. They aren't, because some are and some aren't. I dare say there's more in favour of that on the left than the right though - despite, again, an alleged desire for small government. But you know, I haven't done a poll or anything.

If you're asking me what I believe, then I'm in favour of decriminalising prostitution.

Black people aren't people.

Okay you've completely lost me.

[Deleted]

You asked me if they're universally in favour. They aren't, because some are and some aren't. I dare say there's more in favour of that on the left than the right though - despite, again, an alleged desire for small government. But you know, I haven't done a poll or anything.

If you're asking me what I believe, then I'm in favour of decriminalising prostitution.

You should listen to some feminist who are quite capable of holding this particular kind of double-think in their heads.

Okay you've completely lost me.

Abortions are fine because a foetus isn't a real human being.
Slavery is fine because 'insert X' aren't real human being's.
It's not exactly a complicated analogy.

[Mormolyce]

You should listen to some feminist who are quite capable of holding this particular kind of double-think in their heads.

Feminists have a range of opinions on this like pretty much everything. Many feminists support decriminalisation of prostitution.

Abortions are fine because a foetus isn't a real human being.
Slavery is fine because 'insert X' aren't real human being's.
It's not exactly a complicated analogy.

Not that I support your nonsense, but it's irrelevant because you were talking about CITIZENSHIP so you can't now move the goalposts to "real human being".

Literally every definition of natural citizenship refers to BIRTH. Fetuses are not citizens period.

[Damajin]

It'll be better for her when she ditches that shitshow, Glen is a fucking clown and has been a joke since his crying for ratings days on Fox.

[Deleted]

Not that I support your nonsense, but it's irrelevant because you were talking about CITIZENSHIP so you can't now move the goalposts to "real human being".

Literally every definition of natural citizenship refers to BIRTH. Fetuses are not citizens period.

No i was talking about citizens, and if you want to be pedantic, future citizens.
that wasn't the point of that contention, and you know that.

[Mormolyce]

No i was talking about citizens, and if you want to be pedantic, future citizens.

Not pedantry. They aren't citizens so are not entitled to any protections that citizens are.

[Deleted]

Not pedantry. They aren't citizens so are not entitled to any protections that citizens are.

Who defines who are citizens?
Maybe you should look at the several US jurisdictions that hold that killing a foetus is murder, leading to the strange situation that a foetus is both a non-person parasite, and simultaneously, a citizen, who it is illegal to kill.
Doublethink abounds.

[Mormolyce]

Who defines who are citizens?
Maybe you should look at the several US jurisdictions that hold that killing a foetus is murder, leading to the strange situation that a foetus is both a non-person parasite, and simultaneously, a citizen, who it is illegal to kill.
Doublethink abounds.

The US constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

Those foetal personhood laws are a backdoor tactic being used by the pro-life movement. Until and unless they are challenged in the Supreme Court, their constitutional status is in limbo.

[montsora]

That white unity thro

[Deleted]

The US constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1.

Prior to Roe, that included fetuses - and maybe you forgot this is not a debate over abortion, but whether or not a 'libertarian' government could have arguments for banning abortions - They clearly do.

Those foetal personhood laws are a backdoor tactic being used by the pro-life movement. Until and unless they are challenged in the Supreme Court, their constitutional status is in limbo.

No they are not.

In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-eight (38) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[2] These laws do not apply to legally induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion.

Double think abounds.

[Mormolyce]

Prior to Roe, that included fetuses - and maybe you forgot this is not a debate over abortion, but whether or not a 'libertarian' government could have arguments for banning abortions - They clearly do.

No they are not.

Double think abounds.

You're entirely correct, these fetal personhood laws are utterly asinine. They're a deliberate attempt to insert the notion into legislature and undermine the right to abortion. And like I said, it has not been assessed by the SCOTUS, these are lower court rulings you are referring to. Not that the SCOTUS is immune to bad or self-contradictory decisions of course.

And no, fetuses weren't citizens before Roe v. Wade.

[NYC17]

You're entirely correct, these fetal personhood laws are utterly asinine. They're a deliberate attempt to insert the notion into legislature and undermine the right to abortion. And like I said, it has not been assessed by the SCOTUS, these are lower court rulings you are referring to. Not that the SCOTUS is immune to bad or self-contradictory decisions of course.

And no, fetuses weren't citizens before Roe v. Wade.

What's strange to me is how someone uses the term "future citizen", yet doesn't realize that term itself qualifies the pre-future status as decidedly not a citizen.

Obliviousness is an art form.

[Deleted]

And no, fetuses weren't citizens before Roe v. Wade.

Abortions were bannable prior to roe.

[Elegiac]

Abortions were bannable prior to roe.

That was a function of the law being silent.

[Deleted]

What's strange to me is how someone uses the term "future citizen", yet doesn't realize that term itself qualifies the pre-future status as decidedly not a citizen.

Obliviousness is an art form.

Again, the argument here is whether or not a libertarian government could ban abortions while still remaining true to their ideals.
I would say its eminently possible - Do you agree or disagree?

- - - Updated - - -

That was a function of the law being silent.

The point was that the US moved from one state to the other, and could move back, where one to redefine who is and is not a citizen.

[Deleted]

I don't know who she is and cba to Google but I noticed a lot of people on here following random 'celebrities' just to hear their subjective opinion on something which is odd to me