In other words, you specifically want them to say what's in the bill, even though it's emotionally manipulative and misleading. That's not informed consent. Nor does it respect conscience, because misleading people does not.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
They've basically already answered that question, and the answer is yes. To them their religious abhorrence at the origin of two cell lines >50 years ago trumps saving the lives of children, born and unborn, NOW.
- Show replies
-
-
-
You're not just defending her opinion, you're using it as one of your main points of evidence & projecting that she is on your team. There is a big difference. I would defend anyone's right to free speech, I wouldn't use a racist as my main example of why free speech is important
-
We're talking about the doctor quoted in the article. Focus. Do you think the doctor's quote in that article is being accurate? Nobody seems to want to answer that...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your entire argument is ludicrous. Kevorkian was against people suffering needlessly, limiting access to vaccines based on your extremely selective morality is the exact opposite of that. Millions, MILLIONS die from vaccine preventable illnesses each year.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They are such hypocrites. You are defending the rights of diseases basically.
-
Another explanation is that they value the lives of embryos and fetuses more than they value the lives of living children. I find that one just as plausible.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.