Abortion is murder

[PoliticalChic]

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

And the two salient points in this discussion are

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



The attempt to change the subject reveals that you recognize, and acknowledge the weakness of your position.
You may try to change the subject...but I won't allow you to.


I can certainly relieve you of the burden, as honest has never been a burden for me.
I can answer the two if you like.

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.

Wow. You do have OCD tendencies.

That's your third? fourth? attempt to use that phrase to disguise your failure and fear of responding to this:
1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.




Seems your 'OCD' comment has become a boomerang, huh?

 

[Divine Wind]

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

And the two salient points in this discussion are

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



The attempt to change the subject reveals that you recognize, and acknowledge the weakness of your position.
You may try to change the subject...but I won't allow you to.


I can certainly relieve you of the burden, as honest has never been a burden for me.
I can answer the two if you like.

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.

Wow. You do have OCD tendencies.

That's your third? fourth? attempt to use that phrase to disguise your failure and fear of responding to this:
1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.




Seems your 'OCD' comment has become a boomerang, huh?

When you calm down and can explain what "human being" means to you, since you obviously disagree with Merriam-Webster, let me know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

And the two salient points in this discussion are

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



The attempt to change the subject reveals that you recognize, and acknowledge the weakness of your position.
You may try to change the subject...but I won't allow you to.


I can certainly relieve you of the burden, as honest has never been a burden for me.
I can answer the two if you like.

It appears you are a liar.
You claimed that I posted this:

"...that human beings are fully formed at conception. "

Can you produce such a post of mine....or will you be labelled exactly what you are....a liar, attempting to avoid these questions:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.

Wow. You do have OCD tendencies.

That's your third? fourth? attempt to use that phrase to disguise your failure and fear of responding to this:
1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.




Seems your 'OCD' comment has become a boomerang, huh?

When you calm down and can explain what "human being" means to you, since you obviously disagree with Merriam-Webster, let me know.

"When you calm down...."

Another lie?

What part of any of my posts suggests lack of seraphic calm?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



Seems I have destroyed any claim you might have imagined you might have on this issue.

 

[Campbell]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

 

[The Great Goose]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Because they are the authorities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

 

[Campbell]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

 

[The Great Goose]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

Everyone over 50 thinks the world has not changed. My Dad told me I should take a nice ferry trip on Sydney harbour from the city to Manly. I'm like, Dad, There's nothing nice about battling one's way through this grossly overpopulated shithole.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

 

[Divine Wind]

Everyone over 50 thinks the world has not changed. My Dad told me I should take a nice ferry trip on Sydney harbour from the city to Manly. I'm like, Dad, There's nothing nice about battling one's way through this grossly overpopulated shithole.

As someone now over 60, I think you are misunderstanding their point. The world has obviously changed, but people have not. We're still the same creatures who evolved about 200,000 years ago.

While I agree with your distaste of "grossly overpopulated shithole(s)", some people like them; New Yorkers and Beijingers for example.

What is your solution to overpopulation?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A stunning graphic.

 

[Divine Wind]

"When you calm down...."

Another lie?

What part of any of my posts suggests lack of seraphic calm?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



Seems I have destroyed any claim you might have imagined you might have on this issue.

No.

Your repetitious single-minded unwillingness to answer questions, responded to any answers not to your liking and your exemplification of OCD.

Again for the 3(?) time? I disagree since a zygote is not a human being as you previously claimed....although I do thank you for backpedaling to simply "human". You flushed human cells down the drain several times today yet you have no problem with it.

When you say "his or her life", you are claiming a single-cell has gender when, clearly, it does not since it exhibits no sexual characteristics. Do you know why men have nipples?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"When you calm down...."

Another lie?

What part of any of my posts suggests lack of seraphic calm?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.



Seems I have destroyed any claim you might have imagined you might have on this issue.

No.

Your repetitious single-minded unwillingness to answer questions, responded to any answers not to your liking and your exemplification of OCD.

Again for the 3(?) time? I disagree since a zygote is not a human being as you previously claimed....although I do thank you for backpedaling to simply "human". You flushed human cells down the drain several times today yet you have no problem with it.

When you say "his or her life", you are claiming a single-cell has gender when, clearly, it does not since it exhibits no sexual characteristics. Do you know why men have nipples?

This is...what....the fourth...fifth....lie I've caught you in?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.


Yet you write what clearly applies to you:
"Your repetitious single-minded unwillingness to answer questions, responded to any answers not to your liking and your exemplification of OCD."


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

 

[Divine Wind]

This is...what....the fourth...fifth....lie I've caught you in?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.


Yet you write what clearly applies to you:
"Your repetitious single-minded unwillingness to answer questions, responded to any answers not to your liking and your exemplification of OCD."


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

Wrong again. You can claim the up is down and down is up all day long, but that doesn't make you right. Nor does claiming you caught anyone in a lie make it true just because you say so. In fact, besides you propensity for OCD, it's becoming clear you have a problem in dealing with reality; you are in denial of what people actually say and, all too often, project your own "reality" onto their words so make yourself feel better.

Have a nice day, PC...and try not to hurt yourself or someone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is...what....the fourth...fifth....lie I've caught you in?

The fact is you will post anything not to confront these two items:

1. Abortion is the act of one human ending the existence of another

2. As the developing human is never a part of the 'mother,' where is her right to end his or her life.


Yet you write what clearly applies to you:
"Your repetitious single-minded unwillingness to answer questions, responded to any answers not to your liking and your exemplification of OCD."


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

Wrong again. You can claim the up is down and down is up all day long, but that doesn't make you right. Nor does claiming you caught anyone in a lie make it true just because you say so. In fact, besides you propensity for OCD, it's becoming clear you have a problem in dealing with reality; you are in denial of what people actually say and, all too often, project your own "reality" onto their words so make yourself feel better.

Have a nice day, PC...and try not to hurt yourself or someone else.

As I myself never lie, I am puzzled by how folks like you can do so, and continue on as though it is of no significance.

Soooo.....in the interests of saving from serious and permanent damage....I commend this article from the Guardian to give careful consideration:

"Study suggests that telling small lies makes changes to the brain’s response to lying, rather than being a case of one lie necessitating another to maintain a story
lies may desensitise brain to dishonesty
...scientists have uncovered an explanation for why telling a few porkies has the tendency to spiral out of control. The study suggests that telling small, insignificant lies desensitises the brain to dishonesty,

.... lying was probably a learnt behaviour. “It’s a nice study... It seems reasonable that if you develop a pattern of behaviour and it’s reinforced that you would return to that habit,” he said. “An interesting question is whether there would be interventions to un-train somebody. If you’re a chronic liar that’s really a problem for society.”
From porkies to whoppers: over time lies may desensitise brain to dishonesty

 

[The Great Goose]

Everyone over 50 thinks the world has not changed. My Dad told me I should take a nice ferry trip on Sydney harbour from the city to Manly. I'm like, Dad, There's nothing nice about battling one's way through this grossly overpopulated shithole.

As someone now over 60, I think you are misunderstanding their point. The world has obviously changed, but people have not. We're still the same creatures who evolved about 200,000 years ago.

While I agree with your distaste of "grossly overpopulated shithole(s)", some people like them; New Yorkers and Beijingers for example.

What is your solution to overpopulation?

The one we are using. Just have less kids. It was working until those greedy cuckservatives imported all these extra people.

 

[onefour1]

 

[The Great Goose]

We live in an evil society, where psychopaths have us all fooled.

 

[Divine Wind]

The one we are using. Just have less kids. It was working until those greedy cuckservatives imported all these extra people.

The maxim "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" is a good one. This means mainly good sex education programs and inexpensive (not free) effective contraceptives.

Not sure what you mean about importing other people since a country with 1 person per square mile next to a country with 1000 people per square mile will, eventually, be a country with 500-1000 people per square mile. The population issues you brought up are global, not just national.

 

[Divine Wind]

We live in an evil society, where psychopaths have us all fooled.

Disagreed. For that to be true, most people would have to be mostly evil and psychopaths....or completely stupid. Neither of which are true.