Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[Cecilie1200]

Nice meltdown.

Now tell me, if the fetus is a person according to the Constitution, why do people like you want a Constitutional amendment to declare the fetus a person?

Why do you want something put into the Constitution that you also insist is already there?

To use your words, stop lying about what I believe.

I don't think there needs to be an amendment. I already believe it's a person.

Show me where I said I wanted such an amendment. You'll have the same chance of finding it and you do the word abortion in the Constitution. I haven't said such a thing nor is the word abortion there. As the typical dumbass, you'll probably look.

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Really? Where does it say THAT? I don't remember "born humans" mentioned anywhere.

 

[Faun]

If that were the case, and it's not, ALL of the states would have separated from the federal government. You don't even know why we fought for independence from England.

All of the States didn't have an overbearing government sticking its nose in their business. While you don't see that, you likely don't see the federal government forcing someone to pay for a woman's choice the woman said was none of their business as being overbearing. You like big government and consider it normal. The southern states didn't and chose not to accept it. Read the Declaration. It says exactly why we fought for independence from England. It gives a list of reasons. The first part goes about saying that there comes a times when even certain things must no longer exist that way including the colonists no longer being part of England. The list just gives examples as to why the separation should occur.

The overbearing issue, which some states didn't take issue -- was slavery.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

So it's changed? Many of your indoctrinated ilk have said it was about nothing but slavery. You can't even keep up with what your handlers believe.

That's because I don't have handlers. Glad you're capable of recognizing that. And again, as quoted above, slavery was the key issue leading to secession. The states themselves said it at the time; even if you are too stupid to understand it. And again, if slavery wasn't an issue, there would have been no secession and there would have been no civil war.

Typical brainwashed Liberal. Your handlers have done a good job at it. They get you to do what they want you to do and make you believe it was really you deciding.

Again, Liberals have claimed slavery was the ONLY issue.

If slavery was the primary issue, the non confederate slave states would have left, too.

You're too fucking deranged. First you say I don't follow my handlers; then you say they've brain washed me. The sad reality is you have no fucking clue what you're saying. You're just another senile old conservative, drowning in his own dementia.

Again, the states themselves said the primary reason was over slavery. Why on Earth would anyone take the word of a deranged lunatic like you over theirs? And just because the states caught in the middle decided to remain in the union doesn't mean the other states didn't secede over slavery. It only means they felt there were better ways to deal with the issue other than splitting up the nation. Meanwhile, the states which did secede declared their reasons, and the overwhelming sentiment was over slavery. You truly are too dumb to breathe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To use your words, stop lying about what I believe.

I don't think there needs to be an amendment. I already believe it's a person.

Show me where I said I wanted such an amendment. You'll have the same chance of finding it and you do the word abortion in the Constitution. I haven't said such a thing nor is the word abortion there. As the typical dumbass, you'll probably look.

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Really? Where does it say THAT? I don't remember "born humans" mentioned anywhere.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

14th amendment

 

[Conservative65]

That's because the opportunity hasn't occurred YET. It will change when it does.

It never will, ya deluded freak of nature.

That's not because of me but because you'll hide.

You're powerless. Deal with reality.

When you hide like a little bitch, it's not about me but the one hiding. Afraid?

Hiding? I'm on the Internet, ya dumfuck. Same as you. I'm "hiding" like you're hiding. You can't stop me from speaking, yiu're powerless, ya fruit loop dingus.

Deal with reality.

If you can.

Hiding is an unwillingness. You're the only one unwilling. I'm more than willing to do what I said should be done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment.

“Three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3.

What about it?

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

The placenta.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

So? Her rights to own her own body supersede the non-existent rights of the "living body" inside her.

Thanks for your opinion, but figure out the difference between opinion and fact, please.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

What an idiotic thing to say.

Think it through. If the clinic didn't want her to be able to make an informed decision, why did they show her the ultrasound?

Bottom line is that she was able to make a choice.

 

[Faun]

To use your words, stop lying about what I believe.

I don't think there needs to be an amendment. I already believe it's a person.

Show me where I said I wanted such an amendment. You'll have the same chance of finding it and you do the word abortion in the Constitution. I haven't said such a thing nor is the word abortion there. As the typical dumbass, you'll probably look.

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Really? Where does it say THAT? I don't remember "born humans" mentioned anywhere.

Keep reading the thread and you'll get to the post where I elaborate.

 

[Faun]

fucking dildo, women don't choose to be raped.

Women don't choose to for their pregnancies to threaten their lives.

Those are the abortions you're bitching about paying for.

You're even more deranged than I thought.

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

Again, helping someone involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You can believe that the government forcing you to do something means you helped but you would be wrong. They made you do it. It's the same as you thinking compassion comes from believing someone else should do it your way then going about having the government mandate it.

I don't have a problem helping where I, not you, deem I should help. But then, if you weren't a Liberal you might understand the difference.

If left to imbecile conservatives like you, children would starve. That's why we leave it up to the government.

Since it's the parents responsibility to feed their own kids, Conservative aren't involved in that responsibility. If you bleeding hearts truly cared like you claim you care, the government wouldn't need to be involved. I hold no responsibility in the matter. If the children go without, it's the parent's fault since it is their responsibility. Since you think kids that aren't yours deserve it and they don't get it, it's your fault because you believe it is your responsibility. The sad part is you won't do a damn thing about it personally.

It's the same with any choice someone makes. If you buy a car that you can't afford to pay for, the rest of us aren't responsible for that. Same with a house, etc. You decide, you pay.

It's not the same, ya dumbfuck. Kids are not cars. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Again... we don't let kids starve in the U.S.. I don't care how selfish and heartless you conservatives are.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

“Three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3.

What about it?

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Really? Where does it say THAT? I don't remember "born humans" mentioned anywhere.

Keep reading the thread and you'll get to the post where I elaborate.

Contemplate the possibility that maybe I've read your posts, and instead of being the brilliant, incisive, explanatory wisdom you think they are, they were instead a bunch of bullshit opinions asserted as fact with no supporting evidence. Oh, and tautologies. You're big on tautologies.

"We refuse to recognize your rights, because you're not a person! How do we know you're not a person? Because you don't have any rights!"

Uh huh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What about it?

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

I see you still don't understand. I give up.

 

[Conservative65]

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

Again, helping someone involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You can believe that the government forcing you to do something means you helped but you would be wrong. They made you do it. It's the same as you thinking compassion comes from believing someone else should do it your way then going about having the government mandate it.

I don't have a problem helping where I, not you, deem I should help. But then, if you weren't a Liberal you might understand the difference.

If left to imbecile conservatives like you, children would starve. That's why we leave it up to the government.

Since it's the parents responsibility to feed their own kids, Conservative aren't involved in that responsibility. If you bleeding hearts truly cared like you claim you care, the government wouldn't need to be involved. I hold no responsibility in the matter. If the children go without, it's the parent's fault since it is their responsibility. Since you think kids that aren't yours deserve it and they don't get it, it's your fault because you believe it is your responsibility. The sad part is you won't do a damn thing about it personally.

It's the same with any choice someone makes. If you buy a car that you can't afford to pay for, the rest of us aren't responsible for that. Same with a house, etc. You decide, you pay.

It's not the same, ya dumbfuck. Kids are not cars. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Again... we don't let kids starve in the U.S.. I don't care how selfish and heartless you conservatives are.

Since the discussion is about the principle of personal responsibility and the person making the choice being responsible for it, the specific topic is irrelevant. Perhaps your argument is the personal responsibility on matters when you think it does.

I can't be selfish on this matter. Selfish would involve not doing something that I'm responsible for doing. Since I'm not, selfish plays no role. If you want to see selfish, look at those parents that expect someone else to support them and their kids. All I want is to keep what I earned. They want to keep what someone else earned. People don't deserve things just because they want them. When people start thinking they are automatically entitled to something, they start using a right they have to earn it to abuse the rights of others to what they earned. Someone can have all they want if they are willing to earn it. However, they don't have a right to another person's money despite you willing to enable a personally irresponsible person to have it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

My original statement was that abortion is just as abhorrent as slavery and then you went off the rails.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

I see you still don't understand. I give up.

I just heard, "I realized how stupid I sound, but I'm too dishonest to admit it, so I'll just run away."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

I see you still don't understand. I give up.

I just heard, "I realized how stupid I sound, but I'm too dishonest to admit it, so I'll just run away."

No, thats what I said. I tried to keep it simple and you trainwrecked into the forest with all this blah blah blah yakfest that amounted to a dog chasing his tail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.

*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.

Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?

***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?

What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?

I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.

You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.

My original statement was that abortion is just as abhorrent as slavery and then you went off the rails.

Um, we weren't talking about your original statement. Please note that at no time did I ever comment on your original statement regarding slavery whatsoever. I commented specifically after you started babbling about "3/5 of a person", which is not slavery. The entire conversation between you and me has been about your complete and utter misunderstanding of the "3/5" clause in the Constitution, and no attempt to now suddenly redefine it as me arguing with your original statement regarding slavery and abortion is going to make it so.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Like it matters to me that you don't like my answer. It matters not that it's temporary. The placenta is still physically attached to the woman and part of her body until she delivers, miscarries, or has an abortion.

And again, you can't force anyone to remain pregnant against their will.

So the placenta is present when a woman is not pregnant?

No, it's attached to but not part of her body, just as the umbilical cord is attached to but not part of the unborn's body.

The body inside her body is not her body. When she has an abortion, the body that is not hers is removed; her body remains intact.

Your ilk just can't ever admit that abortion kills a human being. Cowards, hiding behind choice.