Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, I just think willful killing of defenseless human beings should be illegal.
you penchant for emotional appeals is noted and scoffed at. the court is rightfully disinterested.
They are only making it legal for a woman to have control over her body which is more important than the baby she may have to take care of after everyone has their moral outrage placated..The life means just as much. The point is that its none of my business until it ceases using the womans body as a host without permission.Not if its inside the body of someone that doesnt want it. Once it leaves that sanctuary i would place my life on the line for a child.I dont support abortion but I wont fight against it because its none of my business what a woman does with her body.
Don't you think it's important to fight for a human life that's defenseless?
They did not ask to be conceived....
So, the life doesn't mean as much while it's developing and inside someone else? Or do you view it only a "semi-life" or, since the laws says it's OK to do it, it's on her conscience and we can wash our hands of it?
I think a living human is everybody's business. No matter where it is. It's one thing to take the life on your own, it's another to make it legal to do so and give the impression that it is OK to do it!
The life means just as much. The point is that its none of my business until it ceases using the womans body as a host without permission.Not if its inside the body of someone that doesnt want it. Once it leaves that sanctuary i would place my life on the line for a child.I dont support abortion but I wont fight against it because its none of my business what a woman does with her body.
Don't you think it's important to fight for a human life that's defenseless?
They did not ask to be conceived....
So, the life doesn't mean as much while it's developing and inside someone else? Or do you view it only a "semi-life" or, since the laws says it's OK to do it, it's on her conscience and we can wash our hands of it?
So killing a baby at 8 1/2 months is OK with you?
.. when a 5 week old fetus has a heart?
.. when a 5 week old fetus has a heart?
Have you ever taken an antibiotic?Not if its inside the body of someone that doesnt want it. Once it leaves that sanctuary i would place my life on the line for a child.I dont support abortion but I wont fight against it because its none of my business what a woman does with her body.
Don't you think it's important to fight for a human life that's defenseless?
They did not ask to be conceived....
So, the life doesn't mean as much while it's developing and inside someone else? Or do you view it only a "semi-life" or, since the laws says it's OK to do it, it's on her conscience and we can wash our hands of it?
I'm not talking about men and politicians.
Are we so brainwashed to think since SCOTUS says it, it's OK??? I'm talking about what is morally correct, not what is LEGAL!
No, I just think willful killing of defenseless human beings should be illegal.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled and reaffirmed a woman's right to choose in the first trimester.
this is about the zillionth time i've posted this info on this forum, but here you go...
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
I'm not talking about men and politicians.
Are we so brainwashed to think since SCOTUS says it, it's OK??? I'm talking about what is morally correct, not what is LEGAL!
I think it more accurately portrays the hypocrisy of the right when they care about a child until its born. After birth any needed welfare should be cut to the mother so the child can starve. Certainly a demonstration of illogical thinking.This thread illustrates just how far we've sunk and how morally bankrupt the left is in this country.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled and reaffirmed a woman's right to choose in the first trimester.
this is about the zillionth time i've posted this info on this forum, but here you go...
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
I'm not talking about men and politicians.
Are we so brainwashed to think since SCOTUS says it, it's OK??? I'm talking about what is morally correct, not what is LEGAL!
Moral correctness is a subjective topic. Some feel it's morally correct to genitally mutilate males and females.
Ending a life, whether it be human or animal, is something that should only be done when no other option is available. That is my personal opinion and is not something that the rest of the world has to live by.
If you eat meat (and I do), an animal is killed so you can do so. Others think that is morally wrong yet you are still allowed to do it.
You may feel that abortion is morally wrong and you have every right never to have one. Others do not have to feel the same.
When right to lifers demonstrate against capital punishment and war I'll listen to them.
Until then, they're just another bunch of hypocrites.
Loaded question fallacy - no one "supports" abortion; it's perfectly consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time support the privacy rights of women.
The life means just as much. The point is that its none of my business until it ceases using the womans body as a host without permission.Not if its inside the body of someone that doesnt want it. Once it leaves that sanctuary i would place my life on the line for a child.I dont support abortion but I wont fight against it because its none of my business what a woman does with her body.
Don't you think it's important to fight for a human life that's defenseless?
They did not ask to be conceived....
So, the life doesn't mean as much while it's developing and inside someone else? Or do you view it only a "semi-life" or, since the laws says it's OK to do it, it's on her conscience and we can wash our hands of it?
So killing a baby at 8 1/2 months is OK with you?
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled and reaffirmed a woman's right to choose in the first trimester.
this is about the zillionth time i've posted this info on this forum, but here you go...
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
I'm not talking about men and politicians.
Are we so brainwashed to think since SCOTUS says it, it's OK??? I'm talking about what is morally correct, not what is LEGAL!
Moral correctness is a subjective topic. Some feel it's morally correct to genitally mutilate males and females.
Ending a life, whether it be human or animal, is something that should only be done when no other option is available. That is my personal opinion and is not something that the rest of the world has to live by.
If you eat meat (and I do), an animal is killed so you can do so. Others think that is morally wrong yet you are still allowed to do it.
You may feel that abortion is morally wrong and you have every right never to have one. Others do not have to feel the same.
Totally agree. I'm OK with people saying "yeah I see no problem with it" - but trying to say it's not killing (or murder) - I'm not a stickler for words and definitions... either way....
This thread illustrates just how far we've sunk and how morally bankrupt the left is in this country.
The life means just as much. The point is that its none of my business until it ceases using the womans body as a host without permission.Not if its inside the body of someone that doesnt want it. Once it leaves that sanctuary i would place my life on the line for a child.Don't you think it's important to fight for a human life that's defenseless?
They did not ask to be conceived....
So, the life doesn't mean as much while it's developing and inside someone else? Or do you view it only a "semi-life" or, since the laws says it's OK to do it, it's on her conscience and we can wash our hands of it?
So killing a baby at 8 1/2 months is OK with you?SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled and reaffirmed a woman's right to choose in the first trimester.
this is about the zillionth time i've posted this info on this forum, but here you go...
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
I'm not talking about men and politicians.
Are we so brainwashed to think since SCOTUS says it, it's OK??? I'm talking about what is morally correct, not what is LEGAL!
Moral correctness is a subjective topic. Some feel it's morally correct to genitally mutilate males and females.
Ending a life, whether it be human or animal, is something that should only be done when no other option is available. That is my personal opinion and is not something that the rest of the world has to live by.
If you eat meat (and I do), an animal is killed so you can do so. Others think that is morally wrong yet you are still allowed to do it.
You may feel that abortion is morally wrong and you have every right never to have one. Others do not have to feel the same.
Totally agree. I'm OK with people saying "yeah I see no problem with it" - but trying to say it's not killing (or murder) - I'm not a stickler for words and definitions... either way....
If you read the legal definition of murder, it isn't murder and since the decision is based in legality then that is the proper definition to go by.
It is killing.
