Abortion is murder

[ding]

Sorry, I think I'll stay on point and drive home your incongruity instead, lol....

LOL There are several lying liberals on this forum who're the first to derail with personal attacks and also the first to say "I think I'll stay on point..." after they are caught in multiple lies.

Again, you've failed to prove both 1) that a zygote = a human being and 2) that you aren't a military-hating liberal. What you have proved is that you are an unrepentant liar who's made multiple false accusations against me then ran like a fucking anti-military coward when asked to back up those lies with proof. Does that summation work for you, bub?

Did you have some scientific evidence that you wanted to present that proves that a new human being is NOT created at conception?

 

[Campbell]

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.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

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.

You my friend sound exactly like the continuous stream of bull shit coming from Faux News.

I honor the Constitution...you honor the NYTimes.
And yet another difference between us...I never use profanity.

Do you thump your bible too? You sound like one of those birds who believes in ghosts and worships ancient gods.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

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.

You my friend sound exactly like the continuous stream of bull shit coming from Faux News.

I honor the Constitution...you honor the NYTimes.
And yet another difference between us...I never use profanity.

Do you thump your bible too? You sound like one of those birds who believes in ghosts and worships ancient gods.

What is it that you're attempting to show your pride in?

Ignorance?

Disrespect for America and the Constitution?

Some sort of sneering disapproval of the religion of our Founders?

Proud of being low-class scum?

All of the above?

 

[Divine Wind]

...I see no difference between you and the screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them. Those fucking pussies are hateful to the point of violence and you are simply the flip side of that same coin of hate and intolerance. They scream about the "alt-right" when, in fact, they are the Alt-Left. Again, no difference except in polarity. All can go fuck themselves with a baseball bat then dive off a bridge onto a pile of rocks. The world is better off without such hateful, intolerant fucking hypocrites. You are free to go down your little list as you hold it in your trembling little hands, but I'm positive it will simply prove me correct; you are so far right that anyone to the left of you will be labeled a "Liberal Socialist" just like a list from your counterparts would show that anyone to the right of them is a "Conservative Capitalist". Fine. All are simply proof of how fucked up our society has become to the point where words like "tolerance" and "civil discussion" have come to mean "you're not with us!!!"...

My goodness, you sure do get emotional about your beliefs. That is exactly what we would expect to see from someone who has had his religion attacked. The reality is that the only one who has acted irrationally is you. Why? Because science proves you wrong and because you cannot face your incongruity. You could have just as easily admitted that human life does begin at conception but that you still supported a woman's right to end the life of her baby. But you won't do that because you don't want to admit that you support doing something wrong. So instead you have rationalized that wrong is right. Look, we both know it is wrong because women agonize over making these decisions. So instead of getting all high and mighty because I spoke the truth and called you out on rationalizing your support of something that is wrong as really being right, you could just man up to the fact that it is wrong but that you still support a woman's choice. Then we could move on to the next discussion and you just might finsd what I had to say more agreeable to what you believe. But I will not rationalize that ending a human life is good.

Ahh, proof that you are soft on "screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them". Interesting.

Did you make a career in the military? If not, then you must be a military-hating liberal. Another reason not only to distrust you, but to prove you are not the tolerant, rational person you believe yourself to be. A second reason is because you are just like PC.

No. That is not proof of me being soft. It is not proof of me being hard. It is not proof of me being a military-hating liberal. It is proof that I am awake. I really couldn't care less what you believe about me. You have clearly gotten your feathers ruffled and that's a good thing. Truth usually hurts before it helps. I have pointed out you incongruity. My obligation is satisfied. What you choose to do with it is up to you. It appears that you are still not ready that you believe abortion does end a human life and that it is wrong to do so, but you still support women doing it.

I think if we go down the list, you and I will see you are, indeed, a military hating liberal.

Why did you dodge the military service question? You and I both know why: you never served.

Why didn't you make the military a career? Because you and I both know you are a spineless coward aka military-hating liberal. See how that works? Now go ahead and keep accusing me of being a fucking liberal and a cocksucking socialist like you did before. Go ahead and falsely accuse me of being anti-science. That's what cowardly military-hating liberals do, isn't it?

You're a liar, Ding. You've told multiple lies about me and never apologized. Do you believe in God, Ding? You're certainly not a Christian who believes in the Ten Commandments since you're repeatedly borne false witness against me. Worse, you're unrepentant about it. That's two great sins which you keep repeating every time you post.

Why did you dodge my questions? I was honest in answering yours. A good Christian would be honest enough to return the courtesy, but as I already proved, you're an unrepentant liar and, therefore, unlikely to be a Christian.

It's okay if you never joined the military. I was just curious if you didn't give a flying fuck about this great nation of ours or if you had a disease such as Jellied Spine or Limpus Dickus that prevented you from defending our nation.

 

[Faun]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

 

[ding]

...I see no difference between you and the screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them. Those fucking pussies are hateful to the point of violence and you are simply the flip side of that same coin of hate and intolerance. They scream about the "alt-right" when, in fact, they are the Alt-Left. Again, no difference except in polarity. All can go fuck themselves with a baseball bat then dive off a bridge onto a pile of rocks. The world is better off without such hateful, intolerant fucking hypocrites. You are free to go down your little list as you hold it in your trembling little hands, but I'm positive it will simply prove me correct; you are so far right that anyone to the left of you will be labeled a "Liberal Socialist" just like a list from your counterparts would show that anyone to the right of them is a "Conservative Capitalist". Fine. All are simply proof of how fucked up our society has become to the point where words like "tolerance" and "civil discussion" have come to mean "you're not with us!!!"...

My goodness, you sure do get emotional about your beliefs. That is exactly what we would expect to see from someone who has had his religion attacked. The reality is that the only one who has acted irrationally is you. Why? Because science proves you wrong and because you cannot face your incongruity. You could have just as easily admitted that human life does begin at conception but that you still supported a woman's right to end the life of her baby. But you won't do that because you don't want to admit that you support doing something wrong. So instead you have rationalized that wrong is right. Look, we both know it is wrong because women agonize over making these decisions. So instead of getting all high and mighty because I spoke the truth and called you out on rationalizing your support of something that is wrong as really being right, you could just man up to the fact that it is wrong but that you still support a woman's choice. Then we could move on to the next discussion and you just might finsd what I had to say more agreeable to what you believe. But I will not rationalize that ending a human life is good.

Ahh, proof that you are soft on "screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them". Interesting.

Did you make a career in the military? If not, then you must be a military-hating liberal. Another reason not only to distrust you, but to prove you are not the tolerant, rational person you believe yourself to be. A second reason is because you are just like PC.

No. That is not proof of me being soft. It is not proof of me being hard. It is not proof of me being a military-hating liberal. It is proof that I am awake. I really couldn't care less what you believe about me. You have clearly gotten your feathers ruffled and that's a good thing. Truth usually hurts before it helps. I have pointed out you incongruity. My obligation is satisfied. What you choose to do with it is up to you. It appears that you are still not ready that you believe abortion does end a human life and that it is wrong to do so, but you still support women doing it.

I think if we go down the list, you and I will see you are, indeed, a military hating liberal.

Why did you dodge the military service question? You and I both know why: you never served.

Why didn't you make the military a career? Because you and I both know you are a spineless coward aka military-hating liberal. See how that works? Now go ahead and keep accusing me of being a fucking liberal and a cocksucking socialist like you did before. Go ahead and falsely accuse me of being anti-science. That's what cowardly military-hating liberals do, isn't it?

You're a liar, Ding. You've told multiple lies about me and never apologized. Do you believe in God, Ding? You're certainly not a Christian who believes in the Ten Commandments since you're repeatedly borne false witness against me. Worse, you're unrepentant about it. That's two great sins which you keep repeating every time you post.

Why did you dodge my questions? I was honest in answering yours. A good Christian would be honest enough to return the courtesy, but as I already proved, you're an unrepentant liar and, therefore, unlikely to be a Christian.

It's okay if you never joined the military. I was just curious if you didn't give a flying fuck about this great nation of ours or if you had a disease such as Jellied Spine or Limpus Dickus that prevented you from defending our nation.

Because they had nothing to do with this topic. You are upset because I am showing you that human life begins at conception and that does not fit your belief that abortion is just. It's not. Abortion is wrong. Liberals believe abortion is good. Do you support abortion?

Besides, if you look at the bottom of every one of my posts you will see...Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it. They are modern American liberals.

Does this sound like I am a liberal to you?

 

[ding]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

 

[Faun]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

 

[ding]

...I see no difference between you and the screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them. Those fucking pussies are hateful to the point of violence and you are simply the flip side of that same coin of hate and intolerance. They scream about the "alt-right" when, in fact, they are the Alt-Left. Again, no difference except in polarity. All can go fuck themselves with a baseball bat then dive off a bridge onto a pile of rocks. The world is better off without such hateful, intolerant fucking hypocrites. You are free to go down your little list as you hold it in your trembling little hands, but I'm positive it will simply prove me correct; you are so far right that anyone to the left of you will be labeled a "Liberal Socialist" just like a list from your counterparts would show that anyone to the right of them is a "Conservative Capitalist". Fine. All are simply proof of how fucked up our society has become to the point where words like "tolerance" and "civil discussion" have come to mean "you're not with us!!!"...

My goodness, you sure do get emotional about your beliefs. That is exactly what we would expect to see from someone who has had his religion attacked. The reality is that the only one who has acted irrationally is you. Why? Because science proves you wrong and because you cannot face your incongruity. You could have just as easily admitted that human life does begin at conception but that you still supported a woman's right to end the life of her baby. But you won't do that because you don't want to admit that you support doing something wrong. So instead you have rationalized that wrong is right. Look, we both know it is wrong because women agonize over making these decisions. So instead of getting all high and mighty because I spoke the truth and called you out on rationalizing your support of something that is wrong as really being right, you could just man up to the fact that it is wrong but that you still support a woman's choice. Then we could move on to the next discussion and you just might finsd what I had to say more agreeable to what you believe. But I will not rationalize that ending a human life is good.

Ahh, proof that you are soft on "screaming, intolerant far Left ***** who dog pile on anyone who disagrees with them". Interesting.

Did you make a career in the military? If not, then you must be a military-hating liberal. Another reason not only to distrust you, but to prove you are not the tolerant, rational person you believe yourself to be. A second reason is because you are just like PC.

No. That is not proof of me being soft. It is not proof of me being hard. It is not proof of me being a military-hating liberal. It is proof that I am awake. I really couldn't care less what you believe about me. You have clearly gotten your feathers ruffled and that's a good thing. Truth usually hurts before it helps. I have pointed out you incongruity. My obligation is satisfied. What you choose to do with it is up to you. It appears that you are still not ready that you believe abortion does end a human life and that it is wrong to do so, but you still support women doing it.

I think if we go down the list, you and I will see you are, indeed, a military hating liberal.

Why did you dodge the military service question? You and I both know why: you never served.

Why didn't you make the military a career? Because you and I both know you are a spineless coward aka military-hating liberal. See how that works? Now go ahead and keep accusing me of being a fucking liberal and a cocksucking socialist like you did before. Go ahead and falsely accuse me of being anti-science. That's what cowardly military-hating liberals do, isn't it?

You're a liar, Ding. You've told multiple lies about me and never apologized. Do you believe in God, Ding? You're certainly not a Christian who believes in the Ten Commandments since you're repeatedly borne false witness against me. Worse, you're unrepentant about it. That's two great sins which you keep repeating every time you post.

Why did you dodge my questions? I was honest in answering yours. A good Christian would be honest enough to return the courtesy, but as I already proved, you're an unrepentant liar and, therefore, unlikely to be a Christian.

It's okay if you never joined the military. I was just curious if you didn't give a flying fuck about this great nation of ours or if you had a disease such as Jellied Spine or Limpus Dickus that prevented you from defending our nation.

I just answered your question. Go back and read what I wrote. Stop being butt hurt. That too is a sign of a modern liberal.

 

[ding]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

 

[Faun]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

 

[Lilah]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

Stop a beating heart and see how manly you feel.

 

[ding]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

 

[Faun]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

 

[ding]

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

 

[Faun]

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery comparison is useless as you can apply that to anything. Such as ... the SCOTUS says murder is illegal, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time. They say marriage is a right, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time.

So where it stands as that we, as a society determine what is and is not murder, the illegal killing of another human being. And our society, at this time, decides abortion is not murder.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'm thankful my wife did not have one when she suffered a serious complication while carrying one of our kids, when abortion was an option; who is, thank G-d, alive and healthy.

But I don't impose my beliefs on others when our society decides abortion is not murder.

 

[Mudda]

Words have meaning, even if you don't understand them...

murder the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Just curious, how do you propose forcing women to carry babies to term?

 

[ding]

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery comparison is useless as you can apply that to anything. Such as ... the SCOTUS says murder is illegal, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time. They say marriage is a right, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time.

So where it stands as that we, as a society determine what is and is not murder, the illegal killing of another human being. And our society, at this time, decides abortion is not murder.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'm thankful my wife did not have one when she suffered a serious complication while carrying one of our kids, when abortion was an option; who is, thank G-d, alive and healthy.

But I don't impose my beliefs on others when our society decides abortion is not murder.

No. They ruled on slavery only one time. It took the 13th Amendment to reverse it and then the 14th and 15th Amendment to force the Democrats to treat them as citizens. I'm happy for you and your wife, but the reality is that morals are not relative. Slavery was wrong then. It was always wrong and it will always be wrong. Same thing goes for abortion. Mind you I am not advocating for making abortion illegal, I am advocating that we stop pretending like it is a good thing. I am advocating that we admit that we are ending a human life, most of the time for selfish reasons and that we stop rationalizing that we aren't violating the Law of Right and Wrong. Apparently, I am asking for too much.

I couldn't help to see how you spelled God. There was a time when Jews were not seen as human beings either and we know what happened to them. I don't see any difference here.I wonder what would have happened back then if people had spoken out against it?

One othe thing to think about, if abortion is not morally wrong, then forced abortions for the good of the country or the world would also not be morally wrong. Normalization of deviance is a slippery slope.

 

[ding]

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Just curious, how do you propose forcing women to carry babies to term?

Who said I am? Do you think abortion ends a human life?

 

[Mudda]

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Just curious, how do you propose forcing women to carry babies to term?

Who said I am? Do you think abortion ends a human life?

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Just curious, how do you propose forcing women to carry babies to term?

Who said I am? Do you think abortion ends a human life?

Are you ready to outlaw abortion?