Abortion

[Moonglow]

So in other words you do NOT have a LEGAL argument for the LEGAL forum. Points of law are NOT argued or won on emotion unless stupid enters the argument. I am GUESSING you are NOT stupid SO three links please to start. Thank you.
Fury

Furry Why should anyone have a legal argument for something that you agree with and is legal?

UN-natural death should never be legal outside of war and defending yourself.

Death penalty?

When a person ANY person makes a choice to take a life be it a judge or a woman with child THEY have issued a death penalty.

This is ignorant and ridiculous, clearly you have no intent of engaging in rational discourse.

99% never do...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those of you holding up your wrong forum card saying this should be in political or religion put it down. I WILL make my points on the INJUSTICE of it's ILLEGAL approach to human rights and civil rights without the others.

NOW the FIRST thing you need to do is PROVE that "collection of cells" can be anything BUT human. You can do that by providing LINKS showing HUMAN women giving birth to dogs/cats/ducks or mice. YOUR choice, because until then it's human..

1, We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.

2, The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.

3. We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.

4, The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.

Abortion laws are based on both skewing and perverting the TRUE law of the land based on equal rights for ALL. Their is NOTHING legal OR civil about choice. Choice is an action NOT a law.

You know being stupid has a price. You speed and you get a ticket and YOU pay. You do the other and you get a baby and diaper duty. Based on basic democrat logic { I wrote those two words together?} America should have a tax payer funded program for my right foot. I know I know I make a choice to speed but hey it's NOT my fault right?

There is NOTHING legal about paying for a persons CHOICE, NOTHING.
Oh and by the way THAT statement BLOWS your "rape argument" BECAUSE rape is NOT a choice so it COULD be covered. 3% of abortions come by way of rape, so that means 97% of abortions come by way of CHOICE.

You EDUCATE the stupid you do NOT reward stupid. NOT with other peoples money.

The pro-baby killing arguements are all temporal in nature, that is, they say that at this point it's not a human being, and that point it is. But if you don't fiddle with it, it'll become a baby.

Re: #3, we're forced to pay for a military that 'electively kills' too so that's not a very good arguement.

#4 is a recurring subject I myself express. The biological father should have just as much say as the mother-to-be. I understand the worry here though, men could force women to bear their babies. True, but with this concern perhaps then women will take better care of their reproductive systems as with getting birth control instead of risking it.

Wrong.

See post #35.

 

[JoeMoma]

For those of you holding up your wrong forum card saying this should be in political or religion put it down. I WILL make my points on the INJUSTICE of it's ILLEGAL approach to human rights and civil rights without the others.

NOW the FIRST thing you need to do is PROVE that "collection of cells" can be anything BUT human. You can do that by providing LINKS showing HUMAN women giving birth to dogs/cats/ducks or mice. YOUR choice, because until then it's human..

1, We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.

2, The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.

3. We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.

4, The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.

Abortion laws are based on both skewing and perverting the TRUE law of the land based on equal rights for ALL. Their is NOTHING legal OR civil about choice. Choice is an action NOT a law.

You know being stupid has a price. You speed and you get a ticket and YOU pay. You do the other and you get a baby and diaper duty. Based on basic democrat logic { I wrote those two words together?} America should have a tax payer funded program for my right foot. I know I know I make a choice to speed but hey it's NOT my fault right?

There is NOTHING legal about paying for a persons CHOICE, NOTHING.
Oh and by the way THAT statement BLOWS your "rape argument" BECAUSE rape is NOT a choice so it COULD be covered. 3% of abortions come by way of rape, so that means 97% of abortions come by way of CHOICE.

You EDUCATE the stupid you do NOT reward stupid. NOT with other peoples money.

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

 

[Moonglow]

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

Yes, that is the zenith of the matter at hand...

 

[JoeMoma]

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

Yes, that is the zenith of the matter at hand...

I used to watch a zenith, but now I have a Sony.

 

[Moonglow]

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

Yes, that is the zenith of the matter at hand...

I used to watch a zenith, but now I have a Sony.

I used highway 9 until I had to ford the river....I had no horse...

 

[DarkFury]

“We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.”

Wrong.

The embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently there is no civil rights 'violation':

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendmentprotection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life.”'

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

'The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.'

'The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.'

Wrong.

The protected liberty of the woman is paramount, immune from attack by the state or the father:

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” ibid

“We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.”

Wrong.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits public funding of abortions; moreover, that tax dollars are used to pay for something a taxpayer might oppose, such as the production and use of weapons of war, does not constitute a civil rights 'violation.'

The OP has thus succeeded in only exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the law and the right of women to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state.

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

And when they REALLY screw one up TWO people die.

 

[DarkFury]

“We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.”

Wrong.

The embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently there is no civil rights 'violation':

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendmentprotection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life.”'

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

'The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.'

'The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.'

Wrong.

The protected liberty of the woman is paramount, immune from attack by the state or the father:

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” ibid

“We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.”

Wrong.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits public funding of abortions; moreover, that tax dollars are used to pay for something a taxpayer might oppose, such as the production and use of weapons of war, does not constitute a civil rights 'violation.'

The OP has thus succeeded in only exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the law and the right of women to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state.

You kind of MISSED the first request NOW your argument IS that it's just a zygote right? A zygote of what though? Those three wee links I asked for is your FAIL point. See if that DNA strand is HUMAN it's HUMAN no matter the color or the gender it IS human.

In order to say it does NOT have human rights you must disprove the FACT that it is human. And you CAN'T do that now can you?
Democrats called black people something else to dehumanize them based on much the same argument. Read up on Margreat Sanger a democrat a KKK member of the founder of what now is planned Parenthood.

The VERY foundation of your argument is BASED on eugenics.
It's base on the killing of black people. There was NEVER any social justice proved or even ethical in its conception.

How much more clear does a person have to make it to you? It's been about death for the wrong reason since it started.

 

[Moonglow]

“We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.”

Wrong.

The embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently there is no civil rights 'violation':

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendmentprotection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life.”'

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

'The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.'

'The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.'

Wrong.

The protected liberty of the woman is paramount, immune from attack by the state or the father:

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” ibid

“We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.”

Wrong.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits public funding of abortions; moreover, that tax dollars are used to pay for something a taxpayer might oppose, such as the production and use of weapons of war, does not constitute a civil rights 'violation.'

The OP has thus succeeded in only exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the law and the right of women to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state.

You kind of MISSED the first request NOW your argument IS that it's just a zygote right? A zygote of what though? Those three wee links I asked for is your FAIL point. See if that DNA strand is HUMAN it's HUMAN no matter the color or the gender it IS human.

In order to say it does NOT have human rights you must disprove the FACT that it is human. And you CAN'T do that now can you?
Democrats called black people something else to dehumanize them based on much the same argument. Read up on Margreat Sanger a democrat a KKK member of the founder of what now is planned Parenthood.

The VERY foundation of your argument is BASED on eugenics.
It's base on the killing of black people. There was NEVER any social justice proved or even ethical in its conception.

How much more clear does a person have to make it to you? It's been about death for the wrong reason since it started.

When abortion started or Margreat?

 

[I.P.Freely]

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

Please let's not mince words.....You'll only embarrass yourself...

Minced words are great for making alphabet soup.

To stay on topic, abortion ends a human life100% of the times that an abortion is completed successfully.

drivel

 

[ChrisL]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

For those of you holding up your wrong forum card saying this should be in political or religion put it down. I WILL make my points on the INJUSTICE of it's ILLEGAL approach to human rights and civil rights without the others.

NOW the FIRST thing you need to do is PROVE that "collection of cells" can be anything BUT human. You can do that by providing LINKS showing HUMAN women giving birth to dogs/cats/ducks or mice. YOUR choice, because until then it's human..

1, We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.

2, The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.

3. We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.

4, The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.

Abortion laws are based on both skewing and perverting the TRUE law of the land based on equal rights for ALL. Their is NOTHING legal OR civil about choice. Choice is an action NOT a law.

You know being stupid has a price. You speed and you get a ticket and YOU pay. You do the other and you get a baby and diaper duty. Based on basic democrat logic { I wrote those two words together?} America should have a tax payer funded program for my right foot. I know I know I make a choice to speed but hey it's NOT my fault right?

There is NOTHING legal about paying for a persons CHOICE, NOTHING.
Oh and by the way THAT statement BLOWS your "rape argument" BECAUSE rape is NOT a choice so it COULD be covered. 3% of abortions come by way of rape, so that means 97% of abortions come by way of CHOICE.

You EDUCATE the stupid you do NOT reward stupid. NOT with other peoples money.

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Finally, the dark truth comes out.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

For those of you holding up your wrong forum card saying this should be in political or religion put it down. I WILL make my points on the INJUSTICE of it's ILLEGAL approach to human rights and civil rights without the others.

NOW the FIRST thing you need to do is PROVE that "collection of cells" can be anything BUT human. You can do that by providing LINKS showing HUMAN women giving birth to dogs/cats/ducks or mice. YOUR choice, because until then it's human..

1, We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.

2, The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.

3. We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.

4, The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.

Abortion laws are based on both skewing and perverting the TRUE law of the land based on equal rights for ALL. Their is NOTHING legal OR civil about choice. Choice is an action NOT a law.

You know being stupid has a price. You speed and you get a ticket and YOU pay. You do the other and you get a baby and diaper duty. Based on basic democrat logic { I wrote those two words together?} America should have a tax payer funded program for my right foot. I know I know I make a choice to speed but hey it's NOT my fault right?

There is NOTHING legal about paying for a persons CHOICE, NOTHING.
Oh and by the way THAT statement BLOWS your "rape argument" BECAUSE rape is NOT a choice so it COULD be covered. 3% of abortions come by way of rape, so that means 97% of abortions come by way of CHOICE.

You EDUCATE the stupid you do NOT reward stupid. NOT with other peoples money.

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

That is irrelevant.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Moonglow]

For those of you holding up your wrong forum card saying this should be in political or religion put it down. I WILL make my points on the INJUSTICE of it's ILLEGAL approach to human rights and civil rights without the others.

NOW the FIRST thing you need to do is PROVE that "collection of cells" can be anything BUT human. You can do that by providing LINKS showing HUMAN women giving birth to dogs/cats/ducks or mice. YOUR choice, because until then it's human..

1, We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.

2, The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.

3. We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.

4, The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.

Abortion laws are based on both skewing and perverting the TRUE law of the land based on equal rights for ALL. Their is NOTHING legal OR civil about choice. Choice is an action NOT a law.

You know being stupid has a price. You speed and you get a ticket and YOU pay. You do the other and you get a baby and diaper duty. Based on basic democrat logic { I wrote those two words together?} America should have a tax payer funded program for my right foot. I know I know I make a choice to speed but hey it's NOT my fault right?

There is NOTHING legal about paying for a persons CHOICE, NOTHING.
Oh and by the way THAT statement BLOWS your "rape argument" BECAUSE rape is NOT a choice so it COULD be covered. 3% of abortions come by way of rape, so that means 97% of abortions come by way of CHOICE.

You EDUCATE the stupid you do NOT reward stupid. NOT with other peoples money.

At least you take the time to make an argument, which is a huge step up from so many Conservatives here. At the same time, you might want to make your soapbox a little bigger and a little thicker, I have the feeling you are going to be standing on it a lot.

If I may suggest, links to other sources with data to back up your claims or your argument is generally a good idea. You asked Gracie for 3 links in a posting, but you yourself have provided none at all. Hmmmmm.....

You may also find that your argument is stronger if you take your personal emotions out of it. What you wrote sounds very accusatory, it hardly invites people to want to respond. Think about it.

One of the big questions that many have is when the fetus actually becomes a human being. The other question, maybe the more powerful one, is when it simply becomes a living being of some type. For me, both questions are pretty much moot: a life form is a life form is a life form and either we cherish life or we don't. But for every rule in life you are also bound to find some exceptions. It should also be noted that the Almighty has been aborting babies for centuries now. The number of stillbirths relative to the population of that time in the 19th century proves this point immediately.

And finally, you may find that this is NOT a left-right issue. I know some Righties here who are not against abortion and I know some Lefties here, like myself, who are essentially against abortion. So, before you get any egg on your face, you might want to consider that before posting further...

Well said and true. As to my links I am sure there are MANY members here born to human parents. Also my OP is not based on left/right but equality under the law for ALL.

As to the still births tech now a days lessens that risk. I live in Arizona where just last year we HAD to pass a law on abortion due to race. Euro women "white" were aborting based on color.

Killing life based on color is just wrong period.

My parents are aliens from space outpost 9XK

Judging from your avatar you are a democrat.

That is irrelevant.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

It's all they have...mincing of words to try and set up an attack....I've had 4 kids, that I know of,,,and i don't want anymore, so I screw old ladies....Damn the ones from the '60's are wild.....

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

I have religious right friends that have adopted children with special needs. The thing is that many people have the belief that humanity begins before birth and that the location of the human body in relation to the womb does not determine the worth of a human life. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism it should at least be understandable why some people are so against abortion. The fact that some children will have difficult childhoods due to bad or unprepared parents fails as a defense for abortion from this perspective.

On the other hand, many beleive the human life form inside the womb to be simply a glob of cells. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism is should be understandable why some people find abortion acceptable.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

I have religious right friends that have adopted children with special needs. The thing is that many people have the belief that humanity begins before birth and that the location of the human body in relation to the womb does not determine the worth of a human life. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism it should at least be understandable why some people are so against abortion. The fact that some children will have difficult childhoods due to bad or unprepared parents fails as a defense for abortion from this perspective.

On the other hand, many beleive the human life form inside the womb to be simply a glob of cells. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism is should be understandable why some people find abortion acceptable.

It should be obvious, if a parent WANTS to abort a child, they are not going to be very good parents, or they cannot afford said child. The same people who seem to want to ban abortion are the ones who complain about social services programs to support these children. That tells me that they don't really care about the children but more about "punishing" the parents for having sex and getting pregnant.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

I have religious right friends that have adopted children with special needs. The thing is that many people have the belief that humanity begins before birth and that the location of the human body in relation to the womb does not determine the worth of a human life. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism it should at least be understandable why some people are so against abortion. The fact that some children will have difficult childhoods due to bad or unprepared parents fails as a defense for abortion from this perspective.

On the other hand, many beleive the human life form inside the womb to be simply a glob of cells. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism is should be understandable why some people find abortion acceptable.

It should be obvious, if a parent WANTS to abort a child, they are not going to be very good parents, or they cannot afford said child. The same people who seem to want to ban abortion are the ones who complain about social services programs to support these children. That tells me that they don't really care about the children but more about "punishing" the parents for having sex and getting pregnant.

Would you be for rounding up these kids and euthanizing them as a solution to this problem? I bet you wouldn't. Many view abortion in this same light because they beleive abortion is just as much murder as euthanizing a two year old. People can be against abortion and have a variety of opinions of how take care of the children if they are allowed to survive past birth.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

I have religious right friends that have adopted children with special needs. The thing is that many people have the belief that humanity begins before birth and that the location of the human body in relation to the womb does not determine the worth of a human life. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism it should at least be understandable why some people are so against abortion. The fact that some children will have difficult childhoods due to bad or unprepared parents fails as a defense for abortion from this perspective.

On the other hand, many beleive the human life form inside the womb to be simply a glob of cells. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism is should be understandable why some people find abortion acceptable.

It should be obvious, if a parent WANTS to abort a child, they are not going to be very good parents, or they cannot afford said child. The same people who seem to want to ban abortion are the ones who complain about social services programs to support these children. That tells me that they don't really care about the children but more about "punishing" the parents for having sex and getting pregnant.

Would you be for rounding up these kids euthanizing them as a solution to this problem? I bet you wouldn't. Many view abortion in this same light because they beleive abortion is just as much murder as euthanizing a two year old. People can be against abortion and have a variety of opinions of how take care of the children if they are allowed to survive past birth.

Of course not. I love children, and especially babies. I don't "agree" with abortion. However, I understand that it is a necessary evil. Do you know that women used herbal remedies in ancient times to induce abortion as well?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“We have a child in the womb who is killed by an abortion doctor WITHOUT a hearing WITHOUT due process. THAT is a civil rights violation.”

Wrong.

The embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consequently there is no civil rights 'violation':

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendmentprotection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life.”'

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

'The "law" is set up so only ONE gender has the choice and THAT is a civil rights violation.'

'The father has no say so THAT'S a bill of rights violation.'

Wrong.

The protected liberty of the woman is paramount, immune from attack by the state or the father:

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” ibid

“We have tax payers FORCED to pay for that ELECTIVE killing AGAINST their wishes. THAT is a bill of rights violation.”

Wrong.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits public funding of abortions; moreover, that tax dollars are used to pay for something a taxpayer might oppose, such as the production and use of weapons of war, does not constitute a civil rights 'violation.'

The OP has thus succeeded in only exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the law and the right of women to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state.

You kind of MISSED the first request NOW your argument IS that it's just a zygote right? A zygote of what though? Those three wee links I asked for is your FAIL point. See if that DNA strand is HUMAN it's HUMAN no matter the color or the gender it IS human.

In order to say it does NOT have human rights you must disprove the FACT that it is human. And you CAN'T do that now can you?
Democrats called black people something else to dehumanize them based on much the same argument. Read up on Margreat Sanger a democrat a KKK member of the founder of what now is planned Parenthood.

The VERY foundation of your argument is BASED on eugenics.
It's base on the killing of black people. There was NEVER any social justice proved or even ethical in its conception.

How much more clear does a person have to make it to you? It's been about death for the wrong reason since it started.

This is errant, subjective opinion, legally irrelevant, unsupported by case law.

It's this type of hyperbolic demagoguery the Constitution guards against.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't believe the so-called "religious right" is concerned at all with the life of the child. That is a load of bullshit. They only want to punish women for having sex by making them carry and deliver a child that they DO NOT WANT. What kind of life will that child have? What kind of parents do you think these people would make?

Hope you are ready to support them with your precious tax money because THAT is exactly what will end up happening. There will also be abandoned babies, dead babies, injured babies, etc. You cannot FORCE a person to be a parent and especially a GOOD parent. Some people beat and murder their own children. Are these the kinds of people you think should be reproducing?

Oh, and let's think of all the "thugs" you will have to worry about, because that is what happens to children who are neglected and abused. They turn into "thugs" a lot of times. Use some damn common sense.

The people who want to parents and who will make good parents would not even CONTEMPLATE an abortion.

I have religious right friends that have adopted children with special needs. The thing is that many people have the belief that humanity begins before birth and that the location of the human body in relation to the womb does not determine the worth of a human life. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism it should at least be understandable why some people are so against abortion. The fact that some children will have difficult childhoods due to bad or unprepared parents fails as a defense for abortion from this perspective.

On the other hand, many beleive the human life form inside the womb to be simply a glob of cells. When viewing the abortion issue through this prism is should be understandable why some people find abortion acceptable.

It should be obvious, if a parent WANTS to abort a child, they are not going to be very good parents, or they cannot afford said child. The same people who seem to want to ban abortion are the ones who complain about social services programs to support these children. That tells me that they don't really care about the children but more about "punishing" the parents for having sex and getting pregnant.

Would you be for rounding up these kids euthanizing them as a solution to this problem? I bet you wouldn't. Many view abortion in this same light because they beleive abortion is just as much murder as euthanizing a two year old. People can be against abortion and have a variety of opinions of how take care of the children if they are allowed to survive past birth.

Of course not. I love children, and especially babies. I don't "agree" with abortion. However, I understand that it is a necessary evil. Do you know that women used herbal remedies in ancient times to induce abortion as well?

There will always be people that do evil. Does that mean that evil is necessary? By the way, I love babies to. I've changed many stinky diapers and loved every minute of it.