DOJ to Supreme Court: Killing Human Embryo in Womb is Not Abortion

[Vigilante]

I heard you exist on a diet of sperm so you seem to be speaking from experience.

Oh my, losing the debate, I see!

Debate? You are fruitcake. I'm laughing at you stupid.

When one fails, the only step left is to insult! Thanks for proving that old adage!

 

[Asclepias]

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

Good thing you don't have a ounce of influence or power. You are a fruitcake packed with too much nut.

I'm frustrating you, I can see you going off the deep end! Oh my!

Your use of multiple and unnecessary emoticons belies your frustrations with the dismantling of your retarded argument.

 

[Vigilante]

It's not GOD'S abortion, it's a natural circumstance, it did not commit murder, by law only a man can commit murder, for those of you that are so happy with the Roe law!

How about a woman? After all isn't she complicit in this "murder" since she provided the "victim"? Are you going to insist upon the death penalty for 1 million women per year? Is that what will make you happy?

Hey, its not just women.

It takes two to make a pregnancy. He says "only a man can commit murder" and only a man can make a pregnancy. If it weren't for men, there would be no abortions. Men must be forced to keep their sperm inside their bodies at all times.

How about the Spermatic Truss?

C'mon Vigilante, do your part to save lives.

Luddly, has also given up civilized debate, you were in that FIRST LADY CIVILITY thread, weren't you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

GOD? It's natures course!

Nope, according to you it is "murder" so therefore there must be a "murderer" and that would be God!

But YOU believe there is a GOD? Yet you believe in killing? I'm undecided on GOD!

You used the term "heathens" therefore you do believe in God because without a God there cannot be any "heathens".

Of course you could always be describing yourself but you alleged that "heathens" lack "morals, ethics and principles" which you so self righteously claim to possess.

Given the above you must believe in God and therefore by your own definition your God must be a "murderer".

 

[Asclepias]

Oh my, losing the debate, I see!

Debate? You are fruitcake. I'm laughing at you stupid.

When one fails, the only step left is to insult! Thanks for proving that old adage!

So you must have started failing right after you insulted by using dimwit, heathen, etc right?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How about a woman? After all isn't she complicit in this "murder" since she provided the "victim"? Are you going to insist upon the death penalty for 1 million women per year? Is that what will make you happy?

Hey, its not just women.

It takes two to make a pregnancy. He says "only a man can commit murder" and only a man can make a pregnancy. If it weren't for men, there would be no abortions. Men must be forced to keep their sperm inside their bodies at all times.

How about the Spermatic Truss?

C'mon Vigilante, do your part to save lives.

Luddly, has also given up civilized debate, you were in that FIRST LADY CIVILITY thread, weren't you?

Ironic!

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals are a hoot. They think an embryo is the same thing as an unfertilized ovum. Then say conservatives don't understand science.

 

[Vigilante]

How about a woman? After all isn't she complicit in this "murder" since she provided the "victim"? Are you going to insist upon the death penalty for 1 million women per year? Is that what will make you happy?

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

So when you outlaw abortion you are going to give women the death penalty? After all it would be "premeditated murder" under the current laws. Prior to RvW women were still having abortions. What makes you believe that they will stop just because you threaten them with the death penalty? You are alleging that it is a "deterrent" while on the gun threads they insist that the death penalty is not a deterrent. So are you telling the NRA that they are wrong and that they should embrace all of these background checks and other laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

I give women credit for being smarter than man when it comes to penalties paid! If you want to talk guns, start a new thread, we are not on that topic!

 

[Asclepias]

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

So when you outlaw abortion you are going to give women the death penalty? After all it would be "premeditated murder" under the current laws. Prior to RvW women were still having abortions. What makes you believe that they will stop just because you threaten them with the death penalty? You are alleging that it is a "deterrent" while on the gun threads they insist that the death penalty is not a deterrent. So are you telling the NRA that they are wrong and that they should embrace all of these background checks and other laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

I give women credit for being smarter than man when it comes to penalties paid! If you want to talk guns, start a new thread, we are not on that topic!

Now he is really getting upset. What a buffoon!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

Good thing you don't have a ounce of influence or power. You are a fruitcake packed with too much nut.

I'm frustrating you, I can see you going off the deep end! Oh my!

Did you read your own OP?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How about a woman? After all isn't she complicit in this "murder" since she provided the "victim"? Are you going to insist upon the death penalty for 1 million women per year? Is that what will make you happy?

Hey, its not just women.

It takes two to make a pregnancy. He says "only a man can commit murder" and only a man can make a pregnancy. If it weren't for men, there would be no abortions. Men must be forced to keep their sperm inside their bodies at all times.

How about the Spermatic Truss?

C'mon Vigilante, do your part to save lives.

Luddly, has also given up civilized debate, you were in that FIRST LADY CIVILITY thread, weren't you?

IOW, you don't know what causes pregnancies.

Sheesh.

 

[Vigilante]

Sure, why not? Let's hear how you manage to define a pre viable pregnancy as "slavery"!

Willful harm to another that has no opportunity to flee the situation.

Sounds exactly like a parent spanking their child to me. Are you equating that to so "slavery" too?

You equate spanking to DEATH, there is something mentally wrong with you...oh, that's right you're LIBERAL, a mental disorder!

 

[Vigilante]

You're such a moralist that YOU wish death on others.

How nice for you.

And what would you have us do with people that would willingly murder? Incarcerate them for life, perhaps? You're so easy to slap around, matter of fact all you pro death people are.

This is entertaining, watching the heathens try to justify what is wrong morally!

Heathens?

Why would someone who allegedly doesn't believe in God use a term like "heathens"?

Busted!

HEATHENS of or relating to heathens, their religions, or their customs

referring to the OR definition!

Want to try again to make yourself look stupid?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

So when you outlaw abortion you are going to give women the death penalty? After all it would be "premeditated murder" under the current laws. Prior to RvW women were still having abortions. What makes you believe that they will stop just because you threaten them with the death penalty? You are alleging that it is a "deterrent" while on the gun threads they insist that the death penalty is not a deterrent. So are you telling the NRA that they are wrong and that they should embrace all of these background checks and other laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?

I give women credit for being smarter than man when it comes to penalties paid! If you want to talk guns, start a new thread, we are not on that topic!

You are alleging that your death penalty will be a deterrent to abortion. Thanks for conceding that even you know that will be a miserable failure!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals are a hoot. They think an embryo is the same thing as an unfertilized ovum. Then say conservatives don't understand science.

Conservatives don’t understand science or the law, where the embryo/fetus is not legally a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

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 Amendment protection." 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 of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Conservatives also don’t know the meaning of hypocrisy, as privacy rights place limits on the government’s power and authority, while protecting the rights of individuals – so much for the rightist notion of ‘less government, more freedom.’

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Liberals are a hoot. They think an embryo is the same thing as an unfertilized ovum. Then say conservatives don't understand science.

Conservatives don’t understand science or the law, where the embryo/fetus is not legally a person, and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

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 Amendment protection." 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 of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Conservatives also don’t know the meaning of hypocrisy, as privacy rights place limits on the government’s power and authority, while protecting the rights of individuals – so much for the rightist notion of ‘less government, more freedom.’

All they understand is that they want to control others. Bigger and bigger government, more and more laws - its the Repub way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about a woman? After all isn't she complicit in this "murder" since she provided the "victim"? Are you going to insist upon the death penalty for 1 million women per year? Is that what will make you happy?

It wouldn't come to that, I give women way more credit than you do in the brains department. Perhaps a few might be incarcerated for a specific time, but, as with all new laws, there is a period of adjustment where they realize that killing a thriving baby inside them, no matter what stage of development it's in, is murder, and a consequences has to be paid.

Good thing you don't have a ounce of influence or power. You are a fruitcake packed with too much nut.

True.

The notion of prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to privacy is repugnant to the fundamental tenets of this Republic; it demonstrates the disdain most conservatives have for individual liberty, and their propensity for authoritarianism.

 

[Vigilante]

Thanks for posting this FACT but don't expect it to change anyone's mind.

Luddly, would you abort kittens?

1. It infuriates me more than I can say that anyone would say a kitten's life is equal to that of a human being. SHAME ON YOU. If you had ever lost a baby, you just MIGHT get a frikken clue. I adore cats but cats are not human beings and you're an incredibly insensitive and insufferable asshole to say they are.

2. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP, which is NOT abortion.

3. Cat's eggs are also absorbed and/or flushed through the body when impregnation does not take place.

2. I have aborted cat and dog litters and would again, in a flash, because it is the welfare of the animal that I put before my own desire. I would do whatever I had to in order to stop starvation, abuse and homeless animals.

Thanks for the answer, I also put humans above my pets, although it seems many people aren't of the same quality as animals!

BTW, how do you know if I had lost a child, wild speculation on your part!

 

[Vigilante]

Well what the **** is it Holder? I know, just a bunch of cells...that becomes what each and everyone of us are, a human being! The cruelty and degradation of humanity is startling!

Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.

If you want to understand the government’s position on the issue, then read its actual court filings, not the lies and spin of a rightwing website.

As the government correctly stated:

Respondents refer to the drugs and devices to which they object as “abortifacients,” e.g., Resp. Br. 15, and their religious view of what constitutes abortion is of course entitled to respect. Nonetheless, as the government has explained, see Br. 10 n.4, these drugs and devices do not cause abortions within the meaning of longstanding federal law. As the Institute of Medicine explained, one benefit of access to all FDA-approved contraceptives is that they reduce the incidence of abortion. Inst. of Med., Clinical Pre-ventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps 105 (2011); see 78 Fed. Reg. at 39,872.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/13-354rbUnitedStates1.pdf

And the government’s position as reviewed by SCOTUBlog last week:

The Obama administration’s merits brief in Hobby Lobby focused on the RFRA claim, and its separate brief in the Conestoga case sought to answer claims under both RFRA and the First Amendment.

In each filing, the government made the same basic points: profit-making businesses do not “exercise” religion at all, for purposes of either federal law or the Constitution; the mandate only applies to corporations and not to their owners and, in any event, corporations law treats the business separate from the owner; and, even if the mandate did have to satisfy a compelling government interest, it does so by assuring that female workers have access to an important health benefit as part of a comprehensive health insurance scheme.

The contraceptive coverage requirement, according to the government, is a neutral obligation that applies to profit-making businesses in general, and does not target any religious exercise. The exemptions that have been provided for other businesses — those whose plans are “grandfathered” and thus do not immediately have to obey the mandate — will only exist in a phased sequence, and that alone is not enough to deprive the mandate of its neutral character, the U.S. brief said.

In passing RFRA, the brief contended, Congress did not intend to “uniquely disable the government by working a dramatic expansion” of the claims for exemption based on religious liberty. Besides, it added, there has not been a single decision by the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law — or required an exemption to it — on the theory that that was necessary “to protect the rights of a for-profit corporation or of the owners, managers, or directors of the corporation.”

Argument preview: Religion, rights, and the workplace : SCOTUSblog

Clearly the notion that this provision of the ACA ‘violates’ religious freedom is false, unfounded, and predicated solely on partisanism, where the issue concerns only subjective, unwarranted hostility toward the Obama Administration, having nothing to do whatsoever with the merits of the ACA or facts of law.

They can argue all they want, but killing a living human, whether it's 2 celled or 8 3/4 months old, is murder!

 

[Vigilante]

The day you grow a womb inside you ,you may understandf

Not my fault NATURE made me a man! You don't like your womb, have an operation!

But its men who cause pregnancy.

Step up.

Take responsibility.

Or just keep whining.

But Luddly, if a woman doesn't spread her legs, all she'd get would be WET!