Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again one more time for the challenged here: The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life. And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be. Because of that the prolifer considers two lives: that of the mother and that of the child.
The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it. That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
Again one more time for the challenged here: no one is pro-abortion, everyone is opposed to abortion the disagreement is as to an actual, effective solution. Banning abortion or excessive punitive restrictions are not only offensive to the Constitution, but will in no way have the desired effect of ending the practice.
In addition, the right to life or due process requirements/restrictions apply only to a law making jurisdiction, not to a private citizen.
Again one more time for the challenged here: The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life. And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be. Because of that the prolifer considers two lives: that of the mother and that of the child.
The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it. That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body. She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people. The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
Police investigation found no evidence that the stories were true. If they had, that nurse would be charged with murder.That is not true and it has never been true.The Constitution has allready been circumvented. Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated. The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish. Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
Government hearings seem to indicate otherwise.
"The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are reported to have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Two nurses from the hospital's delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous `induced labor' or `live-birth' abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. 27
[Footnote]
[Footnote 27: See Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Jill L. Stanek, R.N.); Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Allison Baker, R.N., B.S.N.).]
According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal deformity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (including warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth. According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome. 28
[Footnote] Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. 29"
Committee Reports - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - House Report 106-835
Again one more time for the challenged here: The prolifer values the sanctity of life at all stages necessary to that life. And the longer the life can stay in the womb for the period of gestation necessary for human life, the better off that person is going to be. Because of that the prolifer considers two lives: that of the mother and that of the child.
The pro-abortion crowd, at least those with any conscience at all, has to believe that the unborn is not a human life, is less than a person, in order to justify killing it. That allows the only consideration to be whatever the choice of the mother might be to be acceptable and not to be challenged.
And that is the discussion that the proabortion crowd seems unwilling to have.
The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body. She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people. The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though. To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice. To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice. And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life? Can she choose to do whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for? Or does the state have some interest in that? How far does her right to choose go there?
You don't HAVE to, you are free to give birth every time you get pregnant.I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
That is not true and it has never been true.The Constitution has allready been circumvented. Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated. The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish. Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.
I love it when people say things like this, it shows how desperate they are to pretend they have the moral high ground. they are even willing to lie to themselves in order to keep their delusion.
I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.
The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.
The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.
Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.
The funny part about this is I just stumbled on an article that talks about this very same concept:Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?
The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?
The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.
To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.
I understand your position completely. And for the most part I support it. My concern is governmental power. Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of. That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.
Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation. There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere. Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters. And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal. And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places. In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed. Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago. How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?
And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.
I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however. When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.
We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution. z
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.
You summed that up pretty well.So QW wants a world where even though a rapist may go to prison, he gets to continue to victimize his victim with the aid of a government that forces his victim - at point of a gun if necessary - to bear his offspring. And while the rapist sits in prison having his needs taken care of by the people's taxes, QW favors a world where the government programs that may have helped his victim raise his child have been defunded to nothing, so she has to beg on the streets to put food into her rapsit's child's mouth.
So to QW - "small government" means government teaming up with rapists to force women to bear children against their will - and then casting them off into the world without any help at all to raise the child the rapist and government forced them to have.
I'm guessing QW has no daughters.
The pro-lifer has every right to make whatever decision she wishes with a fetus inside her body. She just doesn't have a right to force her values on other people. The legal abortion crowd is perfectly willing to respect your choices, but understands that your right to control our choices ends at your nose.
She has every bit as much right to care about an innocent life as she has every right to care about anything else though. To speak one's convictions and argue a defense for the defenseless is also a woman's choice. To argue a case that the unborn reprsents a human life is also a woman's choice. And to argue that case forces nothing on anybody.
How much leeway does a woman have when it comes to another life? Can she choose to do whatever to the child she has given birth to and has full responsibility for? Or does the state have some interest in that? How far does her right to choose go there?
Her right to choose begins when she becomes pregnant and ends when she gives birth.
We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?Can you prove that the reason the Netherlands has a low abortion rate is because of sex education? Of course you can't, so why make the argument in the first place? Is it possible you have an agenda that somehow justifies you making statements you know to be false?
Hmm, lets see...
Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
We tried Hollands version during the sixties, and isn't that where the baby boomers came from ?Hmm, lets see...
Holland starts sex education at a young age. Parents are happy to have their teenager share the same room as their partners. They are open and honest with their kids. They are taught about contraception. As a result, they have a very low rate of teen births.
In America, parents don't want their kids to learn sex education. Abstinence only education is pushed upon children. Parents - especially the religious freaks - are not as open and honest with their kids about contraception.
As a result, the rate of teen births is sky high.
Only an idiot would believe that the American approach is working.
Ummmm, no. The boomers come from their parents from WWII who celebrated surviving the war by fornicating up a storm.
I don't really understand how one evil justifies another.
Are you saying I am wrong that we all breathe? Do you have any evidence to prove we don't?
Look up the definition of the word 'soul' then get back to me..
I prefer the biblical definition, which is the entire self. Come to think of it, that is one of the definitions that you will find in the dictionary.
I would love to see the pro lifers prove how much they care about children by adopting one. But they won't.
Or better yet, incubating one. Why isn't there a registry of these women that want to take away someone's rights on file somewhere waiting and ready to incubate the fetus? And a register of men waiting to pay for it's care?
