the hypocrisy of libs (guns and abortion)

[Disir]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, residents of the states have no authority whatsoever to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, they may not deny women their right to privacy, and they may not deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

 

[Flash]

So, even though you consider a fetus to be an "unborn child", as long as you agree with the reason, you're okay with killing it.

A woman (or anybody else) that premeditates the killing of her unborn child should face the same consequences as a woman who premeditates the killing of her born child. To me there is no difference between the born or not born status of the child.

A prosecutor should look at the individual circumstances in the case of abortion just like they do now with the cases of child murder. Some people would be charged with 1st degree and others with a lesser charge,

A confused 16 year old girl influenced by others might not get the same charge as a 30 year old Libtard ***** that just doesn't want to be bothered with having to change diapers.

Just like we allow the killing of humans for some very specific reasons (self defense, medical etc) we should allow abortion for some legitimate reasons such as medical.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

'The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhoodto human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortionfor which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."'

Which exposes the pointless idiocy of the measure.

The crime is committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus; where the pregnancy was terminated without the woman's consent, being the sole nature of the crime, in no way conferring 'personhood' or 'rights' on the embryo/fetus.

 

[JoeB131]

You dont read so well do you?,if there was no value,and thats your position,then where doers the punishment part come in?? there would be no punishment for causing the women to loose the child.

Try again only much harder

Go, back and read the quote. Killing a fetus was only worthy of a FINE. Keep in mind, this same books says you should be killed for blasphemy, gay sex, working on the sabbath, etc. But killing a fetus. Meh. Pay a fine.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, even though you consider a fetus to be an "unborn child", as long as you agree with the reason, you're okay with killing it.

A woman (or anybody else) that premeditates the killing of her unborn child should face the same consequences as a woman who premeditates the killing of her born child. To me there is no difference between the born or not born status of the child.

A prosecutor should look at the individual circumstances in the case of abortion just like they do now with the cases of child murder. Some people would be charged with 1st degree and others with a lesser charge,

A confused 16 year old girl influenced by others might not get the same charge as a 30 year old Libtard ***** that just doesn't want to be bothered with having to change diapers.

Just like we allow the killing of humans for some very specific reasons (self defense, medical etc) we should allow abortion for some legitimate reasons such as medical.

There's only one truth in this post - the two words "To me...".

 

[Iceweasel]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh a strawman from an open op-ed source. How quaint.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The hypocrisy is in saying you want smaller government while actually wanting more laws and more invasive laws to control the private lives of Americans.

You want the right to kill human beings but want to deny women the right to control her own reproduction.

Further hypocrisy is that the right would deny govt assistance to give food, shelter and education to unwanted children.

As always, the right wants to protect fetuses but not people.

But your kind wants to force a woman to receive chemotherapy against her will. Can I say hypocrite?

 

[Disir]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

'The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhoodto human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortionfor which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."'

Which exposes the pointless idiocy of the measure.

The crime is committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus; where the pregnancy was terminated without the woman's consent, being the sole nature of the crime, in no way conferring 'personhood' or 'rights' on the embryo/fetus.

From beginning to end this was a ludicrous piece of legislation. Further, it was the opening shot for rednecks in the states to push through person hood laws.

 

[Darlene]

It is comical to see the Libtard hypocrites say they want to ban all firearms "for the children" but then these shitheads justify the killing of a million American children each year for the sake of convenience.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Fetuses aren't children. Even women who have miscarriages in the early stages of a pregnancy do not freak out the way that they do when they lose a child.

Miscarriages end up in the medical waste bin. They don't get funerals.

I know that millions of women become distraught after miscarrying. A fetus has a beating heart, unique DNA, and cells that know what to become. Do the pro-choice people have a heart like the fetus does. The baby can feel pain between 12-20 weeks gestation (variations due to the fact that no one is the same). All body systems are formed by at least 12 weeks, they just need to mature. The gender of the baby is predetermined at conception, as well as all other physical and characteristics. The heart starts to beat at around 18 days after conception and around 21 days afterward, starts pumping blood throughout the underdeveloped circulatory system.

Women have a choice. To rob a child of a future that can better the world or put the child up for adoption if they feel they really can't be a parent.
Adoption is always, always a better option. It not only allows the child to grow and develop in the womb and become a contributing member of society, but also provides another family with the opportunity to be parents. Win, win.

 

[Disir]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh a strawman from an open op-ed source. How quaint.

What strawman? This is where an individual can be faced with two murders instead at the federal level. You know.........I knew you couldn't carry on a conversation without being a douche. Back on ignore you go.

 

[Iceweasel]

They keep trying to use elements of this:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh a strawman from an open op-ed source. How quaint.

What strawman? This is where an individual can be faced with two murders instead at the federal level. You know.........I knew you couldn't carry on a conversation without being a douche. Back on ignore you go.

Coward. You brought up some act to blather on about like people can't know anything beyond the scope of your tiny perspective. And I won't be ignoring you.

 

[Flash]

[


Women have a choice. To rob a child of a future that can better the world or put the child up for adoption if they feel they really can't be a parent.
Adoption is always, always a better option. It not only allows the child to grow and develop in the womb and become a contributing member of society, but also provides another family with the opportunity to be parents. Win, win.

Good point!

I understand that there some women who get pregnant that don't want to have the child.

If we were a moral society instead of having abortion on demand (which is murder) we would require that a woman carry the child to term and then put it up for adoption before killing it.

There are million of families in this country and other countries that would take a child before seeing the child put to death.

Of course we aren't a moral society. We allow the infanticide. The liberals have chosen death over life.

 

[Disir]

You have over 100,000 kids in foster care now that are waiting to be adopted. You better get busy with that Americans want to adopt kids thingy.

You might want to go over her alleged facts. They are far from accurate.

 

[Flash]

You have over 100,000 kids in foster care now that are waiting to be adopted. You better get busy with that Americans want to adopt kids thingy.

Because of the obstacles the government put in the way of adoption it becomes very difficult. Another example of how the government screws things up.

A woman (and the guy that knocked her) should be forced to accept the responsibility of raising a child that they have created.

However, the filthy government has made it easy just to kill the child for any reason whatsoever, on demand.

Liberals never accept the concept of personal responsibility. They would rather kill a child than take responsibility for it.

 

[Disir]

You have over 100,000 kids in foster care now that are waiting to be adopted. You better get busy with that Americans want to adopt kids thingy.

Because of the obstacles the government put in the way of adoption it becomes very difficult. Another example of how the government screws things up.

A woman (and the guy that knocked her) should be forced to accept the responsibility of raising a child that they have created.

However, the filthy government has made it easy just to kill the child for any reason whatsoever, on demand.

Liberals never accept the concept of personal responsibility. They would rather kill a child than take responsibility for it.

Full stop. Only about 2% of the population (nationwide) actually goes through with a home study. They talk about adopting but they don't follow through. Ok?

That doesn't have anything to do with the government.

 

[Flash]

[


Full stop. Only about 2% of the population (nationwide) actually goes through with a home study. They talk about adopting but they don't follow through. Ok?

That doesn't have anything to do with the government.

Back in the 1980s my wife and I were involved in a church mission to council young ladies considering an abortion. We did it for three years.

During that time we (with the help of the church organization) were able to find families willing to adopt any child the mother did not want. In fact the list was long for the families willing to adopt.

Of course the government put all kinds of bureaucratic roadblocks in the way but the lives of the children were saved in spite of the government.

The best thing is not to have abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. That is the moral high ground.

If we are unwilling to do that then the next best thing is to require that the mother (and father) pursue adoption before killing the child.

However, this country is not even willing to make an attempt to save the life of the child. The state sanctions the murder of the child, which is absolutely despicable.

 

[Disir]

[


Full stop. Only about 2% of the population (nationwide) actually goes through with a home study. They talk about adopting but they don't follow through. Ok?

That doesn't have anything to do with the government.

Back in the 1980s my wife and I were involved in a church mission to council young ladies considering an abortion. We did it for three years.

During that time we (with the help of the church organization) were able to find families willing to adopt any child the mother did not want. In fact the list was long for the families willing to adopt.

Of course the government put all kinds of bureaucratic roadblocks in the way but the lives of the children were saved in spite of the government.

The best thing is not to have abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. That is the moral high ground.

If we are unwilling to do that then the next best thing is to require that the mother (and father) pursue adoption before killing the child.

However, this country is not even willing to make an attempt to save the life of the child. The state sanctions the murder of the child, which is absolutely despicable.

You have over 100,000 needing to be adopted. Now. They aren't all clean, white newborns. That isn't the problem of the government. What gives?

So, ya. Again. Approximately 2% of the population only goes through a home study. Americans aren't all about adoption.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You have over 100,000 kids in foster care now that are waiting to be adopted. You better get busy with that Americans want to adopt kids thingy.

You might want to go over her alleged facts. They are far from accurate.

How many of these posters who are against freedom and the Constitution have adopted an unwanted baby?

How many posted in favor of shooting Blacks?

 

[Flash]

You have over 100,000 needing to be adopted. Now. They aren't all clean, white newborns. That isn't the problem of the government. What gives?

So, ya. Again. Approximately 2% of the population only goes through a home study. Americans aren't all about adoption.

The stupid immoral Libtards that support abortion don't give a crap about adoption. You are arguing that maybe (and it is a maybe) if we can't find adoptive families for 100% then we should continue with killing the children on demand for the sake of convenience.

Don't you think it would be the moral thing to do to require that the parents of a child seek adoption before killing the child? If not what is wrong with you?

How about no abortion and if you can't find somebody to take the child then you have to take responsibility yourself? That way the child is not deprived of its life because of the irresponsibility of the parents.

I really have a hard time understanding the zeal of the Libtards to support the massive killing of American children. It is against the nature of us humans to kill our children.

I think it is all to simply appease the filthy Feminazi branch of the Libtard despicable special interest groups.