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.
ooh you mad mad now fer realzThank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.
2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.
The first part of your post got cut off, but to address what's there: MANY times women do not understand the consequences of their decision until they are older and realize that they did, indeed, kill their child. A certain Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe), for example, did exactly that.
Trumped up nonsense by the religious anti-rights fundamentalists. Millions of women have had abortions and there are not millions of women who believe that.
2nd part of your post: Legislating legal abortions.
In other words you have nothing.
2. You asked, I answered.
Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.
You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.
Win
You don't have a "position".
All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.
Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.
Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that all abortion should be made a crime of homicide?
Are you stating that that is your position?
No one else said that.
Actually you just did say exactly that, PoliticalSpice.
The woman carrying a totally separate human being has no right to end its life.The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?
And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."
The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.
a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
- The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion
b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.
- If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
- An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three
- As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”
If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.
That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.
Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.
Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?
"Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions."
You just aborted yourself....as no one in the thread claimed what you just did.
Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.
There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.
The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.
- The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Once again PoliticalSpice exposes her woeful ignorance of American history.
The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was no anathema to the view of the Founders.
Try reading Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson s Letter to the Danbury Baptists June 1998 - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
GentlemenJan. 1. 1802.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
It was Jefferson himself who first used the phrase to describe the intent of the 1st Amendment.
Once again you have made a fool of yourself!
Jefferson recognized America as a Christian nation but didn't believe that any particular denomination should be dominant over the others. That was one of the reasons why he broke from England. He was wholly opposed to any government regulating a person's right to religion:
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and StateJefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
By the same token, Jefferson was responsible for using the halls of Congress for church services:
Religion and the Federal Government Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of CongressIt is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
The first Congress sponsored the first Bible printed in the USA:
Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Exhibitions Library of CongressCongress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
Are you joining PolitcalSpice in her crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?
Yes or no?
As you learned earlier, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the Jefferson quote has been misinterpreted.
You, being an imbecile, require remediation:
Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
Jefferson’s wall in actuality had federal government on one side of the wall and the state government and religion on the other side. The barrier was impervious in only one direction — meaning federal government was to have no control over the religious activities inside the individual states. This was in line with Jefferson’s strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause.
the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.
That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.
Laws don't end murders or rapes, either. Might as well legalize those fun games, too.I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.
Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?
Well we know a "law" is not going to end abortions. Just SAFE ones. Before Roe v. Wade only the elite could afford to send Sally off to "camp", or "vacationing in Europe"...
I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by liberal women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Murder unborn babies."I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.
Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?
the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.
Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.
Wrong. Abortions are only legal for a certain time. Live birth abortions have been illegal for some time, as have late term.the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.
only if a pregnant woman is murdered does the law measure the harm of that lost potential...
the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.
That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.
posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...
ooh you mad mad now fer realzThank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.Trumped up nonsense by the religious anti-rights fundamentalists. Millions of women have had abortions and there are not millions of women who believe that.
In other words you have nothing.
2. You asked, I answered.
Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.
You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.
Win
You don't have a "position".
All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.
Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.
Wrong. Abortions are only legal for a certain time. Live birth abortions have been illegal for some time, as have late term.the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.
only if a pregnant woman is murdered does the law measure the harm of that lost potential...
Plus, a woman doesn't have to be murdered for a killer to be charged with the murder of the unborn child.
Did I not tell you to STFU? Why are you still posting?Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.
Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.ooh you mad mad now fer realzThank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.Millions of women have abused their live children, as well. Doesn't make is acceptable. Well, not to me, anyway.
2. You asked, I answered.
Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.
You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.
Win
You don't have a "position".
All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.
Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.
In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.
Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.
PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.
I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by liberal women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Murder unborn babies."I've heard most abortions are actually chosen by conservative women. I don't know if it's true or not but it would be just like them. "Do as I say, not as I do."Only Liberals/Progressives/Democrats have abortions.
Hey PC, is an IUD and the pill "infanticide"?
The worst part of choosing to have an abortion is when it is simply for "convenience," and most abortions are just that.
Based on this position, the obligation of government should be to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.
The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:
a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions Evidence from 27 Countries
b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.
Legally it is just not so.
So....you'll assign your right to make a judgment to the same kind of folks who OK' Dred Scott?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
Within a few years after Dred Scott the country was in the Civil war and by 1866 the matter of Slavery was settled.
The Taney Court was Conservative.
You lying moron....every one of you tries to hide your evil by casting the word 'conservative ' around.
Taney made a deal with Buchanan that allowed Buchanan to become the 15th President.
Buchanan was a Democrat....and his deal with Taney was that of a pair of racists.
As were, and are, Democrats.
Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.ooh you mad mad now fer realzThank you for conceding you have nothing but comments on my emoticons.Thank you for confirming that you have nothing but your emoting.
You have ceased commenting on your position, and merely comment on cartoons.
Win
You don't have a "position".
All you have is an emotion. That is not a valid position at all.
Get back to me when you can take a factual position on this issue and defend it with reason and logic instead of just regurgitating your emotion.
In other words you cannot come up with a factual position that you can defend with logic and reason.
Thank you for disqualifying yourself and your emotions from this thread. Have a nice day.
PS I never get mad because none of you deserve that much of my attention. However I do find the antics of the extreme right to be highly amusing so I do LOL at your expense a lot.
For now, I'm content with keeping you dancing with cartoons.
Sure I can. I can come up with legal, moral, and scientific reasons for my position.
Did I not tell you to STFU? Why are you still posting?Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.
Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.
Legally it is just not so.
So....you'll assign your right to make a judgment to the same kind of folks who OK' Dred Scott?
You must be a Liberal, huh?
Within a few years after Dred Scott the country was in the Civil war and by 1866 the matter of Slavery was settled.
The Taney Court was Conservative.
You lying moron....every one of you tries to hide your evil by casting the word 'conservative ' around.
Taney made a deal with Buchanan that allowed Buchanan to become the 15th President.
Buchanan was a Democrat....and his deal with Taney was that of a pair of racists.
As were, and are, Democrats.
The Court ruled 7-2. Slave owners were Democrats and conservatives. The Northern Republicans were liberals.
the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.
simple.Sure it does. It just decides one minute is isn't human, and the next it is.
only if a pregnant woman is murdered does the law measure the harm of that lost potential...
Wrong. Abortions are only legal for a certain time. Live birth abortions have been illegal for some time, as have late term.
Plus, a woman doesn't have to be murdered for a killer to be charged with the murder of the unborn child.
