why do dems claim this little one has no protections or rights ?

[yidnar]

we hear dems spouting about a womans right to choose when it comes to abortion ... and many claim that a child is an undue hardship for many women and that they should have the right to terminate the life in their womb .... that is their main argument on the abortion debate ... but do any dems believe that the life of the infant in the womb holds any value ? do they believe that said infant has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all ? remember even though an unwanted pregnancy may cause hardship on some women putting the child up for adoption would relieve the parent of said burden ... i'm not saying that a woman giving birth to an unwanted infant is no big deal ... i'm saying that said hardship will diminish in time if the child is put up for adoption ... but for the infant that is killed the loss is permanent ! the destruction is total ! there is no hope ! the is no chance at recovering from a hardship ! the infant is killed ! a permanent fatal outcome ! does only the mother have rights ? and does the life of a little one like this have any value ? does it have any rights at all ? ...i say yes it does ...

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

If women can murder babies..................what can't I murder criminals?

 

[meaner gene]

...,and does the life of a little one like this have any value ? does it have any rights at all ? ...i say yes it does ...

The founding fathers said that this one had no rights at all.

 

[miketx]

The founding fathers said that this one had no rights at all.

They never said any such thing ya liar.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

The founding fathers said that this one had no rights at all.

They did!? I'm sure you can point out where they explicitly said black slaves had no rights at all

 

[Road Runner]

If women can murder babies..................what can't I murder criminals?

Because it isn't considered murder to slaughter the guilty. Totally different than killing an innocent infant.

 

[Death-Ninja]

The founding fathers said that this one had no rights at all.

No they did not, but you fascist democrats sure as shit did.....

 

[meaner gene]

They never said any such thing ya liar.

Just read the constitution.
Especially the 3/5ths you ignore.

US Constitution
Clause 3. No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

 

[MarathonMike]

we hear dems spouting about a womans right to choose when it comes to abortion ... and many claim that a child is an undue hardship for many women and that they should have the right to terminate the life in their womb .... that is their main argument on the abortion debate ... but do any dems believe that the life of the infant in the womb holds any value ? do they believe that said infant has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all ? remember even though an unwanted pregnancy may cause hardship on some women putting the child up for adoption would relieve the parent of said burden ... i'm not saying that a woman giving birth to an unwanted infant is no big deal ... i'm saying that said hardship will diminish in time if the child is put up for adoption ... but for the infant that is killed the loss is permanent ! the destruction is total ! there is no hope ! the is no chance at recovering from a hardship ! the infant is killed ! a permanent fatal outcome ! does only the mother have rights ? and does the life of a little one like this have any value ? does it have any rights at all ? ...i say yes it does ...

View attachment 662274

To listen to these pro-abortionists rant, you would think they were talking about a tumor, not a living being.

 

[meaner gene]

To listen to these pro-abortionists rant, you would think they were talking about a tumor, not a living being.

What about "life" do you deem sacred.

The kill clock uses data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and estimates that chickens account for over 8 billion of those deaths, turkeys 214 million, cattle 36 million, pigs 124 million, ducks 23 million, sheep 7 million, fish almost 4 billion, and shellfish 43 billion

 

[rightnow909]

we hear dems spouting about a womans right to choose when it comes to abortion ... and many claim that a child is an undue hardship for many women and that they should have the right to terminate the life in their womb .... that is their main argument on the abortion debate ... but do any dems believe that the life of the infant in the womb holds any value ? do they believe that said infant has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all ? remember even though an unwanted pregnancy may cause hardship on some women putting the child up for adoption would relieve the parent of said burden ... i'm not saying that a woman giving birth to an unwanted infant is no big deal ... i'm saying that said hardship will diminish in time if the child is put up for adoption ... but for the infant that is killed the loss is permanent ! the destruction is total ! there is no hope ! the is no chance at recovering from a hardship ! the infant is killed ! a permanent fatal outcome ! does only the mother have rights ? and does the life of a little one like this have any value ? does it have any rights at all ? ...i say yes it does ...

View attachment 662274

I know someone who gave up a child for adoption.. very difficult at the time she was going through it

But years later... all parties are happy... no guilt from murdering somone

 

[progressive hunter]

The founding fathers said that this one had no rights at all.

only some of them said that,, they later formed the democrat party,,

 

[meaner gene]

only some of them said that,, they later formed the democrat party,,

Think of Italy in WW II.

 

[progressive hunter]

Think of Italy in WW II.

no,,

 

[JoeMoma]

we hear dems spouting about a womans right to choose when it comes to abortion ... and many claim that a child is an undue hardship for many women and that they should have the right to terminate the life in their womb .... that is their main argument on the abortion debate ... but do any dems believe that the life of the infant in the womb holds any value ? do they believe that said infant has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all ? remember even though an unwanted pregnancy may cause hardship on some women putting the child up for adoption would relieve the parent of said burden ... i'm not saying that a woman giving birth to an unwanted infant is no big deal ... i'm saying that said hardship will diminish in time if the child is put up for adoption ... but for the infant that is killed the loss is permanent ! the destruction is total ! there is no hope ! the is no chance at recovering from a hardship ! the infant is killed ! a permanent fatal outcome ! does only the mother have rights ? and does the life of a little one like this have any value ? does it have any rights at all ? ...i say yes it does ...

View attachment 662274

Simple, according to most of the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd, which are mostly democrats, that little one is not yet a full fledged person with human rights -- a non-person.

 

[theHawk]

Just read the constitution.
Especially the 3/5ths you ignore.

US Constitution
Clause 3. No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The 3/5ths compromise actually allowed slaves to be counted towards the population count for representation in the House of Representatives, as opposed to not being counted at all.

Nothing in the Constitution forbid them from voting, that was up to the states. In fact most whites were not allowed to vote, as usually only land owners were allowed to vote at first.

 

[meaner gene]

The 3/5ths compromise actually allowed slaves to be counted towards the population count for representation in the House of Representatives, as opposed to not being counted at all.

Now you're being stupid. It meant that the white slave owners got extra representation due to the number of slaves they owned. Whereas the slaves got representation that was OPPOSITE to their wishes. They would have been better off not having any representation at all.

 

[progressive hunter]

Now you're being stupid. It meant that the white slave owners got extra representation due to the number of slaves they owned. Whereas the slaves got representation that was OPPOSITE to their wishes. They would have been better off not having any representation at all.

well they did want them to be counted as full,, so the 3/5ths is what helped end slavery,,

 

[meaner gene]

well they did want them to be counted as full,, so the 3/5ths is what helped end slavery,,

Actually they should have been counted only if they were allowed to vote. Legislators in the north proposed that if the south could have their non-voting property counted as voters, that they should have their pigs and cows counted toward their representation.

 

[meaner gene]

..., so the 3/5ths is what helped end slavery,,

Let me remind you, a quick history lesson. That 3/5ths is what prolonged the era of slavery.

Since slave states were able to use that 3/5ths advantage to vote against abolition.