CDZ Why Do You Support Abortion

[prison/con.net]

the anti abortionists don't CARE about rights, or they'd not be trying to strip women of their right to control their own bodies. Same as the pos's who stripped people of their right to use dope if they want. it's THEIR gd body, you interfering pos's.

 

[JoeMoma]

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

You don't understand.

The issue isn't when you or anyone else believes life begins.

The issue concerns you and others on the right who seek to violate a woman's right to privacy by compelling her to have a child against her will through force of law.

This isn't an ethical or philosophical issue, it's solely a legal issue when you cross the line into advocating that abortion be codified as illegal as a matter of statutory policy, where as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Now, if you want to make an ethical or philosophical argument that life begins at conception, you're at liberty to do so, provided you understand you may not cross into the legal, Constitutional realm and advocate that abortion be 'banned.' Because when you do venture into the legal realm, your ethical, philosophical argument becomes irrelevant and devoid of merit.

If abortion is about privacy and not about when life begins, then it must be okay for parents to terminate their children (after birth) as long as they do so in private.

 

[Bonzi]

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

You don't understand.

The issue isn't when you or anyone else believes life begins.

The issue concerns you and others on the right who seek to violate a woman's right to privacy by compelling her to have a child against her will through force of law.

This isn't an ethical or philosophical issue, it's solely a legal issue when you cross the line into advocating that abortion be codified as illegal as a matter of statutory policy, where as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Now, if you want to make an ethical or philosophical argument that life begins at conception, you're at liberty to do so, provided you understand you may not cross into the legal, Constitutional realm and advocate that abortion be 'banned.' Because when you do venture into the legal realm, your ethical, philosophical argument becomes irrelevant and devoid of merit.

If abortion is about privacy and not about when life begins, then it must be okay for parents to terminate their children (after birth) as long as they do so in private.

No, these folks (not met) that a human being doesn't have rights until it is out of the womb - why? No clue.

 

[dblack]

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

It's irrelevant. The question is, when does a human life have rights that are protected by government? If you say that a fetus has a soul, and should thusly be protected, what about after people die? Many people believe that our souls live on after our bodies die. Should government protect those who have passed on from interference by spiritual mediums claiming to communicate with the dead? What about ghostbusters? Aren't the committing murder when the kill ghosts?

 

[Lilah]

This sums up my view about as well as any comment so far.

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

 

[prison/con.net]

the slippery slope has to end someplace. The courts have decided that it ends at birth. Then the new life has separated from the mother and it's no longer claimed to be part of her. Can't you people undestand that?

 

[JoeMoma]

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

 

[JoeMoma]

Legalized killing of human beings is everybody's business.

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

It's irrelevant. The question is, when does a human life have rights that are protected by government? If you say that a fetus has a soul, and should thusly be protected, what about after people die? Many people believe that our souls live on after our bodies die. Should government protect those who have passed on from interference by spiritual mediums claiming to communicate with the dead? What about ghostbusters? Aren't the committing murder when the kill ghosts?

If the government were to answer The Question with from 2 years old to 30 years old, would you be okay with it?

 

[pauls]

As a parent, grandparent and great-grandparent I firmly believe in retroactive abortion to the age of 21. I am backed by scripture and by the way young adults are acting today. The old testament says we should stone a disobedient child (retroactive abortion) and it is readily apparent that there are a lot of kids that this would help, well it would help society (not so much the kids).

 

[Lilah]

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

At the age of two, it is a given that the child will be a human being. What would preclude you from thinking otherwise?

 

[S.J.]

the slippery slope has to end someplace. The courts have decided that it ends at birth. Then the new life has separated from the mother and it's no longer claimed to be part of her. Can't you people undestand that?

Laws get changed, court rulings get overturned. You're arguing that since the court decided a certain way, everyone has to accept that it's permanent and just, and no one has a right to challenge or seek to change it but I'm sure you would see it differently if it were a decision with which you disagree.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

At the age of two, it is a given that the child will be a human being. What would preclude you from thinking otherwise?

I was referring to your analogy of a house beginning when the foundation is poured, but that does not make it a house. So if I were to apply the logic you suggested I could reasonably think that a 2 year old child is not a human being.

 

[Lilah]

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

At the age of two, it is a given that the child will be a human being. What would preclude you from thinking otherwise?

I was referring to your analogy of a house beginning when the foundation is poured, but that does not make it a house. So if I were to apply the logic you suggested I could reasonably think that a 2 year old child is not a human being.

Except a two-year-old is a human being. Do you see the logic?

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

At the age of two, it is a given that the child will be a human being. What would preclude you from thinking otherwise?

I was referring to your analogy of a house beginning when the foundation is poured, but that does not make it a house. So if I were to apply the logic you suggested I could reasonably think that a 2 year old child is not a human being.

Except a two-year-old is a human being. Do you see the logic?

Hey, you are the one that made the analogy, not me.
A two year old is a human being at a stage of human development just as a embro, fetus, new born infant, 12 year old child, 18 year old adult, middle aged adult, and senior adult are all human beings at various stages of life. It's simple biology.

 

[Lilah]

A house begins when the foundation is poured. Does that make it a house?

Using that analogy, a two year old is not a human life because he is not completely built (grown) yet. Bad analogy because a house is not grown; it is not a life.

At the age of two, it is a given that the child will be a human being. What would preclude you from thinking otherwise?

I was referring to your analogy of a house beginning when the foundation is poured, but that does not make it a house. So if I were to apply the logic you suggested I could reasonably think that a 2 year old child is not a human being.

Except a two-year-old is a human being. Do you see the logic?

Hey, you are the one that made the analogy, not me.
A two year old is a human being at a stage of human development just as a embro, fetus, new born infant, 12 year old child, 18 year old adult, middle aged adult, and senior adult are all human beings at various stages of life. It's simple biology.

Biology is simple; your logic, not so much.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am male. I can neither have a baby or an abortion. I mind my own business and think other should do the same.

 

[Bonzi]

I am male. I can neither have a baby or an abortion. I mind my own business and think other should do the same.

So, you have no problem if you got someone pregnant that you would have no say in whether you got to have your child or not?

That seems pretty unfair to me. Just because you were created to no be able to physically carry a child, the other person involved in making the baby get's 100% say so?

For the record, the child is IN the mother, That is not a just a body part in there! It's another human life.

 

[dblack]

Again, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not an attorney, but the facts speak for themselves.

If our Constitution and legal cases lead to this conclusion that killing of innocent, defenseless human beings is OK under any circumstance, they are WRONG.

You should have stopped with “I'm not an attorney,” your only accurate statement.

Neither the Constitution nor its case law have come to the conclusion that 'killing innocent human beings' is 'OK.'

Privacy rights jurisprudence wisely and appropriately prohibits the state from dictating to a woman that she must have a child against her will. The Constitution and the Supreme Court fully support the right of the people to enact a policy or policies that ends the practice of abortion provided such a policy or policies comport with privacy rights jurisprudence.

So again: absent the hyperbole, demagoguery, and like nonsense, propose a solution to end the practice of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law and you'll receive 100 percent support from across the political spectrum.

I'm not sure why anyone would like the drivel you typed. A human life begins at inception.
Do you deny it?

It's irrelevant. The question is, when does a human life have rights that are protected by government? If you say that a fetus has a soul, and should thusly be protected, what about after people die? Many people believe that our souls live on after our bodies die. Should government protect those who have passed on from interference by spiritual mediums claiming to communicate with the dead? What about ghostbusters? Aren't the committing murder when the kill ghosts?

If the government were to answer The Question with from 2 years old to 30 years old, would you be okay with it?

No. I think birth to death works well enough.

 

[pauls]

Your opinion that a human life begins at conception is your own. It should be apparent that not everyone shares that opinion. When is the child a deduction from taxes? When is it a citizen? When can you use the child to use the commuter lanes?

 

[blunthead]

I dont support abortion but I wont fight against it because its none of my business what a woman does with her body.

Is it your business when someone murders someone?