I believe in post abortion if 51% of the people in the court room say he/she needed killing.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Is abortion ok
- Thread starter kcbird
- Start date
They do, they always did even before Roe V Wade. See my earlier comment.
Are you trying to say no libertarians are pro-choice even a little bit or under certain circumstances?
We who?
THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Last edited:
Past democrats said pre-civil rights African-Americans didn't really count as people and could be killed at will. How is that any different than saying the unborn can be killed at will?Are you trying to say no libertarians are pro-choice even a little bit or under certain circumstances?
We who?
THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC
Last edited:
So tell me that anyone who wants to cut babies like this up in or out of the womb isn't evil.
I swear... if it's two things babies know how to do instinctually: 1) They know how to laugh; and 2) They know how to cry.
Much better when they're laughing, I think.
Their final appeal was ultimately denied and were executed. I can’t feel sorry for them.
According to the article:
“In its decision to uphold the death penalty, the Supreme People's Court ruled that the motive for the killings was despicable and deserving of a severe punishment.”
That’s really rich! China like many states in the US has state sponsored abortion but executes a couple for killing the children because they were an inconvenience.
If someone kills a pregnant mother, in some states, the defendant is charged with a double murder. Yet it’s legal in some of those states if a doctor kills the unborn baby.
www.foxnews.com
According to the article:
“In its decision to uphold the death penalty, the Supreme People's Court ruled that the motive for the killings was despicable and deserving of a severe punishment.”
That’s really rich! China like many states in the US has state sponsored abortion but executes a couple for killing the children because they were an inconvenience.
If someone kills a pregnant mother, in some states, the defendant is charged with a double murder. Yet it’s legal in some of those states if a doctor kills the unborn baby.
Chinese father, mistress executed after throwing toddlers out of high-rise apartment window: report
A Chinese couple have been executed after the father was found guilty of throwing his toddlers out of a high-rise apartment building, reports say.
www.foxnews.com
As an act of violence ... murder ... that kind of thing. May be an exception somewhere but I haven't seen it.
50% in FL I think
That's not the same thing as "choice". Not even close. Even these "no abortion" states would allow that, as well ectopic pregnancies which also threatens the mothers lifeand never produces a viable fetus, and most cases of documented (i.e. report filed) rape/incest.
It is absolutely a choice. Just because the sheeple is "allowed" to make that choice today there is no guarantee they will have the choice tomorrow once control over that choice is given to the State.
Si, I'm aware of many of the existing laws as well as aware of the laws before and after Roe v. Wade and also before and after the abortion 'renaissance' in the 1800s. Then there's Colonial Law if you go back far enough ... limiting it to primarily this continent.
A young woman is brutally raped and beaten and falls into a coma.
At some point during her care a pregnancy is detected.
If she has a proxy, is the proxy allowed to make the choice for her?
If she does not have a proxy and becomes lucid and in control of her faculties 2 weeks later should she have the choice? 6 weeks later? 20 weeks later?
What kills me is to watch what our courts have become.
We went from slavery and womens rights.....both affecting nearly every American to roe v wade....emotional and theological for sure, but not directly affecting all that many. To some guy who wouldn't bake a cake because he didn't agree with the values of the customer....affecting about 3 people in the country.
What is sad is that Americans...we the people of the land of the free find it so important to tell our neighbors how they should run their lives because we're better at managing their freedom than they are.
We went from slavery and womens rights.....both affecting nearly every American to roe v wade....emotional and theological for sure, but not directly affecting all that many. To some guy who wouldn't bake a cake because he didn't agree with the values of the customer....affecting about 3 people in the country.
What is sad is that Americans...we the people of the land of the free find it so important to tell our neighbors how they should run their lives because we're better at managing their freedom than they are.
So no laws against robbery, rape, or murder?
Don't wanna tell others how to live their life.
Look, I've tried to be nice about it but you really need to stop following me around like a lost puppy.
I got your letters. And the pictures ... soooo many pictures ...
There will never be anything between us no matter how hard you try or much you want it.
The only thing we have in common is neither one of us can wait until you're old enough to drive. Which may be a while based on the pictures.
But for different reasons.
Me because maybe you'll use the new found freedom to find someone else to follow around like a lost puppy.
You ... well ... who really gives a fuck about you.
Take what I said as you will. If that's what your comprehension brought you to, I sure can't help you.
Keep on judging others and hope for the best.
Interesting, I know there are a few places where we are not responsible for the salvation of others and we can't force people to accept salvation, this they can only do for themselves. Ezekiel is the closest thing that comes to mind that parallels this.
I think you might be getting mixed up with what Heavenly Father actually wishes and says and the example He set for us, as compared to what Jewish lawyers, debaters and selfish elders decided to interpret things as for their own benefit.
I understand puberty can be tough. That adolescent need to be liked by the cool kids. But like I said, it's not going to work out between us. Maybe go try to make a friend at the Y or the church, I've heard young, impressionable fellas are really popular at both.
It must be tough coming to a conservative forum and trying to spew the lefty BS, but ya gotta do what your handlers tell you.
Aww losers gotta stick together.
Pro tip: when a thread title asks for opinions, that's probably what you'll find in the replys.
The abortion debate is essentially about, at what point, and under which circumstances is it morally acceptable to kill a child. There is no sidestepping that fundamental premise no matter what your beliefs are. It is undebatable that irrespective of the juncture at which you end a pregnancy, if left alone or without a health issue, that process produces a child. Period.
If you take that moral argument further one might posit the mother has rights as well, and in deference to my previous point, it's about the conflicting rights between a mother and her unborn child. If you believe both have equal rights in that situation, then you'll notice only one half of that example has the actual ability to effect the outcome. Ergo, people who want to give that child equal treatment and consideration are the ones making argument as to what should be morally acceptable on account of the child who has no voice. Notice I didn't say judgment. But that's what societies do, they protect the most vulnerable among them and ensure the social mores they form together assure their continued proliferation.
This is of course summarily about balance and I dare say we've lost that.
As a Christian, I could make many cogent arguments against abortion and point out in scripture what God, and Jesus himself taught us. I could cross reference that scripture with any society whether atheist, polytheistic, etc. and point out the ill effects of abortion and the absolute moral repugnancy associated with numerous processes. But that would be a spiritual argument which ends in very well explicated and lucidly clear moral interpretations and consequences.
That said, every person has the right to live their lives according to the moral boundaries each society has set. We indeed live in a democratic republic whereby we as individuals will decide, collectively, what's best for all of us. That is the constant ebb and flow of liberty as expressed in constitution and law. It's actually what has come out of the Dobbs Decision. That is, there is no constitutional right to an abortion- anyone reading the plain text can see that. Accordingly each state will now get to decide the boundaries of those policies. If you don't like the "restrictive" policy of one state where the citizens have decided that is the best approach, you can move to a state like NY where you can have a no excuses abortion up until six months, and even after that, up until birth, have an abortion without any penalty. You decide what a just, truthful, moral and right decision will be.
YMMV.
If you take that moral argument further one might posit the mother has rights as well, and in deference to my previous point, it's about the conflicting rights between a mother and her unborn child. If you believe both have equal rights in that situation, then you'll notice only one half of that example has the actual ability to effect the outcome. Ergo, people who want to give that child equal treatment and consideration are the ones making argument as to what should be morally acceptable on account of the child who has no voice. Notice I didn't say judgment. But that's what societies do, they protect the most vulnerable among them and ensure the social mores they form together assure their continued proliferation.
This is of course summarily about balance and I dare say we've lost that.
As a Christian, I could make many cogent arguments against abortion and point out in scripture what God, and Jesus himself taught us. I could cross reference that scripture with any society whether atheist, polytheistic, etc. and point out the ill effects of abortion and the absolute moral repugnancy associated with numerous processes. But that would be a spiritual argument which ends in very well explicated and lucidly clear moral interpretations and consequences.
That said, every person has the right to live their lives according to the moral boundaries each society has set. We indeed live in a democratic republic whereby we as individuals will decide, collectively, what's best for all of us. That is the constant ebb and flow of liberty as expressed in constitution and law. It's actually what has come out of the Dobbs Decision. That is, there is no constitutional right to an abortion- anyone reading the plain text can see that. Accordingly each state will now get to decide the boundaries of those policies. If you don't like the "restrictive" policy of one state where the citizens have decided that is the best approach, you can move to a state like NY where you can have a no excuses abortion up until six months, and even after that, up until birth, have an abortion without any penalty. You decide what a just, truthful, moral and right decision will be.
YMMV.
Last edited:
The last time the states were left to decide the humanity of a person in the mid-1800s, it didn't end so well.
Well said. A nit could be picked with some effort but it would be pointless without drinks and face to face.
Where the Constitution is silent, the Tenth Amendment applies. That's part of the federalism we live under. It isn't a buffet where you pick and choose, or invent to your liking. Its relatively clear.
I would also note that sadly, since the Dobbs Decision, contrary to the hyperbole, total abortions have increased. That's according to the Gutmacher statistics.
I would also note that sadly, since the Dobbs Decision, contrary to the hyperbole, total abortions have increased. That's according to the Gutmacher statistics.
Praying that a 14th amendment challenge can be brought for the unborn which results in a nationwide ban on baby killing.
It's likely a 14th Amendment case will be brought, that's a logical place to seek refuge and "equal protection". But that would require defining the point at which the baby has "rights", which is much more difficult. Especially since at that point, again with respect to equal protection, you have to address issues regarding the mothers (or the fathers) rights. Post Dobbs, that's been left up to being defined by a majority of the citizens of each state- which feels like the right place for it to be. But It's also being corrupted by pro abortion groups to ensure there are no restrictions or restraints, which is rather insidious in my estimation. We didn't move to a system that gives power to the individual states only to have outside groups come in with big money, obfuscate the issue, and coerce or delude the people into their position.
Si. Agree, the 'original' Constitution is the wrong place to argue because at the time it was penned women were second class citizens at best with fewer rights than men, intentional or oversight doesn't really matter. Unborn children, much less living children, weren't even an afterthought. Arguing over vagaries between the language and intent of the times vs today is just more of the same seesaw tug-of-war we have today.
Texas fought for fetal personhood based on the 14th in the 70's and basically lost over the definition of the word "person". The 14th, as you say, is the logical place to start because it's the only place that offers any leverage on something that could have a broad and lasting impact on the issue.
The slippery slope here is "defining the point at which the baby has 'rights'". There is already a precedent on lack of brain function or brain stem death where a born individual can be declared "legally dead". Simply existing physically as a whole human being functioning physiologically on life support is not enough to be declared "alive". If "brain life" is applied as the litmus test for fetal personhood then that would create a variable gap between conception and the point where the brain "comes online" where a fetus is not legally a person and not protected. Brain "activity" can be detected in as little as 6 weeks but organs aren't fully developed until around 12 weeks and even then the brain is still developing even after the "quickening".
The definition of a person in the womb on a national political/legal stage seems unlikely to land on conception and equally unlikely to to fall anywhere in the third trimester. Continuing to push for the definition of 'fetal personhood' at a national level seems like it would put us right back at something similar to Roe v. Wade but, possibly, with more permanence.
Leaving the definition of abortion rights at the state level is likely the only way to ban abortion at conception but even then it's not permanent because the liberal hives will eventually grow big enough even in Texas that the rights of everyone, born/unborn/dead, will be willingly handed over to the government in the interest of homogeneity and "protection".
Yes, there are dozens of article/papers/sources that say the same thing and it's been presented many times and I don't think anyone has argued it's not "life".
Even .gov says it's "life". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778
Cellular "life" can even continue in a corpse for a short while.
While "life" may be present, legally there is currently a difference between "life" and personhood. Currently constitutional protections only extend to persons, not "life".
For it to matter legally on a Constitutional level 357 people on the hill have to be convinced that "life" == personhood.
Every metric used to define personhood for the unborn, except conception, can be used against other groups of people.
No sentience? Ok to kill soneone in a coma?
Dependant on another for sustenance? Food stamps?
Simply an inconvenience? Ok to kill the blue hair doing 10 under in the fast lane?
I've seen LOTS of people declared dead who were not connected to an EEG to measure brain activity.
Even if you completely remove the live or not argument, most jurisdictions have laws against desecrating a corpse.
No sentience? Ok to kill soneone in a coma?
Dependant on another for sustenance? Food stamps?
Simply an inconvenience? Ok to kill the blue hair doing 10 under in the fast lane?
I've seen LOTS of people declared dead who were not connected to an EEG to measure brain activity.
Even if you completely remove the live or not argument, most jurisdictions have laws against desecrating a corpse.
Inagine you're a federal judge on the bench and one of your first cases was a couple suing their bank over breach of contract. Their lawyer says a 30yr fixed rate mortgage says their payments should be the same over the life of the contract.
The lawyers for the bank says since every other time in history the feds saw two quarters of negative growth as a recession, and since we've had two quarters of negative growth and the feds haven't declared a recession we're in unprecedented territory. If the Feds had declared a recession, our insurance would cover our losses, but since a recession had never been declared, we should be unilaterally able to alter the terms of the contract.
Which way do you rule?
what about the father's rights? the courts have certainly assigned financial responsibility to the biological father (and sometimes just a poor sucker) if the mother decides not to kill the baby, so how come the father has no say in whether or not his offspring are slaughtered?
/would
/would
what about the father's rights? the courts have certainly assigned financial responsibility to the biological father (and sometimes just a poor sucker) if the mother decides not to kill the baby, so how come the father has no say in whether or not his offspring are slaughtered?
/would
You call a dad a deadbeat for neglecting his boys but a mom kills a baby and you call it pro-choice. -Tom Macdonald, New world order
what about the father's rights? the courts have certainly assigned financial responsibility to the biological father (and sometimes just a poor sucker) if the mother decides not to kill the baby, so how come the father has no say in whether or not his offspring are slaughtered?
/would
Personally I'm all for a legally responsible biological father or even a legally responsible father (dude marries a woman pregnant by someone else) having some say but all ties go to the mother.
An estranged father, biological or otherwise, not so much. Sperm donors need not apply.
I am totally opposed to a rapist having any say as a "biological father".
Biological fatherhood by itself isn't enough.
I quoted these to preserve your stupidity for posterity.
There isn't much hope for you but sometimes people later realize how truly ignorant they are and try to edit the dialogue.
Also, when I tell people about this later and we're all sitting around laughing about then they finally catch their breath and say "Are you really serious? You didn't just make that up?" I can point them to it and it will still be here.
lol, giving her the tie breaker in a 2-vote system is be default, removing all rights from the father.
i am not strictly against this, but then she must assume all financial responsibility if she has the right to kill it.
Agree, definitely not the "best" solution.
I've stated before I am personally no fan of abortion as a solution, especially an "easy" solution, to a problem, especially self-manufactured problems.
My mind can't help but wander down several scenarios where aborting a pregnancy might be a legally viable choice and some of those situations might be something like preservation of maternal life and the 'father' might want to choose the unborn over the mother or the father isn't fit financially, is mentally challenged, is n prison, etc. and won't be able to care for the newborn.
Choosing to give an unwanted newborn up for adoption would always be my first recommendation to the "problem".
Too fucking stupid to answer either, so you quote it and post more stupid shit in a bid for more attention? What's wrong, was your father not a major influence in your life so you're begging for male attention here?
Last edited:
Over 24hrs with no response, did I hit a nerve?
I know you got the notification.
Still got a man crush and stalking me I see.
The only nerve you trigger for me is the same one from people who drive 55 in the left lane because "that's the speed limit" or the people in line at Mickey D's who are too stupid to figure out the menu.
I will never let you kiss me. You need to find another hero.
Save your homoerotic fantasies for your next mutual masturbation session.
Still got a man crush and stalking me I see.
The only nerve you trigger for me is the same one from people who drive 55 in the left lane because "that's the speed limit" or the people in line at Mickey D's who are too stupid to figure out the menu.
I will never let you kiss me. You need to find another hero.
You haven't given a straight concise answer in this whole thread.
Deep down you know how stupid you are.
Similar threads
