Abortion as Murder.

[SmarterThanHick]

the answer is clearly that you're not a bright as you think you are. Are you not aware of the statutes against murder in all 50 states? Is murder legal in any of them? Why in the hell would you need a link to a murder statute to know murder is illegal. Your attempted deflection is rejected.

You claim you only care about the letter of the law, regardless of inference, meaning, enforcement, or practicality, yet you won't even cite the very laws you claim technically reject abortion? No one is debating whether murder is bad. The issue here is what the laws you continually reference but don't cite actually say, and how they may be interpreted. Nice straw man attempt though.

Silly and weak attempt at deflection, every opne of the fifty states have laws against murder, in fact they have multiple laws against murder, and if its your contention that any one of those laws exempts abortion of a viable fetus its up to you to prove that. The fact is they don't, and they all boild down to the same thing. Unlawfully and intentionally taking the life of another person. How doesn't really matter.

Once again I repeat: no one is debating whether murder is bad, or even if states have laws about murder. The key here is that you claim your whining here is only in regards to the letter of the law, which you have yet to produce. You claim they do not exempt abortion yet you refuse to actually directly cite them, to instead give your own personal unsupported interpretation.

You claim I am deflecting the topic, which is nothing but your own insecurity. The topic is as you claim it to be: the letter of the law does not exempt abortion. I have asked you several times to support your claim by citing the law, and every single time without fail you have avoided it. Ran from it. Deflected it by pointing the finger back at me. But at the end of all your worming away from the actual issue, the fact still remains that you have yet to cite a single law that shows abortion is not exempt. It very well may be the case, but for someone claiming they only care about the letter, you have yet to actually show it.

No, what we have here is just you lying. Sorry, but I don't know what else to call it when you lie. Please, enlighten us as to what "letter" of any law you refer to? Do you mean I think murderers should be punished? Well yeah, I do, that would be why we have laws against it. If you're refering to interpreting Roe and Casey to define a viable fetus as a person, then you're way off base, because there is no law to letter. There is only a court finding, which would be an interpretation itself.

Yes yes, I'm a liar liar poopey pants deflector pants on fire. Now when you're done with your snack and nap, and want to discuss the issue like a big boy, let me know.

You continue to insinuate that court findings are of little value, when in fact they are binding. Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note how I supported something I said with a direct link to relevant information. You should try that sometime.

did you consult alinsky to come up with this conspiracy garbage? I have not espoused any "conspiracy". The branches of government tug and push at each others powers every day. In this case the SCOTUS managed to grab some. There's no "conspiracy" its the way our government works and why the seperate branches have to jealously gaurd their authority. When you find the part of the constitution empowering the courts to write law where congress has not... let us know.

So you still think this is a massive oversight whereby SCOTUS has illegally usurped power despite the decision being upheld time and time again. And then you wonder why I think you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHA... skin a little thin? Don't like it when I throw your crap back at you. Too bad.It matters not a whit. What the law is, is what is written, why its written is irrelevant to its application. Courts do not rule on perceptions or intentions, they rule on written laws.

So I take that to mean you can't actually discuss this issue.

Once again I will restate: laws ought to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral underpinnings of their topics, not the other way around. Blindly following unethical and immoral laws simply because they are laws has produced horrible outcomes throughout history. It amuses me that your only retort on this point is name calling. Did you have your nap yet?

your a riot. pillaging and genocide are the result of lawlessness. Honestly dude, are you drinking? Laws did not give us freedom of speech, you were born with it. And again, you can base the law on anything you wish, once iots written, its whats written that is the law.

The salem witch trials, inquisition, every other religious war, and that thing that I otherwise dare not bring up, the holocaust, were all "lawful" in approach. Do you need to review history?

Laws absolutely give us freedom of speech, which is not something people are born with. It is something inherent to American culture, certainly, but only because it was written into our laws from the start based on the subjugation of this country's founding citizens by Britain. If those truths are so self-evident, why do you suppose it took so long in human history to definitively establish them?

That is just false. Most states bar a specific procedure which would be used after about 8 months, fetus' are viable LONG BEFORE that, and they are aborted every day and in every state.

Perhaps you missed the links I gave regarding abortion statistics in the US. You know, that supporting evidence thing again. The FACT remains that less than 1% of all abortions in this country take place after the fetus is of a viable age. Most health care providers simply will not offer those services whatsoever after the 24th week.

Every day in every state after that point? Sounds like you are pretty clueless.

No, just means I'm not gonna answer the same question from you over and over again because your too dense to get it the first time. You asked the same damned question three times and I answered it every fucking time. have you answered mine yet? No, you've just ignored them.

Aw, baby is resorting to cursing. How cute. So let's review: you won't restate, and you won't even provide a link, but you insist you're right for reasons you stated but no one else besides you know. Right. Is there some question you feel I've overlooked and would like me to answer directly? I'm happy to.

In the meantime, we have no understanding of what "human being" means to you. Now you can go one of two ways: you can either realize you're in a discussion board and understand that basic communication skills are required to DISCUSS things, or you can continue to shove your fingers so deep into your ears that they touch each other in the middle, pretending that you're right simply because you can't hear anything else.

It's great that you can differentiate that pancreatic tissue is not a human being, but simply saying "that's loser" is an unsupported and useless argument. But the thing is, you CAN'T tell me WHY it's "loser" and yet you think you have a valid argument. Boo hoo you.

I didn't simply say "that's a loser", i went on to explain why, and once again you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to acknowledge it.... it would have to do with that whole "unique individual of the genus homo sapiens sapiens" thing. Not to worry... I'm sure you'll ignore it again. Seems to be what you do when you can't argue a point.

You went on to explain why. Interesting. Let's revisit your explanation:
"It is an organ."
While true, it doesn't really differentiate the topics.

"the stupid cell argument is a loser and you know it."
your usual mature response

"A human embryo fits the biological definition of life"
Again, you gave the lay definition from a lay dictionary. In fact the biological definition of life is a bit different. If we go to any standard biology dictionary, we readily discern that the #1 definition of life is "The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms." If we then look at any encyclopedia, it is confirmed that definitions are not so easily applied to life. This returns me to my prior point, that we must discuss the ethics of this issue instead of throwing buzzwords at it with gray areas of definition. Murder is such a word. Human being is a large discussion which you are either unwilling to have or unwilling to reference where you've had it previously. Defining it as "individual" also pushes back the exact same point. Is a fetus an individual? What comprises an individual?

Again, we can either use buzzwords or address the actual ethics. Higher courts do the latter. You seem content with the former.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

correction: the large majority are not by pill. I knew it wasn't by cutting, but i forgot about the non-cutting non-pill option, even though that still starts with a pill.

 

[BenNatuf]

No, which is why privacy is NOT a global right, although protected in many instances. When you go to work, you have ZERO privacy on your employee e-mail account, but there are still laws against peeping toms. So you offer a poor example.

Just sillyness, you don't have a right to speak freely at work either... know why? because the government is precluded from infringing on your rights, people can do it whenever they wish and if you don't like it you can sue them. BTW sparky, you also don't own your 'employee email account" so its not yours to keep private to begin with.

Glad you agree that your example was useless.

You are the one arguing abortion of a viable fetus isn't included in murder statutes because its not explicitly included in them. If your going to be hypocritical at least be consistantly hypocritical.

Can you? Why don't you start by pointing out where I stated the finding in Roe is irrelevant? Clearly you picked that up somewhere in your reading, despite me not actually saying it. To correct yet another straw man, what I did say was that the anthropromorphized state interest is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how one interprets the state's interest of the result, but that doesn't make the result itself irrelevant.

You don't actually know what a finding is do you? Dude, the "FINDING" or precedential and BINDING part of the opinion is that the states do have an iterest in preserving the life of a viable fetus. Your lame attempts to set that aside as some sort of change in the law made by men is just silly, of course men changed it, men wrote it.

Did you miss the part where I stated it was irrelevant? The very fact that you are asking shows it is not a defined interest, and therefore your one unsupported interpretation of Roe should not be taken as such. If you want to discuss WHY Roe ended as it did, we can certainly do that, but all attempts to get you to discuss the underlying ethics of this issue instead of just spewing forth keywords have been ignored, sidestepped, or redirected.

once again you lamely attemt to deflect. The central finding of Roe is not "irrelevant", it is in fact the only part of the decision that is relevant. The rest of the decission is dicta explaining how they came to that decission and has NO precedential value. Seriously, all your doing is going around in circles trying to justify your wrong opinion on the law elevating dicta above findings... it doesn't work that way.

So you're defining self defense as defending yourself. Good definition. Let me know when you start to pick up on your shortcomings. Perhaps we should start defining cancer surgeries or the flu as "self defense"

No other person ios killed in a cancer surgery. Simply glossing over the FACT that another person is involved in the decission to abort a viable fetus will not make that fact go away. A viable fetus is not a cancer, its a person.

And what if you were making the decision for another person. A partner or family member, perhaps? Would you choose the mother or the 2 month old fetus?

Already answered that one too... does it always take two or three times for shit to sink in with you? Does it ever?

Actually no, you answered a similar yet different question. You seem to state things are already answered when it's clear you are just having trouble with the details. So let's reiterate: previously you claimed you would choose the mother in reference to self-defense. Then I asked you a question where you would need to choose between the two options where SELF-defense was removed, i.e. you were not defending self whatsoever and thus your silly application was irrelevant.

your difficulty in reading comprehension is getting worse. And simply ignoring the answers you've already been given and pretending they haven't been is getting old. Check back a couple pages and try reading them again, you asked I answered, which is more than I can say for you.

But assuming you would answer the same, it seems to me like you hold the life of the mother to be a different value as the life of the fetus. Why is that? If not, why would you pick the mother?

because you gotta pick one and there is no gaurentee that if the mother dies the baby won't dies with her.

 

[BenNatuf]

Once again I repeat: no one is debating whether murder is bad, or even if states have laws about murder. The key here is that you claim your whining here is only in regards to the letter of the law, which you have yet to produce. You claim they do not exempt abortion yet you refuse to actually directly cite them, to instead give your own personal unsupported interpretation.

you can't cite what does not exist and no murder statutes exempt any particular type of killing, that would be including abortion there einstein. Your are the one claiming they do, which if they do you should be able to produce any number of murder statutes showing this exemption. If it's not exempted then there is no exemption and it would be inclusive of the law, so long as a viable fetus fits the definition of a "person" You're the one employing a dumbass strawman and are apparently aren't even aware enough of your own argument to even know it.

You claim I am deflecting the topic, which is nothing but your own insecurity. The topic is as you claim it to be: the letter of the law does not exempt abortion. I have asked you several times to support your claim by citing the law, and every single time without fail you have avoided it.

you are the one claiming it does. Go find a murder statute that exempts abortion of a viable fetus and we'll talk. How many different murder statutes would you like me to link from the fifty states? All of them? Here's a clue for you, you won't find abortion mentioned in any of them, and I can no more post what doesn't exist than you can. On the other hand, if it does exist in them, it should be relatively easy for you to prove your assertion that it does.

Ran from it. Deflected it by pointing the finger back at me. But at the end of all your worming away from the actual issue, the fact still remains that you have yet to cite a single law that shows abortion is not exempt. It very well may be the case, but for someone claiming they only care about the letter, you have yet to actually show it.

what other things that are not covered in murder statutes would you like me to link? If you think murder statutes include the phrase "except in the case of abortion of a viable fetus", then link it, because thats YOUR CLAIM.

You continue to insinuate that court findings are of little value, when in fact they are binding. Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note how I supported something I said with a direct link to relevant information. You should try that sometime.

you're the one trying to make the central finding irelevant, not me. I'm citing it. You are attempting to deflect from it by relying on dicta. here's that hint for you again...

Central "finding" of Roe: The state has an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus and the mothers privacy in access to abortion is only protected so long as the fetus is unviable.

So you still think this is a massive oversight whereby SCOTUS has illegally usurped power despite the decision being upheld time and time again. And then you wonder why I think you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

you would expect them to not uphold their userpation? Facts are what they are, the court has NO authority to write law in leiu of the congress writing them. If the congress has not acted the court can not act in its place. Thewre need be no "conspiracy" for the court to userp power, theri merely needs to be a doing. And its been done. Not the first time either.

So I take that to mean you can't actually discuss this issue.

you're really confused bud. You've contradicted yourself so many times you're probobly getting dizzy trying to find out what your arguments are.

Once again I will restate: laws ought to be based on the scientific/ethical/moral underpinnings of their topics, not the other way around. Blindly following unethical and immoral laws simply because they are laws has produced horrible outcomes throughout history. It amuses me that your only retort on this point is name calling. Did you have your nap yet?

who gives a shit what YOU think laws should be based on? Certainly not the courts. Which of course brings up the question...

What the hell is immoral or unethical about laws against murder?

The salem witch trials, inquisition, every other religious war, and that thing that I otherwise dare not bring up, the holocaust, were all "lawful" in approach. Do you need to review history?

Religious war? Thats funny. Religion is a tool in war not the cause nor the reason for it. Power is what wars are fought over.

Laws absolutely give us freedom of speech, which is not something people are born with. It is something inherent to American culture, certainly, but only because it was written into our laws from the start based on the subjugation of this country's founding citizens by Britain. If those truths are so self-evident, why do you suppose it took so long in human history to definitively establish them?

False, completely false and something only a authoritarian leftist progressive would believe. Our rights are endowed by our creator, not by government, not by the constitution, not by the law, they preexisted the law and the constitution, and the only thing the constitution does is preclude the government from infringing on what we allready possess.

Perhaps you missed the links I gave regarding abortion statistics in the US. You know, that supporting evidence thing again. The FACT remains that less than 1% of all abortions in this country take place after the fetus is of a viable age. Most health care providers simply will not offer those services whatsoever after the 24th week.

Even if true (which your self serving leftist propoganda surely would claim) how about we just kill off 1% of everyone over 80? Is that OK too? In the 1% figure what is considered a "viable age"? And best to not go with what "most health care providers" will do beacuse thats just not a statistical figue. Panned Parenthood will provide abortion services in just about every case right up untill about the 8th month when the procedures neccessary for performing them are illegal in most states. They perform 390K abortions every year.

Aw, baby is resorting to cursing. How cute. So let's review: you won't restate, and you won't even provide a link, but you insist you're right for reasons you stated but no one else besides you know. Right. Is there some question you feel I've overlooked and would like me to answer directly? I'm happy to.

Restate? Why would I when you have the same back button I do and you've already proven you don't read very well anyway?

What constitutional provision does the states interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus flow from?

What state interest other than protecting one persons rights could negate the rights of another person?

In the meantime, we have no understanding of what "human being" means to you.

because you either can't read or refuse to. been answered more than once, your lack of understanding or acknowledgement is your problem not mine.

Now you can go one of two ways: you can either realize you're in a discussion board and understand that basic communication skills are required to DISCUSS things, or you can continue to shove your fingers so deep into your ears that they touch each other in the middle, pretending that you're right simply because you can't hear anything else.

too funny. Just for you I'll answer one more time, but pay close attention, cause i won't do it again. Hopefully, this time it will sink in.

Human Being: A member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Pretty much covers the deffinition.

While true, it doesn't really differentiate the topics.

Once again showing your inanity. Yeah, I think that one is a pancreas and the other is a human being kinda differetiates them, otherwise, they'd both be a pancreas

Again, you gave the lay definition from a lay dictionary. In fact the biological definition of life is a bit different. If we go to any standard biology dictionary, we readily discern that the #1 definition of life is "The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms." If we then look at any encyclopedia, it is confirmed that definitions are not so easily applied to life. This returns me to my prior point, that we must discuss the ethics of this issue instead of throwing buzzwords at it with gray areas of definition. Murder is such a word. Human being is a large discussion which you are either unwilling to have or unwilling to reference where you've had it previously. Defining it as "individual" also pushes back the exact same point. Is a fetus an individual? What comprises an individual?

Again, we can either use buzzwords or address the actual ethics. Higher courts do the latter. You seem content with the former.

Buzzwords?

Higher courts do not rule based on what you think they do, they rule on the law as written and the constitution, not their "feelings".

You don't know what an individual is? Would you like for me to define "is" too? An individual is a single person of the genus homo sapiens sapiens. Rather a dumb question don't you think?

Laughable, you confuse the deffinition of a human being which is completely a specie distinction with the deffinition of a person. Which once again is a PHILISOPHICAL argument and has not a damned thing to do with ethics that regulate BEHAVIOR. The constitution does not preclude depriving the life of a human being without due process of law, it preclude depriving a PERSON of life. To help you out here A "person" is a viable living member of the species homo sapiens sapiens or so one can deduce from what the courts say.

The entire thing boils down to this. If a viable fetus is a "person" then they are covered in the statutes against murder simply by the fact that the equal protection clause does not allow different classes of persons to be protected differently. So we first have to look at the body of law to determine if a viable fetus is a person. And that brings us back to the central questions.

From what constitutional provision is the state granted authority to negate one persons rights? If a viable fetus is not a person, it has no rights, and the state has no compelling interest in protecting this non-entity over and above the rights of an actual person. But the courts say the state does. What other grant of authority to the states could possibly be used to justify the negation of a fundamental right other than a more compelling fundamental right? The state cannot have an interest pulled from the ether. It's interest must be grounded. Other than the compelling interest of not allowing a person to be deprived of life, what other possible interest could the state have that would negate the rights of the woman?

And as to "life" there is an accepted biological definition and the tripe you posted ain't it.

life, Matter characterized by the ability to metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow, reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli.

A viable fetus fits all the criteria, in fact an embryo does, but then again the argument here isn't about whether a fetus is a "life" (we know it is), or a "human being" (we know it's that too), it's about whether it's a "person" in any legal sence. And for that you have to look at the body of law.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340003/life

Now, you can go on arguing points that are either inarguable or not being argued if it makes you feel good.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.

We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights. We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so. Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:

1. Defence of the nation, which of course is the government acting to protect the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

2. Public safety, which of course is the government acting to secure the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

3. In defence of another persons even more compelling right, which of course is a balancing of the fundamental rights of life liberty and property between persons.

These are the only reasons I know of by which the state may use its grant of authority to infringe or limit on a persons rights. If there is some other reason thats constitutionaly grounded I'll be glad to entertain it, so feel free to add and join the debate.

The SCOTUS in Roe and Casey determined a state interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus. In doing so they allow the state to use its grant of authority to limit and infringe on a womans right to privacy grounded in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments (and possibly others). Since we already know the states grant of authority is limitted in its ability to infringe on a persons rights, on what compelling interest is this grant of authority based?

National defence? No.
Public Safety? No.

There is only one compelling interest the state can claim to empower this infringement and that is the balancing of one persons rights against anothers. It procedes logically that since the states grant of authority allows it to infringe on the womans right to privacy it must be based on some other persons more compelling right. The only other possible "person" involved in this decission is the viable fetus, and it is inarguable that the most fundamental of rights (life) could possibly be trumped by a lesser right (privacy).

So, once again, is there any possible interpretation of Roe's central finding that could possibly be interpretted as to NOT grant a viable fetus "personhood" that would still allow the state to use its constitutional grant of authority to infringe on the womans right to privacy? If so, state it, and explain the legal philosophy which backs it up.

And, if not, how do we justify these "persons" not recieving the equal protection all persons are gaurenteed under the law to recieve justice by having their killers prosecuted under the same laws as all other persons when they are intentionally deprived of life without due process of law and when the taking of that life does not involve the defence of ones own just as compelling fundamental rights (life, liberty, property); which, under all circumstances is unlawful and therefore murder?

 

[BenNatuf]

I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.

We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights. We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so. Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:

1. Defence of the nation, which of course is the government acting to protect the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

2. Public safety, which of course is the government acting to secure the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

3. In defence of another persons even more compelling right, which of course is a balancing of the fundamental rights of life liberty and property between persons.

These are the only reasons I know of by which the state may use its grant of authority to infringe or limit on a persons rights. If there is some other reason thats constitutionaly grounded I'll be glad to entertain it, so feel free to add and join the debate.

The SCOTUS in Roe and Casey determined a state interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus. In doing so they allow the state to use its grant of authority to limit and infringe on a womans right to privacy grounded in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments (and possibly others). Since we already know the states grant of authority is limitted in its ability to infringe on a persons rights, on what compelling interest is this grant of authority based?

National defence? No.
Public Safety? No.

There is only one compelling interest the state can claim to empower this infringement and that is the balancing of one persons rights against anothers. It procedes logically that since the states grant of authority allows it to infringe on the womans right to privacy it must be based on some other persons more compelling right. The only other possible "person" involved in this decission is the viable fetus, and it is inarguable that the most fundamental of rights (life) could possibly be trumped by a lesser right (privacy).

So, once again, is there any possible interpretation of Roe's central finding that could possibly be interpretted as to NOT grant a viable fetus "personhood" that would still allow the state to use its constitutional grant of authority to infringe on the womans right to privacy? If so, state it, and explain the legal philosophy which backs it up.

And, if not, how do we justify these "persons" not recieving the equal protection all persons are gaurenteed under the law to recieve justice by having their killers prosecuted under the same laws as all other persons when they are intentionally deprived of life without due process of law and when the taking of that life does not involve the defence of ones own just as compelling fundamental rights (life, liberty, property); which, under all circumstances is unlawful and therefore murder?

I've tried this a couple different places and so far no-one who supports abortion rights has been able to answer these fundamental questions, and like here, most have just not tried. Mouth breathing talking points and platitudes is simply not enough. If you are an abortion rights supporter and you can't answer these fundamental questions don't you have to question your support of those "rights", particularly in the case of a viable fetus? If it doesn't, what does it say about the nature of your support? Is it constituionally and legally grounded (nation of laws), or is it grounded on your beliefs irregardless of the constitution and the laws (nation of men)? What other person or persons would you place so much value on that you would elevate them above the law and exempt them from its consequences because of your "beliefs"? Which others would you place so little value on that you would exempt them from its protections?

 

[mdn2000]

Abortion is the single sickest, cruel, thing a person can do.

Warning, graphic images at link
Whirled Views with Dan Burrell » Links


Pic deleted

PixieStix

 

[mdn2000]

This is the debate and this is how it should be presented

Warning, graphic images at link
Abortion Debate

Pic deleted

PixieStix

 

[Misty]

Once you devalue life to nothing more than an inconvience, this is the end result, brutal murders of innocent babies.

Former Nurse on Obama's Controversial Abortion Vote - Hannity - FOXNews.com

"JILL STANEK, PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST: Sure. This is not partial birth abortion. This is called induced labor abortion, and for this procedure, the physician inserts a medication into the mom's birth canal that dilates the cervix, and the intent is for the baby be delivered prematurely. They're fully formed, but very small.*

So when the cervix opens, essentially, the baby falls out of the uterus, and it is anticipated that the baby will die during the birth process or soon afterwards. But sometimes these babies live for a time.

Christ Hospital, where I worked, confessed to the "Chicago Sun-Times" in 2001 that between 10 and 20 percent of babies at that hospital that were aborted by this method survived.

HANNITY: You tell the story -- a hard-wrenching story about a about a down syndrome baby you found.

STANEK: Yes.

HANNITY: . that was living, that had been abandoned in the soiled utility room at the hospital that you ended up cradling and rocking and holding for the 45 minutes that this baby*
Tell us that story.

STANEK: One night a nursing coworker was taking a little baby boy who had been aborted alive at -- between 21 and 22 weeks because he had down syndrome to our soiled utility room to die because his parents didn't want to hold him, and she didn't have time to hold him that night, and when she told me what she was doing, I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, and so I did cradle and rock him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

 

[BenNatuf]

Same thing I posted elsewhere in answer to the silence of those who support abortion "rights".

So, I guess I can assume that since no libs are willing to discuss the actual conveying and legal justification for abortion "rights" and the states interest in infringing on those rights at viability, it's not actually the "rights" they support so much as the "abortions". Here you have a chance to discuss the philosophy behind the actual right and all anyone can say is "it's her choice", but thats not really true is it? She has no "choice" in whether or not the "right" can be employed freely or infringed upon, she only has a "choice" to get an actual abortion. So, when you say "it's her choice", it's not her "right" your supporting, it's her abortion.

 

[Jroc]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFVt8yLuyUs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFVt8yLuyUs[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5inizpmIg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5inizpmIg[/ame]

 

[mdn2000]

I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.

The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.

 

[elvis]

I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.

The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.

Links to the pictures were made available. You can still join the debate. But no more discussing in public what was done with the pictures, please.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

They should execute every doctor who has ever performed such a sick and twisted procedure. I would do it for free if the law allowed it. As for you disgusting selfish pigs out there who assisted in the butchering of your own child, Your Judgement day is coming. Oh yeah, It's coming alright. ~BH

 

[Dr Grump]

I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.

The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.

 

[BenNatuf]

Still nothing on this...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

not really surprized.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Still nothing on this...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

not really surprized.

Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH

 

[Jroc]

I can not join the debate, pics of what we are taliking about are not allowed.

The country is destroyed, no freedom of speech, not here.

Links to the pictures were made available. You can still join the debate. But no more discussing in public what was done with the pictures, please.

I warned him this would happen.

 

[BenNatuf]

Still nothing on this...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

not really surprized.

Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Still nothing on this...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

not really surprized.

Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH