Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
most any career politician is a good example...To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… FactPolitical correctness and morality are opposites...Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL
To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt? Hmmm. Would you care to give an example to that.
most any career politician is a good example...To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… FactPolitical correctness and morality are opposites...Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL
To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt? Hmmm. Would you care to give an example to that.
Being politically correct is always looking for the easy way out…most any career politician is a good example...To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… FactPolitical correctness and morality are opposites...
I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL
To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt? Hmmm. Would you care to give an example to that.
I'll agree with you there, but what is the point you're trying to make regarding this thread topic?
So, if you think Gorsuch's opinion that there isn't a constitutional basis for putting the mother's life ahead of the unborn child's equates to a "war" on women, you're crazy.Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
To be politically correct, is to be morally corrupt… FactPolitical correctness and morality are opposites...Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I just love these "lil Einstein comments" on this board. They run out of things to say so they come up with some kind homemade quote--that is supposed to make sense.--LOL
That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.
ProbablyHe will be confirmed.Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
#cryless
Constitutional principles, according to SCOTUS, are not. Stare decisis renders moot the argument of an inorganic constitution.That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.
The legal argument is something for the State Legislatures to figure out. The constitution is silent on the matter.
Constitutional principles, according to SCOTUS, are not. Stare decisis renders moot the argument of an inorganic constitution.That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.
The legal argument is something for the State Legislatures to figure out. The constitution is silent on the matter.
That's how the law works, it is the authority, and your rebuttal is silly.Constitutional principles, according to SCOTUS, are not. Stare decisis renders moot the argument of an inorganic constitution.That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.
The legal argument is something for the State Legislatures to figure out. The constitution is silent on the matter.
Appeal to authority. and where is Stare decisis described in the constitution?
That's how the law works, it is the authority, and your rebuttal is silly.Constitutional principles, according to SCOTUS, are not. Stare decisis renders moot the argument of an inorganic constitution.That only factors into the legal argument if the child is attempting/going to end the mothers life.To be fair, there is also no constitutional basis to put the child's life ahead of the mother either.
The legal argument is something for the State Legislatures to figure out. The constitution is silent on the matter.
Appeal to authority. and where is Stare decisis described in the constitution?
Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
gestations diabetes is not a reason for abortion....
Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I used one reference to the Bible among nearly a dozen different examples and you accuse me of foisting my faith onto another? Seriously?
Fathers have been drafted into the Military before, so is the Government supposed to halt because if the Father dies, no one will be around to care for the children? Self Sacrifice is part of the Human Condition. It has been since the dawn of human civilization.
In ancient Sparta there were only two ways to earn a grave stone, a marker showing where you rested for eternity. 1) A man dying in battle. 2) A woman dying during child birth. In both cases the view of the society was that the people died in service to the State.
If you want to make a pro choice argument, there are a lot of really good and well considered reasons to keep abortion legal. The path you have taken doesn't qualify as either well considered, nor good. It is asinine to put a qualifier on it.
In many ways, people misunderstand the Unailinable Rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So let's begin there. First, let's admit that the signers of the Declaration of Independance pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to purchase Liberty. Nothing is more misunderstood than Liberty, and nothing is held so cheaply by the population.
Life. What right to life do I have if I am drowning in the ocean? What right to life did the Donner Party have as they turned to Cannibalism to survive? Who decided which among them had not the right to life that the rest of us have?
Pursuit of happiness. You can insult me from now until the sun goes dark and the universe goes cold and not affect my happiness. You can put me in a cell or stand me against the wall. My happiness is mine, and I can grasp it or not based upon my own mind. A man or woman may be happy in poverty, and miserable in wealth.
I can make a number of arguments in support of a woman's right to choose. They would have one advantage over the pile of excrement you have posted. They would be reasoned, and logical instead of knee jerk rambling nonsense.
But what the hell. Let's go ahead with your asinine argument. How dire a threat to the life of the mother qualifies? Must it be something like Cancer where treatment by Chemotherapy is required? Perhaps it is a minor heart condition which may grow worse, or may not? How severe a threat to the woman's life would you accept? Discomfort doesn't qualify. Come on Doctor, I'm sure you have a long list of medical conditions that would qualify. But in the end, you would be back to the basis for the right that you were at when you began.
It's a woman's choice. The asinine arguments about why a woman should have a choice don't help, they make the situation worse. I know you think you are out there valiantly defending a woman's right to choose, but you are not. If you are going to make an exception for a woman's health only, then you are left with a bad situation you haven't yet considered. How much risk? Doctor's tend to give odds based upon their read of the medical situation and the patient. So is a 30% chance of a threat to the woman's life enough? Does it have to break 50%? What standard of risk are you going to use?
Stop destroying your own arguments. Seriously. I've written before that by Georgia standards, I'm pretty liberal. Abortion is one of the reasons I am. Unlike you, I considered the arguments, and spent a long time thinking about it. I rejected the exceptions that morons make as arguments.
I rejected the idea of exceptions for rape or incest, or medical threat to the woman. The first would see a flurry of rape charges made as the woman tried to avail herself of the right to do with her body as she wanted to. False rape allegations that would destroy far too many lives. It is an asinine argument that never should have been made.
The medical risk? Pfui. Often we don't know that the woman, or the child is at risk until it is almost too late to do anything but watch. I was absolutely opposed to anyone in Washington drawing up a list of approved medical conditions that would be serious enough to allow an abortion. Nuts. It is the right of each of us to do with our bodies as we choose. That is it. I have the right to walk away from medical treatment if I want, and the right to fight to my last breath in a futile battle against untreatable cancer.
Don't be an idiot. If you had won this argument, it would have been a defeat in the cause. Because the last thing any of us want is Washington drones deciding if a medical condition is severe enough to authorize an abortion. Thankfully, you won't win this argument.
Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I used one reference to the Bible among nearly a dozen different examples and you accuse me of foisting my faith onto another? Seriously?
Fathers have been drafted into the Military before, so is the Government supposed to halt because if the Father dies, no one will be around to care for the children? Self Sacrifice is part of the Human Condition. It has been since the dawn of human civilization.
In ancient Sparta there were only two ways to earn a grave stone, a marker showing where you rested for eternity. 1) A man dying in battle. 2) A woman dying during child birth. In both cases the view of the society was that the people died in service to the State.
If you want to make a pro choice argument, there are a lot of really good and well considered reasons to keep abortion legal. The path you have taken doesn't qualify as either well considered, nor good. It is asinine to put a qualifier on it.
In many ways, people misunderstand the Unailinable Rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So let's begin there. First, let's admit that the signers of the Declaration of Independance pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to purchase Liberty. Nothing is more misunderstood than Liberty, and nothing is held so cheaply by the population.
Life. What right to life do I have if I am drowning in the ocean? What right to life did the Donner Party have as they turned to Cannibalism to survive? Who decided which among them had not the right to life that the rest of us have?
Pursuit of happiness. You can insult me from now until the sun goes dark and the universe goes cold and not affect my happiness. You can put me in a cell or stand me against the wall. My happiness is mine, and I can grasp it or not based upon my own mind. A man or woman may be happy in poverty, and miserable in wealth.
I can make a number of arguments in support of a woman's right to choose. They would have one advantage over the pile of excrement you have posted. They would be reasoned, and logical instead of knee jerk rambling nonsense.
But what the hell. Let's go ahead with your asinine argument. How dire a threat to the life of the mother qualifies? Must it be something like Cancer where treatment by Chemotherapy is required? Perhaps it is a minor heart condition which may grow worse, or may not? How severe a threat to the woman's life would you accept? Discomfort doesn't qualify. Come on Doctor, I'm sure you have a long list of medical conditions that would qualify. But in the end, you would be back to the basis for the right that you were at when you began.
It's a woman's choice. The asinine arguments about why a woman should have a choice don't help, they make the situation worse. I know you think you are out there valiantly defending a woman's right to choose, but you are not. If you are going to make an exception for a woman's health only, then you are left with a bad situation you haven't yet considered. How much risk? Doctor's tend to give odds based upon their read of the medical situation and the patient. So is a 30% chance of a threat to the woman's life enough? Does it have to break 50%? What standard of risk are you going to use?
Stop destroying your own arguments. Seriously. I've written before that by Georgia standards, I'm pretty liberal. Abortion is one of the reasons I am. Unlike you, I considered the arguments, and spent a long time thinking about it. I rejected the exceptions that morons make as arguments.
I rejected the idea of exceptions for rape or incest, or medical threat to the woman. The first would see a flurry of rape charges made as the woman tried to avail herself of the right to do with her body as she wanted to. False rape allegations that would destroy far too many lives. It is an asinine argument that never should have been made.
The medical risk? Pfui. Often we don't know that the woman, or the child is at risk until it is almost too late to do anything but watch. I was absolutely opposed to anyone in Washington drawing up a list of approved medical conditions that would be serious enough to allow an abortion. Nuts. It is the right of each of us to do with our bodies as we choose. That is it. I have the right to walk away from medical treatment if I want, and the right to fight to my last breath in a futile battle against untreatable cancer.
Don't be an idiot. If you had won this argument, it would have been a defeat in the cause. Because the last thing any of us want is Washington drones deciding if a medical condition is severe enough to authorize an abortion. Thankfully, you won't win this argument.
We're not in church--so you can put your bible away. These are real issues regarding women's rights in this country.
Where is the RIGHT in telling a mother she needs to die that already has two kids at home she needs to raise?
Well I was wrong about Neil Gorsuch, he indeed needs to be fought all the way from here to HELL.
He wrote in his Assisted suicide book:
Gorsuch Notes In His Book on Assisted Suicide That There’s ‘No Constitutional Basis’ for Putting a Mother’s Life Ahead of the Child’s
Neil Gorsuch & Abortion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
I guess it wouldn't matter if this same woman had two kids at home that she needed to raise.
The war on Women continues--write, call, email your Senators NOW, and raise HOLY HELL.
They apparently weren't paying attention to this on January 21, 2017
For pictures on all 50 state participation into this march go here.
Woman's march pictures
Gorsuch as a 10th district court judge ruled against an injunction against the Utah governor over denying Federal funding to a planned parenthood office there. Gorsuch was then slapped down by the 10th District court panel who reprimanded that the 10th district court put back the injunction on the Utah Governor, stating he was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood
Yeah you in the Reich wing have picked a real winner here.
Actually, there isn't. Is there a Constitutional right that places my life as more valuable than yours? No. There is a longstanding and alluded to right for self defense, and actions taken in Self Defense are generally speaking justified. Yet, there is no list of who is more valuable than whom.
Even the argument for Abortion claims to be for choice. It is the Mother's choice if she is doing a greater service by aborting the fetus, or choosing to live to give birth knowing that her own death is almost certain.
We could take the argument to the next level. Let's say there is a house fire. The Mother arrives outside and finds that two of her children are present, but one is apparently inside. What does the average Mother do? Does she say well, I have two of the three, and I have to provide for those two? Or does she charge into the burning house desperate to save the one?
The Bible even asks this question. If you are missing a sheep, do you not go charging to save the one while leaving the ninety and nine? The natural response is that you are more thankful for the one you saved, than the ninety and nine who were never at risk. We as a species fret over what we may lose, not what we already have.
That's why when someone is lost in the wilderness, and the searchers lose one or two in the process of trying to save the lost child, nobody regrets the loss. So much so that the next time someone is lost, people will flood in to find them, knowing that there is a risk of death in doing so.
When Miners are trapped in a mine the rest who are out risk themselves to try and free their fellows. A soldier who is injured will see his mates risk their own lives to try and save him.
It is called Choice for a reason. The argument is that the woman should have the right to choose for herself what is right for her. Just as the individuals who hear about the lost child in the wilderness have the right to choose not to go out and risk themselves to try and find the child. Just as the people on the surface looking at the entrance to an unstable mineshaft have the right to walk away.
We can place ourselves first, but a majority of us don't. Because most of us put others ahead of ourselves. Love of self is the first step in evolution of a person. The baby knows no better, all it knows is that it is uncomfortable, or hungry, or dirty. The child learns, and learns love of family. The value of the family most often becomes more important than love of self. The willingness to sacrifice for the family, the idea that such sacrifices are worthy and proper.
Some assume the even greater love, the love of community, state, or nation. They become firefighters. Willing to risk themselves to protect people they don't even know. They join the military, willing to risk themselves for the still larger group, the state in the case of the Guard, or the Nation in the case of active duty or Reserves.
These rights to sacrifice yourself, or not, were not written into the Constitution. Sometimes the nation must demand such a sacrifice, we call it the Draft today, it's been called other things in the past. Your nation expects you to be willing to sacrifice yourself or risk such sacrifice for the good of the whole.
The right to protect, or risk yourself is not written in the Constitution. The requirement to do so is, as the Congress has the power to raise armies, including the power to demand such service of the people through the draft. We all sacrifice some money through taxes, theoretically for the good of the whole.
The Constitution can demand such sacrifice, but has no provision to excuse the possible sacrifice for the greater good.
Are you going to raise the baby after the mother dies? Are you going to come to the rescue if she has two other kids at home that she needs to raise? Are you going to tell her husband and kids that she needs to die, and her husband can raise the baby and the two kids by himself?
You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. This country was formed because Europeans were fleeing religious persecution. You have your freedom of religion, but you do not have the right to inflict your religious beliefs onto others.
I used one reference to the Bible among nearly a dozen different examples and you accuse me of foisting my faith onto another? Seriously?
Fathers have been drafted into the Military before, so is the Government supposed to halt because if the Father dies, no one will be around to care for the children? Self Sacrifice is part of the Human Condition. It has been since the dawn of human civilization.
In ancient Sparta there were only two ways to earn a grave stone, a marker showing where you rested for eternity. 1) A man dying in battle. 2) A woman dying during child birth. In both cases the view of the society was that the people died in service to the State.
If you want to make a pro choice argument, there are a lot of really good and well considered reasons to keep abortion legal. The path you have taken doesn't qualify as either well considered, nor good. It is asinine to put a qualifier on it.
In many ways, people misunderstand the Unailinable Rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So let's begin there. First, let's admit that the signers of the Declaration of Independance pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to purchase Liberty. Nothing is more misunderstood than Liberty, and nothing is held so cheaply by the population.
Life. What right to life do I have if I am drowning in the ocean? What right to life did the Donner Party have as they turned to Cannibalism to survive? Who decided which among them had not the right to life that the rest of us have?
Pursuit of happiness. You can insult me from now until the sun goes dark and the universe goes cold and not affect my happiness. You can put me in a cell or stand me against the wall. My happiness is mine, and I can grasp it or not based upon my own mind. A man or woman may be happy in poverty, and miserable in wealth.
I can make a number of arguments in support of a woman's right to choose. They would have one advantage over the pile of excrement you have posted. They would be reasoned, and logical instead of knee jerk rambling nonsense.
But what the hell. Let's go ahead with your asinine argument. How dire a threat to the life of the mother qualifies? Must it be something like Cancer where treatment by Chemotherapy is required? Perhaps it is a minor heart condition which may grow worse, or may not? How severe a threat to the woman's life would you accept? Discomfort doesn't qualify. Come on Doctor, I'm sure you have a long list of medical conditions that would qualify. But in the end, you would be back to the basis for the right that you were at when you began.
It's a woman's choice. The asinine arguments about why a woman should have a choice don't help, they make the situation worse. I know you think you are out there valiantly defending a woman's right to choose, but you are not. If you are going to make an exception for a woman's health only, then you are left with a bad situation you haven't yet considered. How much risk? Doctor's tend to give odds based upon their read of the medical situation and the patient. So is a 30% chance of a threat to the woman's life enough? Does it have to break 50%? What standard of risk are you going to use?
Stop destroying your own arguments. Seriously. I've written before that by Georgia standards, I'm pretty liberal. Abortion is one of the reasons I am. Unlike you, I considered the arguments, and spent a long time thinking about it. I rejected the exceptions that morons make as arguments.
I rejected the idea of exceptions for rape or incest, or medical threat to the woman. The first would see a flurry of rape charges made as the woman tried to avail herself of the right to do with her body as she wanted to. False rape allegations that would destroy far too many lives. It is an asinine argument that never should have been made.
The medical risk? Pfui. Often we don't know that the woman, or the child is at risk until it is almost too late to do anything but watch. I was absolutely opposed to anyone in Washington drawing up a list of approved medical conditions that would be serious enough to allow an abortion. Nuts. It is the right of each of us to do with our bodies as we choose. That is it. I have the right to walk away from medical treatment if I want, and the right to fight to my last breath in a futile battle against untreatable cancer.
Don't be an idiot. If you had won this argument, it would have been a defeat in the cause. Because the last thing any of us want is Washington drones deciding if a medical condition is severe enough to authorize an abortion. Thankfully, you won't win this argument.
We're not in church--so you can put your bible away. These are real issues regarding women's rights in this country.
Where is the RIGHT in telling a mother she needs to die that already has two kids at home she needs to raise?
