Oh...it's not a 'baby' or a 'person' - it's just a FETUS...a clump of tissue!

[Bullypulpit]

I'm not sure how to say this delicately...but stop campaigning for sympathy long enough to comprehend what I typed.

For your sad story, I'd bet there are countless thousands of people 'not' like that. People for some reason or another are bedridden, comatose, on life-support which are a burden to those around them. Then...viola! they wake up and get better.

If you'd take your heart off your sleeve for two seconds you 'may' be able to get the point and context of my reply.

Here it is, broken down so I doubt even you or a couple others will have trouble:

"People using the argument "The fetus would not have been able to survive on his/her own, outside the womb anyway" are using an argument which is based on faulty logic. There exists medical conditions throughout the development at a person where they would not be able to survive w/o help of doctors/machines, etc.

Roger that?

Your premises are flawed, so how can you expect to reach anything but a flawed conclusion? In the medical cases you are talking about, people are opting not to pursue those treatments, or their loved ones are opting not to pursue those treatments for them because they can no longer make the decision themselves. It is the same with terminating an unwanted, unplanned or dangerous preganancy. It's not an issue until the fetus is viable outside the womb or if the life and wellbeing, physical as well as psychological, of the woman is at risk.

 

[Annie]

Regarding a Do Not Resusitate Order. I might as well say upfront, "Damn you, to those that will say we should have done differently." Walk a mile in our shoes. My mom, diagnosed with emphysema, signed that order herself, along with the legal papers turning over her medical decisions to my brother and me, knowing they would be too hard for my father.

Following my decision to divorce the idiot, after several trials and reinstatements, my mom became obsessed, (there is not a better word), with his problems. He was a jerk of the first order, I guess I'm of second order, cause truth to tell, I hadn't a clue to how bad he was until 2 years later. I guess my mom was smarter, which would not be difficult. While I was able to go to school and have the kids do the same, my mom could not comprehend how a father could hurt his children so much.

By this time, the psychiatrist treating my children had convinced me that he was very sick. Eventually it was testified to in court that he had tested postitive 100% on narcissism scale, with a cluster of other personality disorders thrown in. That ended up being the reason that my 3 children were awarded, by the court, the decision making power of IF and WHEN to visit with him, (very unusual), and very hard on me. He kept accusing me of interferring with the kids seeing him, which was not true. Today, with the youngest being 19, they all see him, though 2 of them rarely. (Logic would hold that if I kept them from him WITH child support, why would I decide to encourage visitation WITHOUT child support?) I never asked for alimony. He does not help the children with college, though he makes over 200k per year. They would have to sue him, and the courts would order certain parameters, they have chosen not to do that.

I filed for divorce 4/1/92, my mom had her first stroke, 4/18/95. The first OKC bombing was the next day. She blamed my ex for it. According to her, when I came into her room, "Look what the Son of a Bitch did!" I tried to tell her, no, but she would have none of that. By the next day, she seemed to understand he didn't do it and she was chagrined to remember that she had accused him of that. (To give you perspective on her take of him.) At the same time, when the shrinks and geriatric specialists would come and question her, she was lucid regarding time and place, (she knew who was President, the year, and vice president), but would still say the 'son of a bitch' had taken out X number of Americans. She was moved to psych for 3 days. She had a massive stroke there. I think it was because of a patient that tried to rape her. (She weighed at this time, 90lbs, osteoporosis, and had had many small strokes.)

Now mind you, we are talking first major stoke in 1995. My mom died, 9/28/2003, over 8 years later. Bully, I am very sorry about your father, seriously. I have no doubt that you loved him every bit as much as I loved my mom. I'm glad for you that you had your wife to comfort you. Believe me, going through this without someone that really cares about you, and is not 'dependent on you', is very difficult. I think the curse of Baby Boomers is dealing with their parents and children at the same time, while neither is self-sufficient. Those that are lucky, are happily married, the rest of us? Damn.

 

[dmp]

Your premises are flawed, because I say so and that's about all I got.

 

[Annie]

To whom are you directing this? Me? On which grounds/points?

 

[DKSuddeth]

To whom are you directing this? Me? On which grounds/points?

that was to bully. His last post starts with 'your premises are flawed'.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your point...?

 

[ajwps]

[i=musicman]AJ:"Roe vs. Wade simply stated that the federal government can't legislate anybody's morality or ethical behavior...".[/i]

On the contrary, Roe vs. Wade insinuated the federal government (via - surprise, surprise - the judiciary) into matters where it has no business poking it's nose.

The Judiciary insinuated that the US Constitution or the Federal Government had no right to interfer with any citizen's right to privacy.

The Supreme Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

No US citizen has the right to impose their own opinions on another's privacy.

As you stated, pregnancies have been terminated - one way or another - throughout history, but never, ever, in an atmosphere of such relaxed acceptance.

Interesting opinion. Is that your own ideation? Before this relaxed acceptance women had to go into garages and dirty back rooms where they underwent unsterile illegal abortions. These times were not relaxed at all as many of these women died from massive infection or blood loss. Then both the pregnant women and her fetus were buried.

It took the genius of the American left to create a constitutional RIGHT to abortion.

Yes and now the American 'right' Supreme Court judges have upheld that same constitutional right to privacy.

The results have been predictable: 80% of abortions are carried out for the sake of personal convenience (Lest you think that I'm pulling that number out of a hat, a 1987 study, done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute - incidentally, a staunchly pro-abortion group - bears those figures out. This was a profoundly embarrasing revelation for pro-abortion forces, and, needless to say, no such study has been publicized since.

Why are you sticking your unwanted nose into women's personal lives? What difference does it make when a women makes decisions about her privacy, her body and her conscious no matter what the statistics? You are not protecting innocent and helpless babies, you are trying to go back to the time when women died and when the statistics were the same as today.

However, given the general direction in which this country is being dragged by it's loving cultural elite, what do you think - those numbers have IMPROVED in the last 17 years?)! What a marvelous piece of social engineering! Kind of reminds me of every other disastrous piece of social engineering perpetrated by the left.

Oh so you would like to re-engineer society with your own personal opinion. Either you are blind or you are ignoring the fact that both the right, middle and left US public are in the majority behind the privacy of individuals and their right to choose to abort in safety and legally.

"What a woman does with her own body is her business" just isn't going to get it anymore. Civilized society has a stake in this, too. The cheapening of human life affects us all. To amplify Bonnie's point: Remember - human beings tend to be inconvenient at BOTH ends of their lives!

So you also would decide for civilized society based on your own opinions. You cheapen human life by denying the reality that abortion has been with mankind since history has been recorded and will continue to be present long after you have passed onto your reward. You have decided that your morality overrides all other humans on earth. NICE..... Bonnie's statement about inconvience at both ends of life is meaningless. If you are counting on George W. Bush changing the Supreme Court from a right leaning judiciary to a group of pro-life-death advocates, you are smoking too many soap bubbles in your pipe.

You cited the Book of Genesis as your proof of this; specifically, the portion which describes God creating Adam out of the dust and THEN breathing his immortal soul into him. I stated that, worse than comparing apples and oranges, you were attempting to compare chicken liver and driveshafts - and I stand by this.

Remember you are using a strawhorse comparison of the words of G-d and as read and understood by Jesus Christ. Christ said nothing about the abortion happening around him every day. So you place yourself above your savior. You might want to compare Jesus to chicken liver and drive shafts.

You responded by feigning outrage at MY treatment of the word of God. I submit that it is YOU who are commiting the outrage. NOWHERE in the Bible does it state that there is no human life in the fetus.

Submit away.... I have given you bible chapter and verse that states clearly and unambiguously that the human soul is not in the forming fetus. You simply ignore the Bible validation and find yourself (and Bonnie) to revise the Bible itself.

Your arguements have no substance but simply your own feelings and emotions attempting to prove the Bible incorrect.

 

[Bullypulpit]

 

[ajwps]

Yup.
Just two examples from the Bible which lead us to believe we are spiritual - alive before birth...

You have given some metaphor examples of what you believe indicates human souls in the forming fetus.

Now you must give the Chapter and Verse of each of your two statements to determine if you have not pulled something out of context.

 

[musicman]

AJ:

"You cheapen human life by denying the reality that abortion has been with mankind since history has been recorded...".

Not only did I NOT say that - I said exactly the opposite. You're not going to start LYING again, are you?

"The Supreme Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy...protected by the Fourteenth Amendment...".

In other words, the Federal Judiciary, acting completely outside it's constitutional powers, granted an official government Imprimatur to abortion on demand.

"Yes and now the American 'right' Supreme Court judges have upheld that same constitutional right to privacy".

How would you, I, or anyone else alive today know what a 'right' Supreme Court would uphold? There's a judge, sitting right now (Breyer), who has declared that the U.S. Constitution will have to "evolve, in order to fit with the documents of other nations". We have lived our lives in the midst of governmental madness, while a biased information machine has assured us that up is down, and day is night. Those days are coming to an end, my friend.

"You are not protecting innocent and helpless babies, you are trying to go back to the time when women died and when the statistics were the same as today".

Lame, inflammatory rhetoric. Please don't try to portray me as a chauvinistic proponent of back-alley abortions. I'm immune to that garbage. Abortions can be done safely, and, as a legitimate medical procedure, that's how they SHOULD be done. But, statistics (and 30 million abortions) have shown that government-codified abortion on demand will inevitably descend into heartless mass-murder for convenience's sake. If you're "just not ready for a baby right now", don't make one.

"Either you are blind or you are ignoring the fact that both the right, middle and left US public are in the majority behind the privacy of individuals and their right to abort in safety and legally".

Wow - both the right, middle, AND left? Amazing!

Are they? We shall see, AJ. We shall see.


"7 And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

You interpret this to mean that God "...has advised mankind in his Bible that there is no HUMAN LIFE in the forming fetus." That's an exraordinary leap, AJ - especially when you consider that ADAM WAS NEVER A FETUS!

 

[popefumanchu]

:clap1:

 

[musicman]

:clap1:

 

[ajwps]

musicman AJ: "You cheapen human life by denying the reality that abortion has been with mankind since history has been recorded...". Not only did I NOT say that - I said exactly the opposite. You're not going to start LYING again, are you?

Why must you insist that paraphrasing you on post # 147 on this thread was a lie? You said, "As you stated, pregnancies have been terminated - one way or another - throughout history, but never, ever, in an atmosphere of such relaxed acceptance....Civilized society has a stake in this, too. The cheapening of human life affects us all."

Now what is your opposite propostion that you accuse me of lying about? You are so certain of your opinions, give us a little of that infinite wisdom of yours.

"The Supreme Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy...protected by the Fourteenth Amendment...".

In other words, the Federal Judiciary, acting completely outside it's constitutional powers, granted an official government Imprimatur to abortion on demand.

Oh now you are some kind of official Constitutional expert! You couldn't be more wrong. The Federal Judiciary simply said that the Constitution cannot deny a citizen's right to privacy as applied to abortion. Any opinion by the Supreme Court allowing or disallowing abortion per se would really be acting outside their role as interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. Try to understand that the Supreme Court is restricted to interpretation of the Constitution and cannot make new Constitutional Laws not already innumerated in this document. This concept may be to difficult for your ability to understand.

"Yes and now the American 'right' Supreme Court judges have upheld that same constitutional right to privacy".

How would you, I, or anyone else alive today know what a 'right' Supreme Court would uphold? There's a judge, sitting right now (Breyer), who has declared that the U.S. Constitution will have to "evolve, in order to fit with the documents of other nations".

Apparently the current right leaning Supreme Court has not reversed Roe vs Wade. That's how I know what they would uphold.

Does Judge Breyer constitute the majority Supreme Court vote which would effectively destroy the framers US Constitution. You do realize that any change to the Constitution would have to be voted on by the citizens of the United States? Do you think that the people of the United States are interested in legislating morality into this document which serves us better than any other countries constitution in the entire world?

We have lived our lives in the midst of governmental madness, while a biased information machine has assured us that up is down, and day is night. Those days are coming to an end, my friend.

Is that fact based on your own wisdom and universal insight? The day that our Constitution is altered or changed, is the day that America will no longer be a land of the free with justice for all.

"You are not protecting innocent and helpless babies, you are trying to go back to the time when women died and when the statistics were the same as today".

Lame, inflammatory rhetoric. Please don't try to portray me as a chauvinistic proponent of back-alley abortions. I'm immune to that garbage.

Really you could have fooled me.....

Abortions can be done safely, and, as a legitimate medical procedure, that's how they SHOULD be done. But, statistics (and 30 million abortions) have shown that government-codified abortion on demand will inevitably descend into heartless mass-murder for convenience's sake. If you're "just not ready for a baby right now", don't make one.

Your self righteous pronouncements should be reserved for your own small group of believers. Human nature for procreation are built into mankind for the preservation of our homosapien species. Your "mass-murder for convenience sake" is based on your opinons and beliefs as there are those who not only disagree but find that the Creator Himself ultimately decides if a fetus is still-born or leaves it up to the free-will choice consequences of those who must make them.

"Either you are blind or you are ignoring the fact that both the right, middle and left US public are in the majority behind the privacy of individuals and their right to abort in safety and legally".

Wow - both the right, middle, AND left? Amazing!

It is amazing that you can understand the basic concept that humans along the entire political spectrum can make up their own minds instead of sitting at your feet to learn and understand your god like pronouncements.

Do you approve of post-natal abortion?

Are they? We shall see, AJ. We shall see.


"7 And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

You interpret this to mean that God "...has advised mankind in his Bible that there is no HUMAN LIFE in the forming fetus." That's an exraordinary leap, AJ - especially when you consider that ADAM WAS NEVER A FETUS![/QUOTE]

 

[rtwngAvngr]

AJ. Give it up. You've been proven foolish 14 ways till Sunday.

 

[Bullypulpit]

AJ. Give it up. You've been proven foolish 14 ways till Sunday.

Good argument...

 

[musicman]

AJ:

"Why must you insist that paraphrasing you on post #147...was a lie?...give us a little of that infinite wisdom of yours."

Maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you're just really that dim.

"Try to understand that the Supreme Court is restricted to interpretation of the Constitution..."

Then, what is it's constitutional justification for meddling in behaviors, such as abortion, that are clearly beyond it's purview?

"Do you think that the people...are interested in legislating morality into this document...?"

No - and I think they're fed up with morality being legislated by the Supreme Court, in clear violation OF that document. The SC are interpreters of the constitutionality of law, not social engineers. Roe vs. Wade is an example of an "activist" judiciary overstepping it's bounds, and legislating morality.

"Really you could have fooled me."

No kidding. Evidently, I fooled you out of your socks on post #147.

"Human nature for procreation are built into mankind for the preservation of our homosapien species."

And this is justification for abortion on demand - people are going to have sex anyway??!! I'm really hungry, AJ. Do you mind if I knock you senseless with a two-by-four, so I can take your money and buy something to eat? Human nature for hunger is built into me for the preservation of myself. God forbid I should exercise any self-control, or get a job, or anything like that.

I said, *Wow - both the right, middle, AND left? Amazing!* Your eyes-closed tight, roundhouse whiff of a reply: "It is amazing that you can understand the basic concept that human beings blahblahblah entire political spectrum blahblahblah sitting at your feet blahblahblah godlike pronouncements blahblahblah."

In other words, you entirely missed my point. Again. BOTH THE RIGHT, MIDDLE, AND LEFT. Think about it.

I'll allow your bizarre interpretation of the Book of Genesis to speak for itself. Nothing I add could convict you more eloquently.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good argument...

I've posted good arguments already. Your retarded half brother just keeps going back to the same insipid insistences.

I've yet to see a good argument from you anywhere on the board.




here's you: :gross2:

 

[Bonnie]

No dear, I'm not Pat O'Reilly. As for your grandmother, I'm glad things worked out for you and your family. But it was a choice you and your family made, like the choice I and my family made. My father didn't want to spend his life in a chronic vegetative state. His concern was for quality of life, not quantity.

As for the adolescent girl who gets pregnant...Again, you're putting the life of a fetus ahead of the life and health of the mother. You use emotionally charged terms like "murder" to describe a purely medical proceedure...You fail to make exceptions for rape, why should a woman be forced to carry such a pregnancy to term and be reminded of her rapist for the term of the pregnancy and every time she sees the infant? As for adoption, I don't see anyone from Operation Rescue rushing out to pay the expenses for the pregnant woman or adopt any children.

Yes I am putting a lot of importance on the unborn baby as we all should! And what does having a pregnancy at a young age or one that is unplanned have to do with the health of the mother??? If a mother's life truly is in danger then yes her health should be put first, but not because she wants to go to prom. As far as rape goes, it still has nothing to do with the baby, why does the baby have to die? You know nothing about pro-life organizations, the Greenwood Foundation, National Right to Life, American Life League, and dozens of others do support pregnant women by providing money for doctor bills, a place to stay, and adoption services, some even provide money for further education for the mothers........So don't use that old excuse that there is no where for these" poor abandoned moms" to go other than to kill their BABY!!!! Thats horseshit!!!!
Your arguments are ridiculous and cliche' and don't have any merit...........

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Bully Wrote:
The same applies to women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Until you've see through their eyes and walked in their shoes, you just need to keep your mouth shut.

So does this advice of yours pertain to the war and soldiers???
I ask because I know a lot of people who have had NOTHING to do
with the war, yet they even broadcast their opinion on tv.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

OK.... before any one responds let me catch my mistake.
Yes i know the freedom of press allows them to do this,
My point is by this theory it would be wrong to judge a solider
or the war unless you have "walked a mile in their shoes".
I just get upset to hear that abortion has become an acceptance (even if small)
in our society. If it is so natural and right then why don't we do what animals
in the wild do??? They eat their unwanted young. IMHO abortion degrades
our grand society as a whole and teaches our children that it is ok to not be
responsable. Like I said JMHO.