Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We pro-lifers agree.

Everyone is pro-life.

The conflict is between those who seek to end the practice without undermining citizens' civil liberties and whose who seek to end the practice by increasing the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

How many babies have you shoved a high power vacuum pump to, so you could suck the babies brains through it?

Baby killers ... wow. Be a man and pick on someone your own size why don't you.

It's naïve and ignorant to believe that to 'ban' abortion the practice will come to an end.

Women have been having abortions for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless its legal status.

Abortion is merely a symptom of more difficult, complex issues, issues that remain unresolved mostly as a consequence of the reactionary fear and ignorance of the social right.

The fact is, you and others on the social right have no desire to end the practice of abortion, or to even enter into good faith debate as how to bring about its end – because to end the practice would take from social conservatives the means by which to energize the rightist base, as well as no longer having available a weapon to use against political opponents.

 

[BobPlumb]

Nonsense.

An embryo/fetus isn't a 'person.'

You liberals said the same thing about blacks

Tapatalk

Also wrong.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' it is also a fact that conservatives have been traditionally hostile to the civil liberties of African-Americans, other minorities, and women; where liberals have always sought to defend the civil liberties of all Americans, including women their right to privacy.

If an amendment to the constitution were ratified stating that a fetus 8 weeks after conception is a person with all civil liberties of any individual, would a fetus then magically become a person because the constitution says so? Is the constitution the source of all knowlege and fact? Do the justices of the surpreme court have final say concerning truth?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So when you see this baby you just see a piece of flesh that does not deserve to live, right?

Wrong.

What one sees is demagoguery, an appeal to emotion fallacy, ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, contempt for individual liberty, and a false 'solution' that will in no way end the practice of abortion.

Speaking of fallacies.....

Do laws against stealing end the practice of stealing? no!
Do laws against prostitution end the practice of prostitution? no!
Do laws agains child pornography end the practice of child porn? No!
Do laws against killing end the practice of murder? No?

Should laws against all these things be repealed because they don't completely eliminate the problem?

Take your fallacies and............

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

You're confusing criminal law with civil law, procedural due process with substantive due process.

The state has the authority to punish criminal acts against actual persons in the context of procedural due process.

The state does not, however, have the authority to compel a woman to have a child against her will, as this violates her fundamental right to privacy, where the state fails to demonstrate a compelling reason to interfere with the privacy right in the context of substantive due process.

Consequently citizens must find other avenues to address the problem of abortion that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[BobPlumb]

Wrong.

What one sees is demagoguery, an appeal to emotion fallacy, ignorance of the Constitution and its case law, contempt for individual liberty, and a false 'solution' that will in no way end the practice of abortion.

Speaking of fallacies.....

Do laws against stealing end the practice of stealing? no!
Do laws against prostitution end the practice of prostitution? no!
Do laws agains child pornography end the practice of child porn? No!
Do laws against killing end the practice of murder? No?

Should laws against all these things be repealed because they don't completely eliminate the problem?

Take your fallacies and............

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

You're confusing criminal law with civil law, procedural due process with substantive due process.

The state has the authority to punish criminal acts against actual persons in the context of procedural due process.

The state does not, however, have the authority to compel a woman to have a child against her will, as this violates her fundamental right to privacy, where the state fails to demonstrate a compelling reason to interfere with the privacy right in the context of substantive due process.

Consequently citizens must find other avenues to address the problem of abortion that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

No I'm not confusing anything. If your last statement were true then there would be no amendment process to the constitution and the surpreme court would not have the power to overturn past rulings. Also, if abortion were to be overturned, the murder of a fetus would most likely be a mater of criminal law. Thus, when you go around proclaiming people's logically reasoned opinions to be failed due to these various fallacies, you are usually full of dung.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[

Oh, and notice it takes a license to do just about anything, except have children. Think about the stupid 16 year old hick boys and girls in alabama or mississippi. Any of those broke ass retards could get knocked up. WHat does it require to have a baby? A hard penis and easy girl?

We need less poor people breeding, not more. Sorry. Sad fact.

So, you want to license procreation, so that you decide who comes into this world? Funny how much your type claims they don't believe in God, yet all your type ever wants to do is BE GOD.

So you're not going to LICENSE poor PEOPLE to procreate?

MOLON LABE KID

SAD FACT, WHEN YOU FUCKERS COME FOR THE GUNS, YOU'RE ALL DONE FOR. YOU WILL BE CONVICTED BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS AND A MASS HANGING WILL COMMENCE THEREAFTER.

 

[shart_attack]

Pro-Life vs Pro-Satan.

Who wins?

There's a head scratcher, innit?

The obvious biological force in ourselves and every living thing around us...
versus
...a contrived bogeyman concocted by psychotic religious wacknuts thousands of years ago to instill fear and scare the gullible into submission...

Gee whiz, hard to decide. Nope, no idea.

Hate us Christians all you want if it makes you feel better, Pogo.

Call us "inbreds," "jackwads," "psychotic religious wacknuts" and/ or whatever other slur gives you some contrived semblance of inner peace.

We are not afraid, because we know what Christ tells us in John 15:18:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15:18 KJV

I am thankful that He loves fetuses and me — and you, Pogo.

 

[gipper]

There is no Satan.

HEre's the real contest.

A parasitic fetus vs. the woman it is in, whose whole life will hinge on what she does next.

I have yet to hear one of you wingnuts tell me how you are going to prevent a woman from having an abortion if she really wants one.

That is simple Lil' Joe.

Abortion is murder. When someone commits murder, what happens? One is tried in court and if found guilty, faces punishment.

It is just that simple Lil' Joe.

Parasitic fetus...now Lil' Joe you really are a sick GUY.

And you call those who want to protect the truly innocent unborn, wingnuts. :

Even when abortion was "illegal", they didn't prosecute women who had them. Nope, in them Oldy days, they claimed the women were victims.

Also, I don't think you'd ever find a jury that would convict a woman for having an abortion. You have had 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, I doubt you could exclude all those ladies from the jury pool.

I see you missed my point.

Who committed the abortion? The so called doctor did...right? He or she is the murderer. The mother is an accomplice to murder and should be charged accordingly.

And the number of abortions since Roe is not 40 million....far more...
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

 

[JoeB131]

That is simple Lil' Joe.

Abortion is murder. When someone commits murder, what happens? One is tried in court and if found guilty, faces punishment.

It is just that simple Lil' Joe.

Parasitic fetus...now Lil' Joe you really are a sick GUY.

And you call those who want to protect the truly innocent unborn, wingnuts. :

Even when abortion was "illegal", they didn't prosecute women who had them. Nope, in them Oldy days, they claimed the women were victims.

Also, I don't think you'd ever find a jury that would convict a woman for having an abortion. You have had 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, I doubt you could exclude all those ladies from the jury pool.

I see you missed my point.

Who committed the abortion? The so called doctor did...right? He or she is the murderer. The mother is an accomplice to murder and should be charged accordingly.

And the number of abortions since Roe is not 40 million....far more...
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Awesome. I can think of a few people where abortion would have been a good thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Everyone is pro-life.

The conflict is between those who seek to end the practice without undermining citizens' civil liberties and whose who seek to end the practice by increasing the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

How many babies have you shoved a high power vacuum pump to, so you could suck the babies brains through it?

Baby killers ... wow. Be a man and pick on someone your own size why don't you.

It's naïve and ignorant to believe that to 'ban' abortion the practice will come to an end.

Women have been having abortions for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless its legal status.

Abortion is merely a symptom of more difficult, complex issues, issues that remain unresolved mostly as a consequence of the reactionary fear and ignorance of the social right.

The fact is, you and others on the social right have no desire to end the practice of abortion, or to even enter into good faith debate as how to bring about its end – because to end the practice would take from social conservatives the means by which to energize the rightist base, as well as no longer having available a weapon to use against political opponents.

IOW you believe liberty means the liberty to take liberty away from innocent people, such as by killing them indiscriminately with violence and malice. Your definition of liberty is whack.

 

[RKMBrown]

Speaking of fallacies.....

Do laws against stealing end the practice of stealing? no!
Do laws against prostitution end the practice of prostitution? no!
Do laws agains child pornography end the practice of child porn? No!
Do laws against killing end the practice of murder? No?

Should laws against all these things be repealed because they don't completely eliminate the problem?

Take your fallacies and............

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

You're confusing criminal law with civil law, procedural due process with substantive due process.

The state has the authority to punish criminal acts against actual persons in the context of procedural due process.

The state does not, however, have the authority to compel a woman to have a child against her will, as this violates her fundamental right to privacy, where the state fails to demonstrate a compelling reason to interfere with the privacy right in the context of substantive due process.

Consequently citizens must find other avenues to address the problem of abortion that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

No I'm not confusing anything. If your last statement were true then there would be no amendment process to the constitution and the surpreme court would not have the power to overturn past rulings. Also, if abortion were to be overturned, the murder of a fetus would most likely be a mater of criminal law. Thus, when you go around proclaiming people's logically reasoned opinions to be failed due to these various fallacies, you are usually full of dung.

The murder of a baby in the womb already is a mater of criminal law. Murder in the first degree of a baby in the womb is pardoned when the mother speaking for the baby, says the baby should die, whether or not she pays for the murder.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Even when abortion was "illegal", they didn't prosecute women who had them. Nope, in them Oldy days, they claimed the women were victims.

Also, I don't think you'd ever find a jury that would convict a woman for having an abortion. You have had 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, I doubt you could exclude all those ladies from the jury pool.

I see you missed my point.

Who committed the abortion? The so called doctor did...right? He or she is the murderer. The mother is an accomplice to murder and should be charged accordingly.

And the number of abortions since Roe is not 40 million....far more...
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Awesome. I can think of a few people where abortion would have been a good thing.

You certainly top THAT list!

 

[Pogo]

Pro-Life vs Pro-Satan.

Who wins?

There's a head scratcher, innit?

The obvious biological force in ourselves and every living thing around us...
versus
...a contrived bogeyman concocted by psychotic religious wacknuts thousands of years ago to instill fear and scare the gullible into submission...

Gee whiz, hard to decide. Nope, no idea.

Hate us Christians all you want if it makes you feel better, Pogo.

Call us "inbreds," "jackwads," "psychotic religious wacknuts" and/ or whatever other slur gives you some contrived semblance of inner peace.

We are not afraid, because we know what Christ tells us in John 15:18:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15:18 KJV

I am thankful that He loves fetuses and me — and you, Pogo.

^^ Bizarroworld post of the day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Zyra lol. I don't understand why you are getting so worked up over this issue when over 60% of abortions occur during this threshold you deem acceptable.

The debate is rarely to never about very early abortion - which I doubt your numbers on.

But mostly there is virtually no reason for abortion. Conception is a choice. No woman conceives without wanting to conceive, fact!

Girl goes to a party, gets drunk, does the football team and thiks; "oh shit." Guess what? Plan B takes care of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't want to have a baby.

And you shouldn't - removing your genetic code from the gene pool is vital to the health of the species.

I had an accident. It should be legal for me to go have an abortion. No one should be forced to be a parent.

Why?

Are you so stupid that you couldn't take "Plan B?" I think it said "so easy even a chimp could do it," Silly Bonobo.

Oh, and notice it takes a license to do just about anything, except have children. Think about the stupid 16 year old hick boys and girls in alabama or mississippi. Any of those broke ass retards could get knocked up. WHat does it require to have a baby? A hard penis and easy girl?

Where abortion takes a sharp scalpel, lack of ethics, and a lust for blood!

We need less poor people breeding, not more. Sorry. Sad fact.

ROFL

As you leftist import millions of poor from Mexico and Central America.

There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrisy...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It's naïve and ignorant to believe that to 'ban' abortion the practice will come to an end.

Women have been having abortions for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless its legal status.

Women have also been murdering their husbands for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless of its legal status.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's naïve and ignorant to believe that to 'ban' abortion the practice will come to an end.

Women have been having abortions for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless its legal status.

Women have also been murdering their husbands for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless of its legal status.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as abortion isn't 'murder.'

You're confusing criminal law and procedural due process (murder) with civil law and substantive due process (the right to privacy), which forbids the state from interfering with citizens' private lives.

The one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[BobPlumb]

It's naïve and ignorant to believe that to 'ban' abortion the practice will come to an end.

Women have been having abortions for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless its legal status.

Women have also been murdering their husbands for millennia, and will continue to do so regardless of its legal status.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as abortion isn't 'murder.'

You're confusing criminal law and procedural due process (murder) with civil law and substantive due process (the right to privacy), which forbids the state from interfering with citizens' private lives.

The one has nothing to do with the other.

"Regardless of its legal status" means that you cannot make you arguments based solely on current legal status. Thus your explaination of a false comparison fallacy is a failure.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Zyra lol. I don't understand why you are getting so worked up over this issue when over 60% of abortions occur during this threshold you deem acceptable.

The debate is rarely to never about very early abortion - which I doubt your numbers on.

But mostly there is virtually no reason for abortion. Conception is a choice. No woman conceives without wanting to conceive, fact!

Girl goes to a party, gets drunk, does the football team and thiks; "oh shit." Guess what? Plan B takes care of it.

In 2008, most (62.8%) abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.4% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.3%) were performed at 14--20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation.

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2008

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is simple Lil' Joe.

Abortion is murder. When someone commits murder, what happens? One is tried in court and if found guilty, faces punishment.

It is just that simple Lil' Joe.

Parasitic fetus...now Lil' Joe you really are a sick GUY.

And you call those who want to protect the truly innocent unborn, wingnuts. :

Even when abortion was "illegal", they didn't prosecute women who had them. Nope, in them Oldy days, they claimed the women were victims.

Also, I don't think you'd ever find a jury that would convict a woman for having an abortion. You have had 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, I doubt you could exclude all those ladies from the jury pool.

I see you missed my point.

Who committed the abortion? The so called doctor did...right? He or she is the murderer. The mother is an accomplice to murder and should be charged accordingly.

And the number of abortions since Roe is not 40 million....far more...
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

No one 'missed' your point, as in fact your 'point' is ignorant and wrong.

Abortion is not 'murder,' to maintain otherwise is idiocy.

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection."
[...]
Moreover, []the state interest in potential human life is not an interest in loco parentis, for the fetus is not a person.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Because an embryo/fetus is not a person, abortion is not 'murder.' Neither the woman nor her doctor have committed a 'crime,' the woman terminated her pregnancy in accordance with the right to privacy, where the doctor acted at her behest in the context of the privacy right the state is forbidden to violate.

Private society is at liberty to find a way or ways to end the practice of abortion, but any solution must comport with the Constitution and its case law and must not violate the civil liberties of citizens.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Abortion is not 'murder,' to maintain otherwise is idiocy.

Why was abortion considered murder earlier in American history?

The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.1 Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.2 A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.3 Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.

Just because it's legal now (not considered murder after Roe v Wade), doesn't mean it's moral or correct. That's like saying the Jim Crow Laws were just since they were legal...

Don't forget that everything Hitler did was legal.

- Martin Luther King.