Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood

[Lonestar_logic]

Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected? (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion. It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected. If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)

Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.

I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light. If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford. Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit. They want control over women.

Now you're saying healthcare is a right? If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.

 

[CurveLight]

They have the right to a chance at life. Abortion takes away their chance.

If you want to go that route...every sperm and every egg has the RIGHT to a chance at life. And if you want to talk about RIGHTS to a chance at life, then you next start talking about punishing people who have miscarriages....perhaps involuntary manslaughter?

Sperm and egg separate are not a human. At the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, human life begins. Abortion destroys this human life.

Sperm and egg are both necessary. For the "chance at life" you would have regulate them both to be consistent in your position.

 

[CurveLight]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?

Yes. Have you read the R v W decision? Of course not.

R v W isn't part of the constituion.

Never said it was. Thanks for playing Strawman Marathon.

 

[CurveLight]

Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.

I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light. If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford. Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit. They want control over women.

Now you're saying healthcare is a right? If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.

No I didn't say healthcare is a right. You really are on a Strawman marathon. Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.

 

[CurveLight]

They have the right to a chance at life. Abortion takes away their chance.

You don't care about the Right to life. If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.

Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion. Does the aborted? No.

You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.

 

[midcan5]

When right to life hypocrites show the same concern for the living I'll take them serious, till then it is just a feel good moral crutch that requires nothing of the moralist. We can't even pass health care for all children in this nation and we are pro life - what horseshit!


"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."

HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

 

[Zoom-boing]

You don't care about the Right to life. If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.

Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion. Does the aborted? No.

You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.

Is that what you mean by pro-choice? That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies? I'm all for that.

What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion? What part of her body is removed? None. Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. What part of the unborn is left after an abortion? None.

The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion. They decide whether another human even gets a body. <sniff, sniff> Smells like hypocrisy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light. If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford. Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit. They want control over women.

Now you're saying healthcare is a right? If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.

No I didn't say healthcare is a right. You really are on a Strawman marathon. Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.

This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.

 

[Dr Gregg]

They have the right to a chance at life. Abortion takes away their chance.

You don't care about the Right to life. If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.

Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion. Does the aborted? No.

first off, its not even the feti's choice to begin with, do they get to decide whether their parents try to get pregnant?

and the aborted don't even realize anyway that they are not getting a choice

 

[CurveLight]

Now you're saying healthcare is a right? If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.

No I didn't say healthcare is a right. You really are on a Strawman marathon. Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.

This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.

As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No I didn't say healthcare is a right. You really are on a Strawman marathon. Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.

This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.

As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.

Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.

 

[CurveLight]

Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion. Does the aborted? No.

You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.

Is that what you mean by pro-choice? That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies? I'm all for that.

What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion? What part of her body is removed? None. Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. What part of the unborn is left after an abortion? None.

The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion. They decide whether another human even gets a body. <sniff, sniff> Smells like hypocrisy.

This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born. When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.

 

[CurveLight]

This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.

As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.

Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.

Lol.....really? You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue? Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.

Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.

Lol.....really? You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue? Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.

I ignored nothing. A declaration was made that abortions were protected under constitutional law. In the US, the US Constitution is the basis for all constitutional law. You cited Roe V Wade and the 4th amendment as your answer when I questioned the declaration. Fact is Roe V Wade has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, but why let little things like facts get in your way.

 

[Anguille]

The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.

In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.

No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist? Abortion takes away their (the unborn's) choice.

Do you think parents have the right to raise their kids in their religion?

What religion condones abortion?

Quite a few allow for abortion, many Protestant sects among them. In colonial times the law protected a woman's right to abort up to quickening and this was during a time when this country was overrun by a huge percentage of zealots, some of whom hung women for being witches.

You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. Moo.

Call it what ever you want you still have no business telling any woman what to do with her body or judge her for choosing something you would not for your own body.

Dance around that all you want, you won't get very far. America is the land of the free.

 

[Anguille]

No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist? Abortion takes away their (the unborn's) choice.

What religion condones abortion?

You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. Moo.

The unborn have no rights.

They have the right to a chance at life.

No more than any cell with DNA. If the unborn were to be determined to have rights, they certainly would not be allowed to be usurped by religious special interest groups..

 

[Anguille]

They have the right to a chance at life. Abortion takes away their chance.

You don't care about the Right to life. If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.

Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion. Does the aborted? No.

You must be one of those who thinks having a kid is like getting a haircut, to borrow a phrase from Immie. Why should women mind giving up 9 months and more of their lives? Their life just grows back, like hair.
The aborted live the life they are intended to live, just like all of us. You are trying to play God when you interfere in a woman's pregnancy. Shame on you!

 

[CurveLight]

Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.

Lol.....really? You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue? Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.

I ignored nothing. A declaration was made that abortions were protected under constitutional law. In the US, the US Constitution is the basis for all constitutional law. You cited Roe V Wade and the 4th amendment as your answer when I questioned the declaration. Fact is Roe V Wade has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, but why let little things like facts get in your way.

Abortions are protected under the Constitution as the Supreme Court declared quite a few weeks ago.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

Read up on the case and this time you have no excuse for your mind boggling ignorance.

 

[Anguille]

No they don't. They have no rights.

They have the right to a chance at life. Abortion takes away their chance.

You don't care about the Right to life. If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.

Women are invisible to people like Zoom. They are mere egg shells to be broken and tossed on the compost pile after being used as incubators.

 

[Anguille]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?

Yes. Have you read the R v W decision? Of course not.

R v W isn't part of the constituion.

Neither is every single law passed since the Constitution, dimwit!