Why Abortion And Euthanasia Should Be Legal

[RKMBrown]

Abortion is not ‘killing a baby,’ to argue such is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion.

But thankfully the Constitution prohibits you from attempting to codify your subjective opinion and ignorance.

Huh? What does the Constitution have to do with killing babies?

Nothing.

And no one ever said it did.

But the Constitution does address the issue concerning a woman’s right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free from interference by the state:

[O]ur holding [finds] that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)[.]

Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

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

Consequently, and again, abortion is not ‘killing babies,’ a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy, in the context of the right to privacy, is indeed protected by the Constitution.

So I can murder someone in the "privacy" of my home and it's constitutional?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Let's check over the costs of raising a child in America for someone in poverty. Health care... free. Food.. free. School... free. I'm confused. What cost? You mean "time?"

Keep my mouth shut? So no one is allowed to speak for the child? Does that make it easier if no one disagrees? I'm not sin free, not by a long shot, but this act is not a blessing for the child or mother or doctor that will have to live with it.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, such as the right to privacy, as some sort of a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed exercise that right. That you’re ‘confused’ as to why a woman might seek to terminate her pregnancy is legally, Constitutionally, and thankfully irrelevant.

As far as ‘keeping your mouth shut,’ you’re at liberty to express your opinions as you see fit, provided you understand there is no ‘child’ to ‘speak for’:

The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

The difference is that the courts have wisely, correctly, and appropriately determined that, prior to viability, the individual alone is best suited to make a personal, private decision such as to terminate a pregnancy, not the state.

We do not want the state, bureaucrats, and certainly not politicians deciding when ‘life begins’; the Constitution allows each individual to make that determination himself, free from interference by the state, in accordance with his own good conscience and beliefs.

 

[thanatos144]

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Killing a baby saves you money. Maybe you should put that on a poster or tv ad

tapatalk post

Abortion is not ‘killing a baby,’ to argue such is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion.

But thankfully the Constitution prohibits you from attempting to codify your subjective opinion and ignorance.

I don't remember ever seeing it in the constitution that government couldn't make laws against killing babies

tapatalk post

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals have to ignore that abortion kills children

tapatalk post

 

[RKMBrown]

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

The difference is that the courts have wisely, correctly, and appropriately determined that, prior to viability, the individual alone is best suited to make a personal, private decision such as to terminate a pregnancy, not the state.

We do not want the state, bureaucrats, and certainly not politicians deciding when ‘life begins’; the Constitution allows each individual to make that determination himself, free from interference by the state, in accordance with his own good conscience and beliefs.

Which individual the helpless baby or the mother or the doctor?

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Noomi]

^this

 

[Noomi]

Which individual the helpless baby or the mother or the doctor?

What helpless baby? You mean the kidney bean sized blob that isn't even aware of its own existence?

 

[LiberalatHeart]

I think that cartoon just about sums up the Republicans' pro-life position.

I find it absolutely amazing that a bunch of old men can decide what a woman does with HER body, and then they spout personal freedoms. It is HER decision, not the courts and not elected officials. And those of you that judge those who seek abortions, shame on you....you are in the wrong for judging those and shoving your ideologies down their throats. You guys talk about smaller government when it comes to taxation and health programs, but you are just fine with government forced ultra-sounds and forced steps that one has to go through before having an abortion. And the cartoon is also correct that you guys are so attentive when the woman is pregnant, but once you have forced her to have a child...then you are gone and the tables have turned to insulting and no help is given to them.

Just like in Nebraska where a 15 year old has been sentenced to "Forced Childbirth" by the state's Supreme Court. That is nice, a girl who has no means of supporting herself now has to find a way to get through school and care for a child. The Supreme Court was made up of 5 MEN and 1 WOMAN, they should be made to donate money to help her now....since they are forcing her to do something AGAINST HER WILL.

Where is it your choice or my choice whether or not a woman wants an abortion?? It isn't and it is simply grotesque that one could hold that state of mind.

I must say, I have finally found a reason to use this emoticon:

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that cartoon just about sums up the Republicans' pro-life position.

Liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

Which individual the helpless baby or the mother or the doctor?

What helpless baby? You mean the kidney bean sized blob that isn't even aware of its own existence?

When you see this baby do you reach for your hammer or do you want to do it with a pair of pliers, maybe cut the baby up into parts while it's writhing pain?

20weeks.

I mean after-all the mother will be put out to have to undergo the horror of raising a child.

 

[Noomi]

Which individual the helpless baby or the mother or the doctor?

What helpless baby? You mean the kidney bean sized blob that isn't even aware of its own existence?

When you see this baby do you reach for your hammer or do you want to do it with a pair of pliers, maybe cut the baby up into parts while it's writhing pain?

20weeks.

It is still a fetus at 20 weeks.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libtard logic. Because we all see republicans running around screaming at new born babies telling them to get a job while they scream at the mother calling her a tramp.

You people are freaks.

 

[RKMBrown]

What helpless baby? You mean the kidney bean sized blob that isn't even aware of its own existence?

When you see this baby do you reach for your hammer or do you want to do it with a pair of pliers, maybe cut the baby up into parts while it's writhing pain?

20weeks.

It is still a fetus at 20 weeks.

Does that word give you bloodlust noomi? Are you so angry at the fetus that you can't see a baby in that picture?

 

[thanatos144]

The only answer to all problems to liberals ie kill it.

tapatalk post

 

[Noomi]

When you see this baby do you reach for your hammer or do you want to do it with a pair of pliers, maybe cut the baby up into parts while it's writhing pain?

20weeks.

It is still a fetus at 20 weeks.

Does that word give you bloodlust noomi? Are you so angry at the fetus that you can't see a baby in that picture?

I bet it gives you a hard on to think of all the women you can force to have babies.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is still a fetus at 20 weeks.

Does that word give you bloodlust noomi? Are you so angry at the fetus that you can't see a baby in that picture?

I bet it gives you a hard on to think of all the women you can force to have babies.

I see, so you are good with killing the baby in the picture because you think men get a hard on for forcing women to carry babies to term. No, Noomi, I don't get a hard on thinking about this subject. You've got a pretty sick mind.

My wife of thirty years is the only woman that does it for me. We lost our first 3 babies, then had three great kids.

 

[Noomi]

I am sorry you lost your longed for 'babies', but that doesn't give you the right to expect women to carry an unwanted child to term.

 

[LiberalatHeart]

I think that cartoon just about sums up the Republicans' pro-life position.

Liar.

Well, that is a waste of bandwidth...you are telling me what I stated is untrue. Please show me evidence to the contrary. What programs have Republicans proposed or sponsored which will help single women and teens that are forced to have children? I can tell you, absolutely zero...zip, nada, zilch. Your party feels that it has the RIGHT to force women to give birth to children due to their religious beliefs, what happened to the separation of church and state that you guys parade around??? The fact is, is that men have NO place in telling women what they can or cannot do....anyone who thinks so needs some sense knocked into them