I love my birth mother very, very much. She didn't want me, but she said No to abortion and gave me to my father instead. I thank her for giving me life and for giving me to the best dad in the world.
He says he doesn't know or believe the moment of when life begins. So why would he turn to the choice of well, let's just not take the chance of it being a child since conception, and kill it. Since it's only a punishment, why not! Thanks for being ignorant, Mr. President. I'm glad we have just a knowledgeable man leading our country.
I love Obama!!! i totally agree with this man in reality , he is right! get real people!! Roe VS wade! and if someone is suffering yes they should be allowed to die with dignity, if thats their choice!!!!!!!
pro-choice! babies aren't miracles or blessings. thousands are born everyday. if you can't afford to take care of a baby in a safe enviornment, why not abortion!? i would rather not be born then live in a fucked up enviorment that leads to poverty, hunger, etc. . know your role. and woman get raped, pregnant... is that baby a miracle? idiots.
@arsenalskate123 yes its a miracle. a woman who is raped can give her baby to foster care, but God gets glory by showing that he took that evil man's actions and made a beautiful baby. you look at a one year old and tell me that they arent a miracle. if you can say its not then you need help
no cause u can get a retarded man and make a retarded baby. that's not a miracle at all. it's science. a miracle is something that happens that connot be explained. . . like if someone had no ova's and the doctor said she will never give birth, than she ends up pregnant; that's a miracle: not the child but the situation... i don't need help just cause i can look at a baby and not think it's a miracle. i might think it's beautiful, but not a miracle.
messager1- perhaps, but that is clearly your personal opinion... How would you **OBJECTIVELY** know one way or the other ?!? As I previously corrected you about earlier, Jesus relied absolutely and completely on the written text of the Hebrew scriptures for his basis of objectivity, knowledge, truth and conduct. Again, it hard to see why anyone shd, subscribe to my beliefs or yours concerning human nature & spiritual matters if we lack highly credible basis of proven expertise & knowldge
you know, if People, not just Obama just said what he meant, like how he explained, it might seem better, but he is just sugar coating all the crap he wants it to be...Holy Crap he is apart of the Christian Community, meaning "follower of Christ" meaning going with what Jesus said about always choosing life, among other things...I just see and hear hypocrisy...
abortion was not created for women to have their say so in their rights as a woman, its for population control look it up. the population control of african americans because the Eugenics! Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood main agenda was to get rid of Black reproduction rights! look it up! Barac needs to do his history on abortion. how dare he support the Genocide of his own people!?
Open your eyes...When you have a BABY growing in you, it's not only your body anymore! It's TWO. And I really feel for the women who are pregnant because of rape, well the rapist should be executed not a baby! But of course those Liberals "Babies should be killed, and rapists should have short prison sentences" It's all backwards.
OBAMA IS A WORTHLESS NIGGER AND HE NEEDS TO DIE! I hope someone takes him out soon. He only won because he is a nigger. Another mistake we will not EVER make again. Change my ass. There are 2 types of change, better and worse. As far as I am concerned Obama is just another nigger out there begging for change.
You in your views represent the lowest form of human existance. I only wish you were man enough to say those things out of the privacy of your keyboard. However you are worthless
@ewffaces When I walked into a government building recently I saw his picture where the Comander in Chief's picture should be and I was grieved to his face there. How did this baby killing, homosexual marriage approving man become our President??
None of us know how much pain the human fetus feels while being aborted...because none of us (including Obama) were killed in their mother's womb. If you are "pro-choice", please watch a sonogram of an actual abortion. (They are rare to view. But there is one, from the 1980s, on "YouTube": Silent scream part 3.) The fetus shows she is sensitive to physical touch. She tries to avoid the abortionist who is killing her. Does she feel pain while being aborted? Judge for yourself.
There's not a damn thing happening right now that hasn't been happening for the past twenty years.
'destruction of America'. That's cute. Why is it that every time we have a President (Clinton, Carter, even going back to Kennedy) who tries to change things (such as health care, energy independence, etc.) people like you jump immediately convince yourself they're the devil incarnate?
Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will
"What is the greater infraction? A few months pregnancy or an unjust sentence of death?"
The Constitution does not allow *you* to decide what the "greater infraction" is for someone else.
The Thirteenth Amendment *specifically* forbids involuntary servitude from being carried out in the United States, *and* allows Congress to pass laws to guarantee that it is not allowed.
I don't see how you can consider forcing women to birth children against their will as anything other than involuntary.
It is immoral to force women to have children against their will.
I don't care the cause, I don't care the circumstance, *no* circumstance or cause erases the fact that to be against abortion is to be for forcing women to have children against their will.
It is against every idea of freedom the founding father's had, and if they didn't, then *WE* should declare we are adding it (much like we declared we were going to abolish slavery, despite the constitution *not* doing so.)
'It is immoral to force women to have children against their will.
I don't care the cause, I don't care the circumstance, *no* circumstance or cause erases the fact that to be against abortion is to be for forcing women to have children against their will.'
Your estimation of morality is irrelevant.
Regardless the cause or circumstance, there is no justification for intentionally killing innocent human beings.
Abortion is forcing children to die against their will.
All the sad stories in the world will not help you get around the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor *involuntary* servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Unless unprotected sex is outlawed, then it is *involuntary* servitude to force women to carry children to term.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You also left out the rest of the opening
"All persons born or naturalized . . . are citizens"
Citizenship is not mentioned as a requirement for protection against the deprivation of "life, liberty", etc.
This applies to "persons" and unborn are "persons" as they are "human beings".
I didn't mean to "leave it out", I simply ran out of space.
"All persons born or naturalized . . . are citizens"
Which leaves out the unborn entirely.
"Citizenship is not mentioned as a requirement"
That is true. However, until that particular question is put before SCOTUS, for the purposes of law writing, it has always been assumed that Citizenship *is* a requisite.
As you have pointed out, citizenship is dependent on being *born*.
Citizenship is currently dependent on birth, but 'personhood' isn't.
And it is the reference to "person" that protects "life" and "liberty", not citizenship.
"when it comes to the law, nothing is understood [assumed]"
- Dragline, Cool Hand Luke
That is one of the issues with the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Just setting foot on American soil does not make them citizens, but they do acquire rights because they are "persons" and the amendment protects "persons" with respect to due process of law.
"That is one of the issues with the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Just setting foot on American soil does not make them citizens, but they do acquire rights because they are "persons" and the amendment protects "persons" with respect to due process of law."
However, they are all *born*.
You see, I realize you consider a 'person' a person from conception, but that is *not* the universally accepted definition.
While some do consider it so, *all* consider a person a person *after* birth.
My point being that while an argument may be made about personhood from conception, it is undisputed that personhood is established *after* birth.
Therefor, (and, again, it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS who's interpretation of the Constitution/law is correct), I think you will find it difficult to overcome the protections of the 13th Amendment for the mother in order to grant protections to the unborn child.
It simply isn't a legal "given" that the unborn are granted legal rights.
It is implicit in the word "all" and there are no exclusions provided addressing unborn.
If you look at the definition of the word "person" it merely describes (and uses the exact phrase) "human being" with no reference to birth.
From conception., via the law of biogenesis, the product of egg/sperm union of human parents can be no other species but human and exhibiting the characteristics of growth, cellular division, autonomous movement, reaction to stimuli, etc. it is very much alive.
An example I can give of this is that if a pregnant women travels from and is a citizen of Italy, through the United States, and ultimately arrives in Japan and give birth, her child *does not* have any inherent rights in the United States just because it was alive inside her when she passed through.
"if a pregnant women travels from and is a citizen of Italy, through the United States, and ultimately arrives in Japan and give birth, her child *does not* have any inherent rights in the United States"
Neither does the born child of the same woman. Merely stepping on American soil does not append American rights to anyone. However, while in this country, certain rights do apply.
Born or otherwise.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with two counts.
"If a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with two counts."
While I hope they are never challenged (as I think they are just), I feel they most likely would be ruled unconstitutional (unless they have already been brought before SCOTUS, I just can't remember if they've ever been tested).
"I feel they most likely would be ruled unconstitutional"
The assertion is that only the mother can choose to kill her child and anyone killing someone else's child is guilty of murder for that child, born or otherwise.
Remember Sharon Tate?
Had she survived the ordeal but her child didn't you do understand that would be a clear case of murder of her unborn child?
There is a discrepancy in the law that currently permits the mother to kill her unborn, but no one else can without her consent.
"There is a discrepancy in the law that currently permits the mother to kill her unborn, but no one else can without her consent."
I don't see it as a discrepancy. It is clear as too why the law reads the way it does *if* you understand the thought under which is was written. The *mother* has the ultimate say so under what happens to her child up to the moment it is born *because* before that moment, the child has *no* rights under the Constitution (only its mother's wishes).
"It is clear as too why the law reads the way it does *if* you understand the thought under which is was written"
And that is the discrepancy - the wanton disregard for the civil rights of a living human being. That human being is within the realm of "all", yet its rights are being violated.
The Constitution does not grant rights. The rights are unalienable. The Constitution "protects" rights.
In this regard, the Constitution is failing to protect the unborn.
If you are speaking of banning abortion, I don't think you realize the depth to which the law would need to be changed.
The Thirteenth Amendment means that Congress *cannot* simply outlaw abortion because it would be a violation of the involuntary servitude clause of said amendment.
I'll be honest, I would be *very* hesitant to attempt to make any changes to such a fundamental law as the banning of slavery for fear of unseen reprecautions.
"The Thirteenth Amendment means that Congress *cannot* simply outlaw abortion because it would be a violation of the involuntary servitude clause of said amendment."
What people fail to realize is that the Thirteenth amendment also applies to the unborn. They have a right to privacy which would include a right to not be killed.
People keep forgetting that. There is a life at stake. A life not unlike Giana Jessen's life, which was almost violated against her will.
"What people fail to realize is that the Thirteenth amendment also applies to the unborn"
No, it doesn't.
At *no* time are the unborn afforded any rights whatsoever. Every single law regarding U.S. Citizenship has the stipulation that the individual be *born*.
At no time does it make any exclusions regarding the rights of the unborn.
The amendment you are referring to states birth is a requirement for "citizenship", not the right to life or liberty, which is open to all. Finish the quote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . ."
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"Nothing in the Constitution contradicts the Declaration of Independence."
However, the Constitution is far more *complex* then the Declaration of Independence. It's grantees and protections spelled out in *far* greater detail *and* in much more defined terms.
You can't govern a country with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". *Eventually*, someone is going to have to lose one or all of those in the course of governing the whole (such as when a convicted criminal is sentenced prison).
It wasn't meant to provide the details for governance, rather the platform upon which government should function.
It is the high level overview of how the government is supposed to function - by the people, with liberty and justice for all. Justice means the guilty are justly punished. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply to the innocent.
None are more innocent than the unborn in their mother's womb. They haven't had the opportunity to commit a crime yet.
"It wasn't meant to provide the details for governance, rather the platform upon which government should function."
The key word being *should*. The United States *should* operate within a budget, however no one (including the founders) ever decreed that it must (hence our deficits).
The Founders went to great lengths to write a pretty comprehensive constitution, I cannot for the life of me see why, *if* they felt it appropriate to include, why they didn't?
"The Founders went to great lengths to write a pretty comprehensive constitution, I cannot for the life of me see why, *if* they felt it appropriate to include, why they didn't?"
Because abortion was not an issue of the time, much like computer crime was addressed. That's not to say that, like computer crime, it was completely impossible in the day, but it was not an issue that needed addressing at the time. All the earliest abortion related legislation outlawed the practice.
"All the earliest abortion related legislation outlawed the practice."
In the United States, the Supreme Court are the only ones empowered to interpret the Constitution, not Congress.
This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and it was declared that laws banning abortion were *unconstitutional*.
It is not a misunderstanding the law that allows abortion to remain legal, but a misunderstanding of the law that allow people to *believe* it can be made illegal.
"This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and it was declared that laws banning abortion were *unconstitutional*."
The matter was decided *prior* to the confirmation of DNA evidence proving that a fertilized egg was entirely human. The R-V-W decision was based on the admitted ignorance of the court that it could not determine when life began.
That ignorance has since been corrected - with empirical evidence.
"The matter was decided *prior* to the confirmation of DNA evidence proving that a fertilized egg was entirely human. The R-V-W decision was based on the admitted ignorance of the court that it could not determine when life began. That ignorance has since been corrected - with empirical evidence. "
Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to revisit it's decision, if/until it does, then no one (including the President) can Constitutionally ban abortion.
"Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to revisit it's decision"
And when it does, there is a mountain of empirical evidence showing that human life begins at conception which will prove that the rights of the unborn have been being violated since 1973 when the court did not have this information from which to base a decision.
And in that time, more than 50 million unborn have been victim to this civil rights violation.
"And, again, bringing up sad stories really carries no legal weight whatsoever"
Wrong on two accounts.
First, Giana Jessen's story isn't sad. She's quite happy to be alive. It is an obvious fact that her rights were violated when the amniotic fluid was drained from her mother and replaced with a saline solution. This is evidence of a civil rights violation.
And as evidence of a civil rights violation, it does carry legal "weight" as it could have been used as evidence in her defense.
I'm afraid I don't follow? If it is an obvious fact, then why didn't she sue the doctor for damages?
"amniotic fluid was drained from her mother and replaced with a saline solution"
Yes, you can spell out the process of a saline abortion in as great of detail as you like, but aside from the potential drama of the procedure, it doesn't change the legality or illegality of abortion in general.
"No one prosecuted on her behalf and because she survived, the statute of limitations ran out on her seventh birthday."
I'm afraid I still don't follow. *Why* on earth would they *not* have prosecuted on her behalf? I'm sure that she has had pretty substantial medical bills in her life owing to her condition.
If it was possible to recoup even a small amount of money for those expenses, why would her care takers *not* take advantage it?
"I'm afraid I still don't follow. *Why* on earth would they *not* have prosecuted on her behalf? I'm sure that she has had pretty substantial medical bills in her life owing to her condition.
If it was possible to recoup even a small amount of money for those expenses, why would her care takers *not* take advantage it? "
Good questions all.
Her rights were violated once, and ignored a second time. Something should have been done.
My point is that is something *could* have been done, it most certainly *would* have been done.
Her caretakers didn't attempt a lawsuit because it would have been thrown out as without merit. It would have been thrown out without merit because (unfortunately) her mother's rights *superseded* hers until the very moment of her birth.
As her mother *voluntarily* attempted an abortion, *no* case of negligence could be brought against the physician.
"Nowhere does the Constitution identify a line of demarcation regarding rights. No rights are superseded other than the innocent over the guilty.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" apply to "all".
Accept that the Constitution *does* grant authority to the Supreme Court to make *interpretations* when clear cut law does not apply (as with your Computer Crime analogy) and they have ruled that it's protections apply to the *born*.
"they have ruled that it's protections apply to the *born*."
A decision based on the foundation that the court did not know when life began. This brings new evidence into light as the medical, scientific and biological community have empirical evidence proving that human life begins at conception.
The law of biogenesis - human procreation is human offspring.
Definition of life - metabolism, growth, cellular division, reaction to stimuli.
At the mother's request, *not* through malice of the physician.
"This is evidence of a civil rights violation."
The Thirteenth Amendment allows for no substitution of rights. You cannot substitute the right of the slave owner for the right of the slave (as in arguing it someone puts undue strain on the owner, etc.), neither can you substitute the "right" of the child *for* the rights of the mother.
'The Thirteenth Amendment allows for no substitution of rights. You cannot substitute the right of the slave owner for the right of the slave (as in arguing it someone puts undue strain on the owner, etc.), neither can you substitute the "right" of the child *for* the rights of the mother.'
Neither can you substitute the rights of the mother (who will survive) for the rights of the child (who will otherwise die).
Either way you look at it, the civil rights of the child are being violated.
"Neither can you substitute the rights of the mother (who will survive) for the rights of the child (who will otherwise die). Either way you look at it, the civil rights of the child are being violated. "
You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*.
Example: I will die without a kidney from you. Simply because I can't live without your kidney (and you can live with only one), I'm *not* entitled to your kidney by some right.
"You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*.
Example: I will die without a kidney from you. Simply because I can't live without your kidney (and you can live with only one), I'm *not* entitled to your kidney by some right."
Your analogy is inaccurate. You are trying to equate pregnancy with the loss of a kidney. The two are quite different. I own my kidneys. They are mine. You have no rights to them. Mom keeps her womb.
"Your analogy is inaccurate. You are trying to equate pregnancy with the loss of a kidney. The two are quite different. I own my kidneys. They are mine. You have no rights to them. Mom keeps her womb."
I'm afraid there is no such thing as "Mineral Rights" applied to humans.
It simply isn't possible to "own your entire body" *if* you are forbidden from exercising control over any part of it (as a mother would be *if* forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will).
'It simply isn't possible to "own your entire body" *if* you are forbidden from exercising control over any part of it (as a mother would be *if* forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will).'
It simply isn't possible to own your entire body if someone else has a right to kill you.
As a child would be killed because her mother didn't want her.
The tennis match will not undo that dynamic. You can talk about rights, but the same rights apply to the unborn.
Not under the current interpretation of the Constitution.'
That's not entirely true. It is the 1973 interpretation, not necessarily the current one (there simply is not more current interpretation of the SCOTUS).
And as with slavery, prohibition, etc. interpretations do change.
"That's not entirely true. It is the 1973 interpretation, not necessarily the current one"
Justice Kennedy, "In 1992, he joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's controlling plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Not to necessarily disagreeing with you, but just pointing it out.
Anybody with a brain can see that this piece of garbage has no idea what he is saying. He has been successful in convincing the moronic population that he means well. What a piece of garbage.
"You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*."
Your analogy pits one against the other.
Once the pregnancy is over, the mother is not deprived of a kidney.
A valid comparison would be life for time. The nine month intrusion does not justify the deprivation of life of the unborn. If we had the right to kill all who inconvenience us, the world would be a very different place.
Nine months (with only the latter being intrusive).
As does the abortion question. Simply because "you'll live through it" *is not* a good enough reason to remove someone's rights under the Constitution.
"The nine month intrusion does not justify the deprivation of life of the unborn"
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to say otherwise. In the United States (unlike a lot of places in the World), you are not forced to wait for your rights until someone else is through with them.
"Simply because you don't want it is not a good enough reason to deprive another person the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
I'm afraid this is *not* a question of the "chicken and the egg". The mother *must* already exist for the issue of abortion to be raised, because of that *her* rights are already protected *before* the child's by the simple fact she came first.
Think about it - if I am older than you do my rights supersede yours? No.
There is no provision in Constitutional protections favoring age, or for that matter, level or state of development.
So which came first has no relevance. Each has rights. And in the case of abortion, the unborn is being put to death, unjustly, in blatant violation of its unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"if I am older than you do my rights supersede yours"
Being older than someone is quite different than being born while someone else isn't.
"And in the case of abortion, the unborn is being put to death, unjustly, in blatant violation of its unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
So I've intimated you believe. But, again, *belief* is not evidence. This matter needs to ultimately be decided definitively by The Supreme court so it can be put to rest.
"Being older than someone is quite different than being born while someone else isn't."
Biologically, its the same. The only differences are age and level of development.
"So I've intimated you believe."
It is a statement of fact. If I state that 2 + 2 = 4 it is a belief and a fact. The Supreme Court is not infallible. If it were, every verdict would be unanimous.
The courts are often behind the scientific communities.
I happen to believe in freedom of choice. you can choose whether or not to take off your rancid stanky panties and have random sex. and if you are not in control of your panties like rape or incest then you are 1% of all abortions and shouldn't be making laws for the 99% anyway.
The YouTube equivalent of covering your ears and pretending not to hear when you are confronted with the fact that abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
You do realize that you are comparing child birth (an event commonly survived on a regular basis) with death (a permanent end to a person's life)?
Yes, the child has a RIGHT to LIVE. Your birth pains do not deprive another human being their right to life, liberty, etc.
The YouTube equivalent of covering your ears and pretending not to hear"
You Conservative bleeding hearts are what is wrong with this country.
You whine and moan because the Government "interferes" by asking that f__king military grade *ASSAULT* weapons are kept out of the hands of 10 year olds, then turn around and bitch because the Government refuses to Mother every women in the country.
Care to stick to the topic? Or is that asking too much?
You can't even address the quotes you reference!
Its "every woman in the country" not "every women in the country", "women" is the plural form, but you already identified plurality with the word "every" - never mind, too deep for you.
What's your point? A medical procedure with blood is icky?
I guess you've never seen open-heart surgery, or a kidney transplant, or gallbladder surgery, or any of the *hundreds* of other surgeries humans go through that results in a little blood being sloshed.
"What's your point? A medical procedure with blood is icky?" Wow, you are dumb. No, the point is not that medical procedures are "icky". Since you can't grasp even the simplest of concepts, I will explain it to you. The point is . . . the innocent human beings ARE DEAD AFTER THE ICKY PROCEDURE. They die. They don't recover. They don't regain consciousness. They don't breathe. They are DEAD. You are advocating the intentional KILLING of INNOCENT human beings. Why?
And since I already know you're going to go there, I'll head you off at the pass and spare you the effort of making yourself look more ridiculous than you already have . . .
You're going to whine about the fact that I've never given birth?
Interesting that you (and so many others) would attempt that approach.
When not one of you has ever been aborted while still in your mother's womb.
You go get aborted, then tell us if DEATH is a fate we should FORCE on someone else without their consent.
"You're going to whine about the fact that I've never given birth?
Interesting that you (and so many others) would attempt that approach."
Oh go cry me a river.
*NOTHING* you have said in any way changes the basic fact that *YOU* believe women should be *FORCED* to give birth, even if it is against their will.
I am in complete certainty that when we inform the American People of this belief, support for your anti-choice platform will *crumble* (The American people simply *won't* stomach it).
"Its not beneath you to make a false claim, but where exactly do you get "crybaby" from?"
Because you whine and moan for the "millions" who get aborted, when you would *HAPPILY* give this entire nation over to the likes of a dangerous moron like Sarah Palin.
You would HAPPILY put her in charge of THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD and put *BILLIONS* of people all around the world in mortal jeopardy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"need to attempt to *quash* ANY dissent"
Actually, I enjoy a good debate and like to hear arguments from all sides. That you can't seem to form an argument is your own fault.
No one is trying to squash (a correct word) any point of view, but I am trying to get you to clarify what your point of view is and why you defend the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
All you have done is avoid that issue.
Please tell us why you support the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
@nucflashevent a dictionary isnt fact. plenty of people say slang words that mean other things, even if they arent in a dictionary. gay for example. TONS of kids say gay to describe things that they don't like. in the dictionary.. it says it means happy. hardly ANYBODY uses the word gay in that way. don't be stupid thinking that diction's of meanings assigned to sounds comming from the mouth in a book is fact.
@LimpingGoat6 -- of course, that's defined as "illiterate" (second cousin to "ignorant").
Not surprising considering this is the same group who thinks something that can be frozen indefinitely and then "thawed" back to life (speaking of an embryo -- as is used for embryonic stem cell research) is the same as an actual human baby.
@nucflashevent i'm a bit confused as to what your trying to say. let me clarify my message. if the most of the people in the world considered the word Sandwich, as a tire, then the word sandwich would effectively mean... tire... regardless of whatever the fuck it says it means in some book. im not sure what your getting at with the line. "of course, that's defined as "illiterate" (second cousin to "ignorant")." i understand what your saying just not what exactly your reffering to in my message.
@LimpingGoat6 I'm sorry, I'll try and spell it out a little better.
The very definition of "ignorance" and "illiteracy" -- as the entire world understands it (so it MUST be right, right?) is when you invent facts (and in your case, words) to explain what you, yourself, are not educated enough to understand.
We've spent millennia putting the sum of human knowledge in "some books" just so people like yourself can ignore it because your too fucking lazy to learn it.
@nucflashevent There is no, "human knowledge" in dictionaries. Just meanings assigned to sounds. I'm too lazy to learn what words mean?? Anybody who functions in society automatically learns what certain words mean. Is this not obvious to you? The point of dictionaries is to create a standard in which we can communicate. This goes back to the gay example. In the dictionary the word gay means happy.. but in reality... which is much more important... obviously... it means homosexual or is used to.
Is there in argument from you in our future or are you going to continue to hide from the fact that you openly advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings and instead of explaining your reasoning for that resort to idiotic distractions and useless, baseless ill-conceived insults?
Can you present your reasoning for wanting to kill people or are you incapable of supplying any reasoning process?
Do you have anything to offer besides mindless antagonism?
'You won't find a single person who honestly believes it is somehow "moral" to force a woman to have a child.'
Actually, you are quite wrong. I know many mothers (you know, those people who HAVE given birth) who are very much pro-life. And they absolutely advocate the outlawing of intentionally killing innocent human beings, which necessarily means they advocate FORCING women to have children rather than KILL THEM.
I hate to break it to you honey, but uh, its not all about you.
"I know many mothers (you know, those people who HAVE given birth) who are very much pro-life. And they absolutely advocate the outlawing of intentionally killing innocent human beings, which necessarily means they advocate FORCING women to have children"
Yes, and the women *and* men in the "Branch Davidian" compound thought David Koresh was Jesus Christ (*literally*, not figuratively).
These *individuals* of yours number about the same.
Nice try at killing the truth, but the number of women that support the pro-life initiatives number in the millions in this country alone.
You've probably never heard of "Concerned Women for America", because the liberal press doesn't cover them, but they are everything NOW claims to be but isn't.
Nice try.
Try again.
A little truth next time would be appreciated though.
And you still haven't addressed the FACT that you advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
It took "MetaphysicalPolitics" FIVE posts before they were satisfied they'd beat the dead horse enough.
NONE of this has anything to do with the truth.
Conservatives want to FORCE women to have children they do not want because of their stupid belief that after the unwanted child is born, everyone can go on happy and smiling.
That's like saying after a rape, a woman is identical to how she was before simply because the rapest finished and left.
Perhaps rather than resorting to straw man fallacies, red herrings and other distractions, you could instead explain how it is you justify permitting one person to kill another person when you know the person being killed has done nothing wrong?
Even a TEN YEAR OLD KNOWS that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong.
Why is it that a 34 year old woman can't seem to grasp the permanency of DEATH in the INTENTIONAL KILLING of an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING?
Keep repeating yourself all you want, keep throwing up straw men [how comical you accuse others] about "Civil Rights".
For all your talk, what I said was exactly, in a nutshell, what you want.
You want every pregnant women, REGARDLESS of whether or not it was her choice to become pregnant, regardless of whether or not she is in a situation to safely have a child, to be FORCED to bear children simply to appease your simple-minded idea of "Values".
So, lets abort our daughter's baby because she made a mistake. Basically, we remove the consequence of her actions. So when she decides to drink and drive, we don't give her a citation or put her in the drunk tank for the night. I mean, having a baby at 12 or 13 can be harmful down the road in many ways. But drinking (and driving) is completely risk free.
According to the president in this video, yes. That is if I remember it correctly, i may be wrong.
The baby is a consequence of the action, not a punishment. When a couple engages in intercourse, they both know what could happen. By having an abortion, they are not taking responsibility for what their actions.
A more important question is: when does a person get their soul? We don't know. So we should give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt by saying that it receives its soul at conception. That being the case, abortion is destroying a soul.
I don't care. Getting bogged down in discussions of DNA and "when can it feel" is stupid.
NONE of this has anything to do with the truth.
Conservatives want to FORCE women to have children they do not want because of their stupid belief that after the unwanted child is born, everyone can go on happy and smiling.
That's like saying after a rape, a woman is identical to how she was before simply because the rapest finished and left.
Well, that doesn't surprise me, coming from a man and all.
You haven't the slightest f__king idea what you are talking about, neither do your groups of do-nothing "do gooders".
But, we live in a media, talk-show, Dr. Phil/Oprah culture. And you know for sure that if you jump up to the mike and call women in general whores and murders, you'll get a cheer from the amen corner.
You know as much about women as you know about biology. Nothing.
The word has a definition and it refers to women who sell their bodies, which is not the topic.
As far as biology goes, your life began the moment you were conceived. Prior to that point, the combination of factors that contained your unique 23 pairs of chromosomes did not exist in the same cellular organism.
This is a matter of biological fact.
Your life began at conception.
Should your mother have killed you because you were inconvenient to her?
Rather than seeking new and different ways to distort the issue and ignore the truth, why not take 7 minutes of your time, review the following video and explain why it is you support the child killing it depicts:
watch?v=e3LhS2io5lk
This is what you are defending.
The intentional killing of innocent human beings.
There is no justification for intentionally taking innocent human life.
So why are you supporting the legalization of such injustice?
to herself, and she's not the only one, before they even had abortion clinics, women would go into back allies and get it done bye people offering them, from people who probably don't know how to do an abortion properly... or the women would leave the baby somewhere and leave it to die... you have to think about all these as well.
I know a lot of you don't like the fact that some women just don't want to have a child... but that's your choice. If you take abortion away, your pretty much forcing all women to go through the pregnancy and deal with something that could in fact make them take some drastic actions. For instance, I have a friend, and she keep's saying that if she get's pregnant, than she will continually punch herself in the stomach until she kill's the child... if she does that, she could cause internal damage
in technicality, do to the fact that the us is seperated bye church in state, it's not murder... which is why when people get an abortion, they are not aressted for it, and that is why the us is seperated, so what is considered wrong bye the church, but is not considered wrong bye the governmant will not put those people in prison.
in legal terms, no, I can't... but in the law, it is not considered murder... other wise, it would be illegal... and honastly... from what Ive been hearing... im glad they have abortion clinics.... because if there wern't, than people like my friend would take drastic measures... because even though she is married, she still does not want to have a kid, and if she did in fact get pregnant, she would continuesly punch herself in the stoumalk until she gave herself a miscariage.
then why not just take the proper precautions or even have a hysterectomy or have her husband get a vasectomy if they don't want kids that bad. there are other ways to do things then to kill innocent unborn children.
- abortion is legal because a 1971 Supreme Court decision was made in absentia what has since become common scientific knowledge.
Ten years later a US Senate Judiciary committee concluded life begins at conception.
When the Supreme Court revisits the decision, the overwhelming evidence showing life begins at conception will finally remove the exclusion of the unborn right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You think that just because there are a few conservatives on the Supreme Court, they are going to be as stupid as you and allow personal feelings to cloud their legal judgment?
That is precisely why you post on YouTube, as John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
This of course leaves out the possibility that one of them will kick the bucket under President Obama's watch and be appointed with a liberal justice.
This has been flagged as spam show
I love my birth mother very, very much. She didn't want me, but she said No to abortion and gave me to my father instead. I thank her for giving me life and for giving me to the best dad in the world.
eastariel 1 month ago
He says he doesn't know or believe the moment of when life begins. So why would he turn to the choice of well, let's just not take the chance of it being a child since conception, and kill it. Since it's only a punishment, why not! Thanks for being ignorant, Mr. President. I'm glad we have just a knowledgeable man leading our country.
jujubees19951 8 months ago
I love Obama!!! i totally agree with this man in reality , he is right! get real people!! Roe VS wade! and if someone is suffering yes they should be allowed to die with dignity, if thats their choice!!!!!!!
murphyslaw631 9 months ago
Genocide. Why wouldn't this president defund planned parenthood?
standforchange08 9 months ago
wow i cant look at obama the same anymore
thisman123 9 months ago
@thisman123 I must agree with you on that!
standforchange08 9 months ago
pro-choice! babies aren't miracles or blessings. thousands are born everyday. if you can't afford to take care of a baby in a safe enviornment, why not abortion!? i would rather not be born then live in a fucked up enviorment that leads to poverty, hunger, etc. . know your role. and woman get raped, pregnant... is that baby a miracle? idiots.
arsenalskate123 10 months ago
@arsenalskate123 yes its a miracle. a woman who is raped can give her baby to foster care, but God gets glory by showing that he took that evil man's actions and made a beautiful baby. you look at a one year old and tell me that they arent a miracle. if you can say its not then you need help
1991dcb 10 months ago
@1991dcb
no cause u can get a retarded man and make a retarded baby. that's not a miracle at all. it's science. a miracle is something that happens that connot be explained. . . like if someone had no ova's and the doctor said she will never give birth, than she ends up pregnant; that's a miracle: not the child but the situation... i don't need help just cause i can look at a baby and not think it's a miracle. i might think it's beautiful, but not a miracle.
arsenalskate123 10 months ago
A baby is a blessing not a punishment, Obama.
DeanClark68 1 year ago
Big Unicorn..He is not a christian..REAL christians..our lives back up our talk
Goodlife51 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
messager1- perhaps, but that is clearly your personal opinion... How would you **OBJECTIVELY** know one way or the other ?!? As I previously corrected you about earlier, Jesus relied absolutely and completely on the written text of the Hebrew scriptures for his basis of objectivity, knowledge, truth and conduct. Again, it hard to see why anyone shd, subscribe to my beliefs or yours concerning human nature & spiritual matters if we lack highly credible basis of proven expertise & knowldge
shieldsff 1 year ago
you know, if People, not just Obama just said what he meant, like how he explained, it might seem better, but he is just sugar coating all the crap he wants it to be...Holy Crap he is apart of the Christian Community, meaning "follower of Christ" meaning going with what Jesus said about always choosing life, among other things...I just see and hear hypocrisy...
justasidekick 1 year ago
@justasidekick Hypocrisy from Christians? Gee, what'll they think of next?
BigUnicornTits 1 year ago
abortion was not created for women to have their say so in their rights as a woman, its for population control look it up. the population control of african americans because the Eugenics! Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood main agenda was to get rid of Black reproduction rights! look it up! Barac needs to do his history on abortion. how dare he support the Genocide of his own people!?
kendraking10 1 year ago
Open your eyes...When you have a BABY growing in you, it's not only your body anymore! It's TWO. And I really feel for the women who are pregnant because of rape, well the rapist should be executed not a baby! But of course those Liberals "Babies should be killed, and rapists should have short prison sentences" It's all backwards.
VolParagom 2 years ago
OBAMA IS A WORTHLESS NIGGER AND HE NEEDS TO DIE! I hope someone takes him out soon. He only won because he is a nigger. Another mistake we will not EVER make again. Change my ass. There are 2 types of change, better and worse. As far as I am concerned Obama is just another nigger out there begging for change.
shalonwee 2 years ago
@shalonwee, Bah you just learn to make much bigger and much more complex mistakes :P
Darusdei 1 year ago
@shalonwee
You in your views represent the lowest form of human existance. I only wish you were man enough to say those things out of the privacy of your keyboard. However you are worthless
123dceme 1 year ago
@ewffaces When I walked into a government building recently I saw his picture where the Comander in Chief's picture should be and I was grieved to his face there. How did this baby killing, homosexual marriage approving man become our President??
URaLIARdude 2 years ago
@URaLIARdude, because the hillbilly retards like you are dying
Darusdei 1 year ago
@URaLIARdude
You judgemental bastard. I think its time for people like you to take your place and shut up!
123dceme 1 year ago
If it has a face don't kill it.
educateyourself2000 2 years ago
Obama just said that he doesn't believe that an end of life decision should be made by a doctor.
So... he wants it made by a panel of government bureaucrats?
Are there any mindless Obama supporters out there that still can't read between the lines with this guy? If you can't please: read a history book.
ROPdude 2 years ago
None of us know how much pain the human fetus feels while being aborted...because none of us (including Obama) were killed in their mother's womb. If you are "pro-choice", please watch a sonogram of an actual abortion. (They are rare to view. But there is one, from the 1980s, on "YouTube": Silent scream part 3.) The fetus shows she is sensitive to physical touch. She tries to avoid the abortionist who is killing her. Does she feel pain while being aborted? Judge for yourself.
kweer58 2 years ago
There's not a damn thing happening right now that hasn't been happening for the past twenty years.
'destruction of America'. That's cute. Why is it that every time we have a President (Clinton, Carter, even going back to Kennedy) who tries to change things (such as health care, energy independence, etc.) people like you jump immediately convince yourself they're the devil incarnate?
Doesn't your thinking seem a little backwards?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Because he doesn't do things the way ya'll would?
How about you wake up and see the results of doing things "you're way".
Maybe then you might understand why we are doing things *our* way for a change.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
And your point is?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
watch?v=e3LhS2io5lk
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
watch?v=lsknXsm2eHo
Diannakw 2 years ago
there is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another. period.
Diannakw 2 years ago
There is no such thing as the right to intentionally kill an innocent human being either.
If you don't want to keep the life growing inside you, you don't have to. But that life, does have the right to live.
As much as people try to claim, it is not your body. An unborn growing inside you has DNA distinctly different from your own.
Much like when your natural hair and eye color were determined the moment you were conceived, you also had the right to live.
No one deprived you of it.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will
Diannakw 2 years ago
No, you are not obligated to donate organs or jump into a river.
And no one is asking you to remove organs from your body and deprive you the use of them.
Also, you aren't permitted to remove organs from other people without their consent or hold their heads under water and kill them either.
What is the greater infraction? A few months pregnancy or an unjust sentence of death?
Few months, several decades.
You are comparing a few months of pregnancy with the entirety of someone's life.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"What is the greater infraction? A few months pregnancy or an unjust sentence of death?"
The Constitution does not allow *you* to decide what the "greater infraction" is for someone else.
The Thirteenth Amendment *specifically* forbids involuntary servitude from being carried out in the United States, *and* allows Congress to pass laws to guarantee that it is not allowed.
I don't see how you can consider forcing women to birth children against their will as anything other than involuntary.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
It is immoral to force women to have children against their will.
I don't care the cause, I don't care the circumstance, *no* circumstance or cause erases the fact that to be against abortion is to be for forcing women to have children against their will.
It is against every idea of freedom the founding father's had, and if they didn't, then *WE* should declare we are adding it (much like we declared we were going to abolish slavery, despite the constitution *not* doing so.)
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Um than stop having fuckin sex!!
Im a 18 year old single father and everyday is a challenge but murdering a child and on top of that not having the fathers choice in considerations
rape is seperate but sluts not wanting kids, if u need one abortion u should be neutured
brokendreamsx88x 2 years ago
"Im a 18 year old single father and everyday is a challenge but murdering a child and on top of that not having the fathers choice in considerations
rape is seperate but sluts not wanting kids, if u need one abortion u should be neutured"
Spoken like a true teenager.
This is precisely why laws are written by adults and *not* children.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'It is immoral to force women to have children against their will.
I don't care the cause, I don't care the circumstance, *no* circumstance or cause erases the fact that to be against abortion is to be for forcing women to have children against their will.'
Your estimation of morality is irrelevant.
Regardless the cause or circumstance, there is no justification for intentionally killing innocent human beings.
Abortion is forcing children to die against their will.
Ask Gianna Jessen.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Ask Gianna Jessen"
All the sad stories in the world will not help you get around the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor *involuntary* servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Unless unprotected sex is outlawed, then it is *involuntary* servitude to force women to carry children to term.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
All the sad stories in the world will not help you get around the fact that the thirteenth amendment also applies to the unborn.
"except as punishment for a crime" - what crime has the child committed that it is being punished with a sentence of death?
Unless the child somehow manages to survive (as in the case of Gianna Jessen) the civil rights of the unborn being killed are being violated.
Abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
Pregnancy isn't.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"what crime has the child committed"
The child's actions are immaterial. The Fourteenth Amendment *specifically* states that *birth* is a requisite action for civil rights being awarded.
Section 1 begins:
"All persons *born* or naturalized..."
At *no* time are the unborn given rights.
It is for this reason that the *Mother's* rights are the only ones legally recognized by the United States Constitution.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
You left out the following:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You also left out the rest of the opening
"All persons born or naturalized . . . are citizens"
Citizenship is not mentioned as a requirement for protection against the deprivation of "life, liberty", etc.
This applies to "persons" and unborn are "persons" as they are "human beings".
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"You left out"
I didn't mean to "leave it out", I simply ran out of space.
"All persons born or naturalized . . . are citizens"
Which leaves out the unborn entirely.
"Citizenship is not mentioned as a requirement"
That is true. However, until that particular question is put before SCOTUS, for the purposes of law writing, it has always been assumed that Citizenship *is* a requisite.
As you have pointed out, citizenship is dependent on being *born*.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Citizenship is currently dependent on birth, but 'personhood' isn't.
And it is the reference to "person" that protects "life" and "liberty", not citizenship.
"when it comes to the law, nothing is understood [assumed]"
- Dragline, Cool Hand Luke
That is one of the issues with the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Just setting foot on American soil does not make them citizens, but they do acquire rights because they are "persons" and the amendment protects "persons" with respect to due process of law.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"That is one of the issues with the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Just setting foot on American soil does not make them citizens, but they do acquire rights because they are "persons" and the amendment protects "persons" with respect to due process of law."
However, they are all *born*.
You see, I realize you consider a 'person' a person from conception, but that is *not* the universally accepted definition.
While some do consider it so, *all* consider a person a person *after* birth.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
My point being that while an argument may be made about personhood from conception, it is undisputed that personhood is established *after* birth.
Therefor, (and, again, it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS who's interpretation of the Constitution/law is correct), I think you will find it difficult to overcome the protections of the 13th Amendment for the mother in order to grant protections to the unborn child.
It simply isn't a legal "given" that the unborn are granted legal rights.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
It is implicit in the word "all" and there are no exclusions provided addressing unborn.
If you look at the definition of the word "person" it merely describes (and uses the exact phrase) "human being" with no reference to birth.
From conception., via the law of biogenesis, the product of egg/sperm union of human parents can be no other species but human and exhibiting the characteristics of growth, cellular division, autonomous movement, reaction to stimuli, etc. it is very much alive.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"If you look at the definition of the word "person" it merely describes (and uses the exact phrase) "human being" with no reference to birth."
But *laws* are not applied as broadly.
"From conception., via the law of biogenesis, the product of egg/sperm union of human parents"
Text book definitions of life (however accurate they may be) *are not* the same as is applied by law.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
An example I can give of this is that if a pregnant women travels from and is a citizen of Italy, through the United States, and ultimately arrives in Japan and give birth, her child *does not* have any inherent rights in the United States just because it was alive inside her when she passed through.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"if a pregnant women travels from and is a citizen of Italy, through the United States, and ultimately arrives in Japan and give birth, her child *does not* have any inherent rights in the United States"
Neither does the born child of the same woman. Merely stepping on American soil does not append American rights to anyone. However, while in this country, certain rights do apply.
Born or otherwise.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with two counts.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"If a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with two counts."
While I hope they are never challenged (as I think they are just), I feel they most likely would be ruled unconstitutional (unless they have already been brought before SCOTUS, I just can't remember if they've ever been tested).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"I feel they most likely would be ruled unconstitutional"
The assertion is that only the mother can choose to kill her child and anyone killing someone else's child is guilty of murder for that child, born or otherwise.
Remember Sharon Tate?
Had she survived the ordeal but her child didn't you do understand that would be a clear case of murder of her unborn child?
There is a discrepancy in the law that currently permits the mother to kill her unborn, but no one else can without her consent.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"There is a discrepancy in the law that currently permits the mother to kill her unborn, but no one else can without her consent."
I don't see it as a discrepancy. It is clear as too why the law reads the way it does *if* you understand the thought under which is was written. The *mother* has the ultimate say so under what happens to her child up to the moment it is born *because* before that moment, the child has *no* rights under the Constitution (only its mother's wishes).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"It is clear as too why the law reads the way it does *if* you understand the thought under which is was written"
And that is the discrepancy - the wanton disregard for the civil rights of a living human being. That human being is within the realm of "all", yet its rights are being violated.
The Constitution does not grant rights. The rights are unalienable. The Constitution "protects" rights.
In this regard, the Constitution is failing to protect the unborn.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Text book definitions of life (however accurate they may be) *are not* the same as is applied by law."
So we agree.
The law requires update.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"The law requires update."
If you are speaking of banning abortion, I don't think you realize the depth to which the law would need to be changed.
The Thirteenth Amendment means that Congress *cannot* simply outlaw abortion because it would be a violation of the involuntary servitude clause of said amendment.
I'll be honest, I would be *very* hesitant to attempt to make any changes to such a fundamental law as the banning of slavery for fear of unseen reprecautions.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"The Thirteenth Amendment means that Congress *cannot* simply outlaw abortion because it would be a violation of the involuntary servitude clause of said amendment."
What people fail to realize is that the Thirteenth amendment also applies to the unborn. They have a right to privacy which would include a right to not be killed.
People keep forgetting that. There is a life at stake. A life not unlike Giana Jessen's life, which was almost violated against her will.
She survived.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"What people fail to realize is that the Thirteenth amendment also applies to the unborn"
No, it doesn't.
At *no* time are the unborn afforded any rights whatsoever. Every single law regarding U.S. Citizenship has the stipulation that the individual be *born*.
I would point to the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1: "All persons *born*..."
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
At no time does it make any exclusions regarding the rights of the unborn.
The amendment you are referring to states birth is a requirement for "citizenship", not the right to life or liberty, which is open to all. Finish the quote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . ."
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Notice the emphasis on "person", not "citizen".
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"They have a right to privacy"
I would also point out that you have *no* right to privacy in the Constitution or *any* of its amendments (including those of the Bill of Rights).
We certainly have certain *laws* regarding privacy, but those are also not specifically tagged to the unborn.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'We certainly have certain *laws* regarding privacy, but those are also not specifically tagged to the unborn.'
The Declaration of Independence states that the unalienable "rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" apply to "all".
It makes no exclusion for the unborn.
Abortion is quite simply a violation of the civil rights of the unborn. It is the intentional killing of innocent human beings like Giana Jessen.
Her rights were violated and she has Cerebral Palsy as a result.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"The Declaration of Independence states..."
The United States Constitution *supersedes* the Declaration of Independence.
The DoI was never intended to be a guide for governing, that is what the Constitution is for.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"The United States Constitution *supersedes* the Declaration of Independence."
Nothing in the Constitution contradicts the Declaration of Independence.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Nothing in the Constitution contradicts the Declaration of Independence."
However, the Constitution is far more *complex* then the Declaration of Independence. It's grantees and protections spelled out in *far* greater detail *and* in much more defined terms.
You can't govern a country with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". *Eventually*, someone is going to have to lose one or all of those in the course of governing the whole (such as when a convicted criminal is sentenced prison).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
It wasn't meant to provide the details for governance, rather the platform upon which government should function.
It is the high level overview of how the government is supposed to function - by the people, with liberty and justice for all. Justice means the guilty are justly punished. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply to the innocent.
None are more innocent than the unborn in their mother's womb. They haven't had the opportunity to commit a crime yet.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"It wasn't meant to provide the details for governance, rather the platform upon which government should function."
The key word being *should*. The United States *should* operate within a budget, however no one (including the founders) ever decreed that it must (hence our deficits).
The Founders went to great lengths to write a pretty comprehensive constitution, I cannot for the life of me see why, *if* they felt it appropriate to include, why they didn't?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"The Founders went to great lengths to write a pretty comprehensive constitution, I cannot for the life of me see why, *if* they felt it appropriate to include, why they didn't?"
Because abortion was not an issue of the time, much like computer crime was addressed. That's not to say that, like computer crime, it was completely impossible in the day, but it was not an issue that needed addressing at the time. All the earliest abortion related legislation outlawed the practice.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"All the earliest abortion related legislation outlawed the practice."
In the United States, the Supreme Court are the only ones empowered to interpret the Constitution, not Congress.
This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and it was declared that laws banning abortion were *unconstitutional*.
It is not a misunderstanding the law that allows abortion to remain legal, but a misunderstanding of the law that allow people to *believe* it can be made illegal.
Belief's are not evidence.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"This matter was brought before the Supreme Court, and it was declared that laws banning abortion were *unconstitutional*."
The matter was decided *prior* to the confirmation of DNA evidence proving that a fertilized egg was entirely human. The R-V-W decision was based on the admitted ignorance of the court that it could not determine when life began.
That ignorance has since been corrected - with empirical evidence.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"The matter was decided *prior* to the confirmation of DNA evidence proving that a fertilized egg was entirely human. The R-V-W decision was based on the admitted ignorance of the court that it could not determine when life began. That ignorance has since been corrected - with empirical evidence. "
Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to revisit it's decision, if/until it does, then no one (including the President) can Constitutionally ban abortion.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to revisit it's decision"
And when it does, there is a mountain of empirical evidence showing that human life begins at conception which will prove that the rights of the unborn have been being violated since 1973 when the court did not have this information from which to base a decision.
And in that time, more than 50 million unborn have been victim to this civil rights violation.
The greatest injustice in American history.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"And in that time, more than 50 million unborn have been victim to this civil rights violation.
The greatest injustice in American history. "
Again, aside from drama, the number of women exercising their *current* rights cannot be used as a legal justification to remove them.
It's like saying you vote too much, so you should be limited in the number of times you can.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'Again, aside from drama, the number of women exercising their *current* rights cannot be used as a legal justification to remove them.'
Except for the oft ignored fact that the rights of the unborn are *currently* being violated.
This country is not above civil rights violations. We have been guilty of them before abortion.
As we are guilty of them now.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"And, again, bringing up sad stories really carries no legal weight whatsoever"
Wrong on two accounts.
First, Giana Jessen's story isn't sad. She's quite happy to be alive. It is an obvious fact that her rights were violated when the amniotic fluid was drained from her mother and replaced with a saline solution. This is evidence of a civil rights violation.
And as evidence of a civil rights violation, it does carry legal "weight" as it could have been used as evidence in her defense.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"It is an obvious fact"
I'm afraid I don't follow? If it is an obvious fact, then why didn't she sue the doctor for damages?
"amniotic fluid was drained from her mother and replaced with a saline solution"
Yes, you can spell out the process of a saline abortion in as great of detail as you like, but aside from the potential drama of the procedure, it doesn't change the legality or illegality of abortion in general.
-con't-
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"I'm afraid I don't follow? If it is an obvious fact, then why didn't she sue the doctor for damages?"
Because at the time, she was all of a few days old.
No one prosecuted on her behalf and because she survived, the statute of limitations ran out on her seventh birthday.
The details of the event are the evidence of the civil rights violation levied against her.
Again, that civil rights violation was never prosecuted as it should have been.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"No one prosecuted on her behalf and because she survived, the statute of limitations ran out on her seventh birthday."
I'm afraid I still don't follow. *Why* on earth would they *not* have prosecuted on her behalf? I'm sure that she has had pretty substantial medical bills in her life owing to her condition.
If it was possible to recoup even a small amount of money for those expenses, why would her care takers *not* take advantage it?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"I'm afraid I still don't follow. *Why* on earth would they *not* have prosecuted on her behalf? I'm sure that she has had pretty substantial medical bills in her life owing to her condition.
If it was possible to recoup even a small amount of money for those expenses, why would her care takers *not* take advantage it? "
Good questions all.
Her rights were violated once, and ignored a second time. Something should have been done.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Something should have been done. "
My point is that is something *could* have been done, it most certainly *would* have been done.
Her caretakers didn't attempt a lawsuit because it would have been thrown out as without merit. It would have been thrown out without merit because (unfortunately) her mother's rights *superseded* hers until the very moment of her birth.
As her mother *voluntarily* attempted an abortion, *no* case of negligence could be brought against the physician.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"My point is that is something *could* have been done, it most certainly *would* have been done."
Not necessarily. Her caretakers might not have had the means to pursue a case. Why it wasn't pursued is speculation.
"her mother's rights *superseded* hers until the very moment of her birth"
Nowhere does the Constitution identify a line of demarcation regarding rights. No rights are superseded other than the innocent over the guilty.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" apply to "all".
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Nowhere does the Constitution identify a line of demarcation regarding rights. No rights are superseded other than the innocent over the guilty.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" apply to "all".
Accept that the Constitution *does* grant authority to the Supreme Court to make *interpretations* when clear cut law does not apply (as with your Computer Crime analogy) and they have ruled that it's protections apply to the *born*.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"they have ruled that it's protections apply to the *born*."
A decision based on the foundation that the court did not know when life began. This brings new evidence into light as the medical, scientific and biological community have empirical evidence proving that human life begins at conception.
The law of biogenesis - human procreation is human offspring.
Definition of life - metabolism, growth, cellular division, reaction to stimuli.
Complete DNA unique from either parent.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
-con'd-
"was drained from her mother"
At the mother's request, *not* through malice of the physician.
"This is evidence of a civil rights violation."
The Thirteenth Amendment allows for no substitution of rights. You cannot substitute the right of the slave owner for the right of the slave (as in arguing it someone puts undue strain on the owner, etc.), neither can you substitute the "right" of the child *for* the rights of the mother.
-con't-
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'The Thirteenth Amendment allows for no substitution of rights. You cannot substitute the right of the slave owner for the right of the slave (as in arguing it someone puts undue strain on the owner, etc.), neither can you substitute the "right" of the child *for* the rights of the mother.'
Neither can you substitute the rights of the mother (who will survive) for the rights of the child (who will otherwise die).
Either way you look at it, the civil rights of the child are being violated.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Neither can you substitute the rights of the mother (who will survive) for the rights of the child (who will otherwise die). Either way you look at it, the civil rights of the child are being violated. "
You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*.
Example: I will die without a kidney from you. Simply because I can't live without your kidney (and you can live with only one), I'm *not* entitled to your kidney by some right.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*.
Example: I will die without a kidney from you. Simply because I can't live without your kidney (and you can live with only one), I'm *not* entitled to your kidney by some right."
Your analogy is inaccurate. You are trying to equate pregnancy with the loss of a kidney. The two are quite different. I own my kidneys. They are mine. You have no rights to them. Mom keeps her womb.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Your analogy is inaccurate. You are trying to equate pregnancy with the loss of a kidney. The two are quite different. I own my kidneys. They are mine. You have no rights to them. Mom keeps her womb."
I'm afraid there is no such thing as "Mineral Rights" applied to humans.
It simply isn't possible to "own your entire body" *if* you are forbidden from exercising control over any part of it (as a mother would be *if* forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'It simply isn't possible to "own your entire body" *if* you are forbidden from exercising control over any part of it (as a mother would be *if* forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will).'
It simply isn't possible to own your entire body if someone else has a right to kill you.
As a child would be killed because her mother didn't want her.
The tennis match will not undo that dynamic. You can talk about rights, but the same rights apply to the unborn.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"but the same rights apply to the unborn"
Not under the current interpretation of the Constitution.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'"but the same rights apply to the unborn"
Not under the current interpretation of the Constitution.'
That's not entirely true. It is the 1973 interpretation, not necessarily the current one (there simply is not more current interpretation of the SCOTUS).
And as with slavery, prohibition, etc. interpretations do change.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"That's not entirely true. It is the 1973 interpretation, not necessarily the current one"
Justice Kennedy, "In 1992, he joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's controlling plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Not to necessarily disagreeing with you, but just pointing it out.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Anybody with a brain can see that this piece of garbage has no idea what he is saying. He has been successful in convincing the moronic population that he means well. What a piece of garbage.
msm318 2 years ago 3
"You are intimating that one surviving and one dieing is somehow material to the rule of law, it is *not*."
Your analogy pits one against the other.
Once the pregnancy is over, the mother is not deprived of a kidney.
A valid comparison would be life for time. The nine month intrusion does not justify the deprivation of life of the unborn. If we had the right to kill all who inconvenience us, the world would be a very different place.
Nine months (with only the latter being intrusive).
Death.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Your analogy pits one against the other."
As does the abortion question. Simply because "you'll live through it" *is not* a good enough reason to remove someone's rights under the Constitution.
"The nine month intrusion does not justify the deprivation of life of the unborn"
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to say otherwise. In the United States (unlike a lot of places in the World), you are not forced to wait for your rights until someone else is through with them.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'Simply because "you'll live through it" *is not* a good enough reason to remove someone's rights . . .'
Simply because you don't want it is not a good enough reason to deprive another person the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The Supreme Court admitted in its decision that it was basing its decision on its own ignorance - the inability to determine when human life begins.
We now know, from biological, scientific and medical evidence that it begins at conception.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Simply because you don't want it is not a good enough reason to deprive another person the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
I'm afraid this is *not* a question of the "chicken and the egg". The mother *must* already exist for the issue of abortion to be raised, because of that *her* rights are already protected *before* the child's by the simple fact she came first.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
'*not* a question of the "chicken and the egg".'
Indeed not.
Think about it - if I am older than you do my rights supersede yours? No.
There is no provision in Constitutional protections favoring age, or for that matter, level or state of development.
So which came first has no relevance. Each has rights. And in the case of abortion, the unborn is being put to death, unjustly, in blatant violation of its unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"if I am older than you do my rights supersede yours"
Being older than someone is quite different than being born while someone else isn't.
"And in the case of abortion, the unborn is being put to death, unjustly, in blatant violation of its unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
So I've intimated you believe. But, again, *belief* is not evidence. This matter needs to ultimately be decided definitively by The Supreme court so it can be put to rest.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"Being older than someone is quite different than being born while someone else isn't."
Biologically, its the same. The only differences are age and level of development.
"So I've intimated you believe."
It is a statement of fact. If I state that 2 + 2 = 4 it is a belief and a fact. The Supreme Court is not infallible. If it were, every verdict would be unanimous.
The courts are often behind the scientific communities.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"killing of innocent human beings like Giana Jessen"
And, again, bringing up sad stories really carries no legal weight whatsoever, except for whatever drama you might create for the Press.
One needs to think *long and hard* about possible unintended consequences before tampering with such bedrock laws as the Thirteenth Amendment.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
I happen to believe in freedom of choice. you can choose whether or not to take off your rancid stanky panties and have random sex. and if you are not in control of your panties like rape or incest then you are 1% of all abortions and shouldn't be making laws for the 99% anyway.
revolutionstrtr 2 years ago
Blah, Blah, Blah...
You won't find a single person who honestly believes it is somehow "moral" to force a woman to have a child.
Which, keep retelling the story how you want, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
You are saying it is moral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
I notice *you* haven't addressed that, either.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
That's your response? "Blah, Blah, Blah"?
LOL
The YouTube equivalent of covering your ears and pretending not to hear when you are confronted with the fact that abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
You do realize that you are comparing child birth (an event commonly survived on a regular basis) with death (a permanent end to a person's life)?
Yes, the child has a RIGHT to LIVE. Your birth pains do not deprive another human being their right to life, liberty, etc.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"That's your response? "Blah, Blah, Blah"?
LOL
The YouTube equivalent of covering your ears and pretending not to hear"
You Conservative bleeding hearts are what is wrong with this country.
You whine and moan because the Government "interferes" by asking that f__king military grade *ASSAULT* weapons are kept out of the hands of 10 year olds, then turn around and bitch because the Government refuses to Mother every women in the country.
Precisely why you have *zero* political power.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
You are good comedy!
Care to stick to the topic? Or is that asking too much?
You can't even address the quotes you reference!
Its "every woman in the country" not "every women in the country", "women" is the plural form, but you already identified plurality with the word "every" - never mind, too deep for you.
Here, you go:
Please justify your support for this activity:
watch?v=e3LhS2io5lk
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
What's your point? A medical procedure with blood is icky?
I guess you've never seen open-heart surgery, or a kidney transplant, or gallbladder surgery, or any of the *hundreds* of other surgeries humans go through that results in a little blood being sloshed.
Sorry it isn't elegant enough for you.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
I guess I'll have to sit on the couch, since you're already on the cross.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Here's an idea:
Why don't you make some sense rather than some accusations?
I haven't claimed to have sacrificed myself.
I am merely pointing out the fact that you openly advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
Something you don't deny doing.
All that's left is for you to answer why.
So, why do you openly advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings?
Its a straightforward simple question.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
And since I already know you're going to go there, I'll head you off at the pass and spare you the effort of making yourself look more ridiculous than you already have . . .
You're going to whine about the fact that I've never given birth?
Interesting that you (and so many others) would attempt that approach.
When not one of you has ever been aborted while still in your mother's womb.
You go get aborted, then tell us if DEATH is a fate we should FORCE on someone else without their consent.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"You're going to whine about the fact that I've never given birth?
Interesting that you (and so many others) would attempt that approach."
Oh go cry me a river.
*NOTHING* you have said in any way changes the basic fact that *YOU* believe women should be *FORCED* to give birth, even if it is against their will.
I am in complete certainty that when we inform the American People of this belief, support for your anti-choice platform will *crumble* (The American people simply *won't* stomach it).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
LOL - what the American people won't stomach is how they've been lied to about the entire abortion issue all these years.
No one in the pro-life movement is denying that women should be FORCED to NOT KILL THE INNOCENT HUMAN BEING GROWING INSIDE THEIR WOMB.
You keep running away from the fact that NOT giving birth means THEY ARE KILLING THE CHILD.
KILLING THE CHILD IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.
Just admit it - you don't care about the civil rights of the unborn.
YOU PREFER TO KILL THEM.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Whatever,...crybaby.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
That's your new response?
Pathetic.
Its not beneath you to make a false claim, but where exactly do you get "crybaby" from?
I can support a cause without going to tears over it.
I can also articulate an argument without resorting to logical fallacies.
Can you even present an argument?
(you know, some true premises and a conclusion drawn from those premises)
Give it a shot, its not that hard.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"Its not beneath you to make a false claim, but where exactly do you get "crybaby" from?"
Because you whine and moan for the "millions" who get aborted, when you would *HAPPILY* give this entire nation over to the likes of a dangerous moron like Sarah Palin.
You would HAPPILY put her in charge of THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD and put *BILLIONS* of people all around the world in mortal jeopardy.
THAT'S why you are a crybaby, CANDYASS.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
LOL - now you're bringing Sarah Palin into the diuscussion?
Granted, you ran out of any chance of making a substantive argument a very long time ago, but the garbage you pull is immensely amusing.
Nice attempt at distraction, but you failed - again.
You have now put yourself in a position to explain how Sarah Palin has anything to do with mortal jeopardy of billions of people.
And your insults do not detract from your advocacy of intentionally killing innocent human beings.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Yet for all your high-minded talk, you still see the unmistakable need to attempt to *quash* ANY dissent from your point of view.
The first sign of the fanatic.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"need to attempt to *quash* ANY dissent"
Actually, I enjoy a good debate and like to hear arguments from all sides. That you can't seem to form an argument is your own fault.
No one is trying to squash (a correct word) any point of view, but I am trying to get you to clarify what your point of view is and why you defend the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
All you have done is avoid that issue.
Please tell us why you support the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Actually, dumbass, you might try reading a DICTIONARY before correcting the grammar of others.
"Squash" means to step on, flatten.
"Quash" means 'To defeat forcibly."
The original poster (as far as I can tell, anyway) never intimated you were trying to step on people (lol). :P
nucflashevent 2 years ago 3
@nucflashevent a dictionary isnt fact. plenty of people say slang words that mean other things, even if they arent in a dictionary. gay for example. TONS of kids say gay to describe things that they don't like. in the dictionary.. it says it means happy. hardly ANYBODY uses the word gay in that way. don't be stupid thinking that diction's of meanings assigned to sounds comming from the mouth in a book is fact.
LimpingGoat6 9 months ago
@LimpingGoat6 -- of course, that's defined as "illiterate" (second cousin to "ignorant").
Not surprising considering this is the same group who thinks something that can be frozen indefinitely and then "thawed" back to life (speaking of an embryo -- as is used for embryonic stem cell research) is the same as an actual human baby.
nucflashevent 9 months ago
@nucflashevent i'm a bit confused as to what your trying to say. let me clarify my message. if the most of the people in the world considered the word Sandwich, as a tire, then the word sandwich would effectively mean... tire... regardless of whatever the fuck it says it means in some book. im not sure what your getting at with the line. "of course, that's defined as "illiterate" (second cousin to "ignorant")." i understand what your saying just not what exactly your reffering to in my message.
LimpingGoat6 9 months ago
@LimpingGoat6 I'm sorry, I'll try and spell it out a little better.
The very definition of "ignorance" and "illiteracy" -- as the entire world understands it (so it MUST be right, right?) is when you invent facts (and in your case, words) to explain what you, yourself, are not educated enough to understand.
We've spent millennia putting the sum of human knowledge in "some books" just so people like yourself can ignore it because your too fucking lazy to learn it.
nucflashevent 9 months ago 2
@nucflashevent There is no, "human knowledge" in dictionaries. Just meanings assigned to sounds. I'm too lazy to learn what words mean?? Anybody who functions in society automatically learns what certain words mean. Is this not obvious to you? The point of dictionaries is to create a standard in which we can communicate. This goes back to the gay example. In the dictionary the word gay means happy.. but in reality... which is much more important... obviously... it means homosexual or is used to.
LimpingGoat6 9 months ago
@nucflashevent describe something someone doesn't like...
LimpingGoat6 9 months ago
"The first sign of the fanatic."
Fanatic - A person motivated by irrational enthusiasm.
So, again, you are wrong.
I am being rational. I have explained my argument and the reasoning behind it. Your reply was a bunch of "blah".
No reasoning, no rationale, just "irrational enthusiasm".
You have attempted to project your own shortcoming onto someone else.
Rather than resort to grade school invective, why not present an argument?
Why not make a point?
Do something useful for a change.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Is there in argument from you in our future or are you going to continue to hide from the fact that you openly advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings and instead of explaining your reasoning for that resort to idiotic distractions and useless, baseless ill-conceived insults?
Can you present your reasoning for wanting to kill people or are you incapable of supplying any reasoning process?
Do you have anything to offer besides mindless antagonism?
Like, maybe, a point?
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
'You won't find a single person who honestly believes it is somehow "moral" to force a woman to have a child.'
Actually, you are quite wrong. I know many mothers (you know, those people who HAVE given birth) who are very much pro-life. And they absolutely advocate the outlawing of intentionally killing innocent human beings, which necessarily means they advocate FORCING women to have children rather than KILL THEM.
I hate to break it to you honey, but uh, its not all about you.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"I know many mothers (you know, those people who HAVE given birth) who are very much pro-life. And they absolutely advocate the outlawing of intentionally killing innocent human beings, which necessarily means they advocate FORCING women to have children"
Yes, and the women *and* men in the "Branch Davidian" compound thought David Koresh was Jesus Christ (*literally*, not figuratively).
These *individuals* of yours number about the same.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Nope.
Nice try at killing the truth, but the number of women that support the pro-life initiatives number in the millions in this country alone.
You've probably never heard of "Concerned Women for America", because the liberal press doesn't cover them, but they are everything NOW claims to be but isn't.
Nice try.
Try again.
A little truth next time would be appreciated though.
And you still haven't addressed the FACT that you advocate the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
It took "MetaphysicalPolitics" FIVE posts before they were satisfied they'd beat the dead horse enough.
NONE of this has anything to do with the truth.
Conservatives want to FORCE women to have children they do not want because of their stupid belief that after the unwanted child is born, everyone can go on happy and smiling.
That's like saying after a rape, a woman is identical to how she was before simply because the rapest finished and left.
It's the thinking OF A TEN YEAR OLD!
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Yet you failed to address any point mentioned and instead resorted to parroting the same opinionated diatribe.
You made a false assertion that "happy and smiling" has anything to do with the fact that abortion is intentionally killing an innocent human being.
What I presented are matters of fact. All you did was repeat your own opinion.
No one is suggesting a woman is unharmed by rape (besides you anyway).
I am merely stating that when she has an abortion, the child ends up dead.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Perhaps rather than resorting to straw man fallacies, red herrings and other distractions, you could instead explain how it is you justify permitting one person to kill another person when you know the person being killed has done nothing wrong?
Even a TEN YEAR OLD KNOWS that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong.
Why is it that a 34 year old woman can't seem to grasp the permanency of DEATH in the INTENTIONAL KILLING of an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING?
ABORTION is DEATH.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
A human being is the offspring created by the union of human ovum and human sperm.
A zygote is the offspring created by the union of human ovum and human sperm.
Therefore, a zygote is a human being.
A = B
C = B
Therefore, A = C
A (Human being)
B (offspring created by union of human ovum and human sperm)
C (zygote)
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a violation of the civil rights of the human being killed.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is a violation of the civil rights of the human being killed.
Its essentially the same formula (transitive equality):
A = B
C = A
Therefore, C = B
A (intentionally killing an innocent human being)
B (violation of the civil rights of the person being killed)
C (abortion)
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Keep repeating yourself all you want, keep throwing up straw men [how comical you accuse others] about "Civil Rights".
For all your talk, what I said was exactly, in a nutshell, what you want.
You want every pregnant women, REGARDLESS of whether or not it was her choice to become pregnant, regardless of whether or not she is in a situation to safely have a child, to be FORCED to bear children simply to appease your simple-minded idea of "Values".
Thankfully, you are a small minority.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
You have clearly lost your mind.
When you start claiming to be able to read other people's minds, you know you have lost.
You haven't the slightest clue what anyone outside of your own selfish wanton desires wants.
I noticed you are still ignoring the fact that abortion ends in the death of an innocent human being.
Care to justify why you support killing people?
Still waiting for an answer on that one.
Death is not a simple minded value, disgruntled one. It is the end of a person's life.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Please explain how the unborn are not having their civil rights violated when they are killed in their mother's womb.
Please explain how intentionally killing an innocent human being is not a violation of the victim's civil rights.
You madam, are the minority. Check the statistics and the polls. Those opposing abortion account for more than 50% of the population.
You may be a vocal and angry minority, but you are indeed the minority.
ABORTION IS DEATH - FACT.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
So, lets abort our daughter's baby because she made a mistake. Basically, we remove the consequence of her actions. So when she decides to drink and drive, we don't give her a citation or put her in the drunk tank for the night. I mean, having a baby at 12 or 13 can be harmful down the road in many ways. But drinking (and driving) is completely risk free.
Watchjoeyworkit 2 years ago
OH! I see, so your daughter's baby is Punishment for her being "bad"?
Typical conservative.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
According to the president in this video, yes. That is if I remember it correctly, i may be wrong.
The baby is a consequence of the action, not a punishment. When a couple engages in intercourse, they both know what could happen. By having an abortion, they are not taking responsibility for what their actions.
Watchjoeyworkit 2 years ago
A more important question is: when does a person get their soul? We don't know. So we should give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt by saying that it receives its soul at conception. That being the case, abortion is destroying a soul.
petermflood 2 years ago
Independent of soul, there is no getting around the fact that a specific human being's origin can be traced back to the moment of conception.
At that moment, the zygote (union of sperm and ovum) contains the same 23 chromosome pairs of human DNA that will be with it for the rest of its life.
It is alive (grows, moves autonomously, etc.).
It is human (created by humans - biogenesis).
And its DNA is distinctly uniqe from either parent.
It is a unique living human being.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
I don't care. Getting bogged down in discussions of DNA and "when can it feel" is stupid.
NONE of this has anything to do with the truth.
Conservatives want to FORCE women to have children they do not want because of their stupid belief that after the unwanted child is born, everyone can go on happy and smiling.
That's like saying after a rape, a woman is identical to how she was before simply because the rapest finished and left.
It's the thinking OF A TEN YEAR OLD!
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
No one said anything about "feel", but you.
Does someone's right to life hinge on whether or not you care?
I hardly think so.
Your rape analogy is atrociously inaacurate.
There was also no mention in "belief".
What was presented was biological fact.
The desirability of a child does not determine whether or not they deserve to live.
Desirable or otherwise, all human beings are protected by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are no exclusions for unborn.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"atrociously inaacurate"
Well, that doesn't surprise me, coming from a man and all.
You haven't the slightest f__king idea what you are talking about, neither do your groups of do-nothing "do gooders".
But, we live in a media, talk-show, Dr. Phil/Oprah culture. And you know for sure that if you jump up to the mike and call women in general whores and murders, you'll get a cheer from the amen corner.
You know as much about women as you know about biology. Nothing.
Biology doesn't make life
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Actually, I didn't call you a whore.
The word has a definition and it refers to women who sell their bodies, which is not the topic.
As far as biology goes, your life began the moment you were conceived. Prior to that point, the combination of factors that contained your unique 23 pairs of chromosomes did not exist in the same cellular organism.
This is a matter of biological fact.
Your life began at conception.
Should your mother have killed you because you were inconvenient to her?
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Rather than seeking new and different ways to distort the issue and ignore the truth, why not take 7 minutes of your time, review the following video and explain why it is you support the child killing it depicts:
watch?v=e3LhS2io5lk
This is what you are defending.
The intentional killing of innocent human beings.
There is no justification for intentionally taking innocent human life.
So why are you supporting the legalization of such injustice?
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Does not know when life begins? Unbelievable this guy was elected.
TriggerManSniper 2 years ago
No kidding! What a joke. I can't believe he is leading our country right now
kania2010 2 years ago
BO studdered on every question like hes a babbling fooo.
YObamaSucks 2 years ago
realiving pain is not worth an inisnt life
ivankaman21 3 years ago
ABORTION IS HOMICIDE
2kwiknj88 3 years ago 2
to herself, and she's not the only one, before they even had abortion clinics, women would go into back allies and get it done bye people offering them, from people who probably don't know how to do an abortion properly... or the women would leave the baby somewhere and leave it to die... you have to think about all these as well.
jish55 3 years ago
I know a lot of you don't like the fact that some women just don't want to have a child... but that's your choice. If you take abortion away, your pretty much forcing all women to go through the pregnancy and deal with something that could in fact make them take some drastic actions. For instance, I have a friend, and she keep's saying that if she get's pregnant, than she will continually punch herself in the stomach until she kill's the child... if she does that, she could cause internal damage
jish55 3 years ago
If that girl wants to harm herself when she could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place, how exactly does that justify murdering a baby?
1776iscoming 3 years ago
in technicality, do to the fact that the us is seperated bye church in state, it's not murder... which is why when people get an abortion, they are not aressted for it, and that is why the us is seperated, so what is considered wrong bye the church, but is not considered wrong bye the governmant will not put those people in prison.
jish55 3 years ago
Yeah killing a living defenseless organism is murder. Jish55 could you preform an abortion?
TriggerManSniper 2 years ago
in legal terms, no, I can't... but in the law, it is not considered murder... other wise, it would be illegal... and honastly... from what Ive been hearing... im glad they have abortion clinics.... because if there wern't, than people like my friend would take drastic measures... because even though she is married, she still does not want to have a kid, and if she did in fact get pregnant, she would continuesly punch herself in the stoumalk until she gave herself a miscariage.
jish55 2 years ago
then why not just take the proper precautions or even have a hysterectomy or have her husband get a vasectomy if they don't want kids that bad. there are other ways to do things then to kill innocent unborn children.
kania2010 2 years ago
"if she did in fact get pregnant, she would [continuously] punch herself in the [stomach] until she gave herself a miscariage."
Do you really need to know any more about a person to assess their character?
How far out of their way people are willing to go to kill their own child speaks volumes about their nature.
If killing people we didn't like were acceptable, what sort of situation would that be?
Someone doesn't want you around so they kill you?
Indefensibly absurd.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
"us is seperated [by] church [and] state"
- this is an unrelated misnomer.
- abortion is legal because a 1971 Supreme Court decision was made in absentia what has since become common scientific knowledge.
Ten years later a US Senate Judiciary committee concluded life begins at conception.
When the Supreme Court revisits the decision, the overwhelming evidence showing life begins at conception will finally remove the exclusion of the unborn right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago
Baloney.
You think that just because there are a few conservatives on the Supreme Court, they are going to be as stupid as you and allow personal feelings to cloud their legal judgment?
That is precisely why you post on YouTube, as John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
This of course leaves out the possibility that one of them will kick the bucket under President Obama's watch and be appointed with a liberal justice.
P.S. R vs. W was in 1973, not 71.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
"personal feelings"
There was no mention of personal or feelings. Its a matter of scientific fact.
Life begins at conception.
The zygote formed by the union of ovum and sperm is alive, has a complete set of 23 pairs of chromosomes that are entirely human.
This information was not widely know when the Supreme Court made its decision.
Furthermore, in 1981 even the US Senate determined that life begins at conception.
Its only a matter of time before the abortion mistake is corrected.
MetaphysicalPolitics 2 years ago