For The Record : Personhood

Abortion was wrongfully affirmed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade circa 1973. But have you listened to the tapes from that trial? Could they hold the key to destroying what Molotov refers to as the "Abortion Industrial Complex"? Join Molotov as he explores the legal ramifications of "personhood", Hungary's "Constitution for the 21st Century" and much more...and be sure to visit www.personhoodusa.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• personhood
• usa
• abortion
• fetus
• roe
• wade
• 1973
• tapes
• Supreme
• Court
• pro-life
• pro-choice

[peepnklown]

@ProudTwinSister

I did not call you a bigot or say you promote bigotry. I’m still waiting for you to ask me to explain what I mean when I say, ‘let’s look at the historical law and scientific evidence for personhood,’ but, it seems you rather assume than ask.

[ProudTwinSister]

@ProudTwinSister And scientifically speaking, a fetus, or unborn baby, is fully human, with its own unique dna, from the very start. Whether or not you can survive on your own does not determine whether or not you are a person, and it makes little sense to claim so. People with debilitating illnesses are still people; people born with conditions where they will die without help are still people. The denial of personhood to unborn babies is not scientific, but political.

[ProudTwinSister]

@peepnklown Please, as if promoting equality for everyone born and unborn equates promoting bigotry. You say we should use historical law; they did not know then what we know now about the unborn. And besides, historically in many places, aborting or killing an unborn child was seen as heinous. On the other side of the coin, there were places where child sacrifice was considered necessary. 'History' is way too broad a topic to just pick and choose from.

[peepnklown]

@ProudTwinSister

Well, I am sure Molotov would have no problem with that, eh? Oh, let’s just go by to feudalism…is that historical enough? Your comment is ridiculous…now if you want to actually discuss the issue then send another comment.

[ProudTwinSister]

@ProudTwinSister

As for scientific, most of the personhood debate of the last century or two has been focused on whether or not different races were people, or people on the same level as white people. Eugenics, it was called. It also promoted lack of rights for the mentally ill or retarded, disabled and homosexuals, through forcing sterilization on them, and in extreme cases death. How about we go back to that? It certainly was scientific enough in their day! We gotta clean that gene pool!

[ProudTwinSister]

@peepnklown Well, historically, slaves are not entitled to legal personhood. That's been common for thousands of years. Why don't we go with that one? That's historical enough for you, isn't it?

[peepnklown]

As for personhood…just because your Christian sect promotes one definition does not mean it should rule America. Let’s look at the historical law and scientific evidence for personhood.

[peepnklown]

1:40 it is sad that Molotov either misleads on purpose or by his own ignorance. Liberals are not the only group that is so called ‘pro-choice.’ You have a lot of Conservatives, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, etc. who are ‘pro-choice.’ This whole liberal vs. conservative is for a lack of a better term stupid.

[TheRandomguy2011]

@MoIsTy3621 Women that have abortions DESERVE to DIE.

[MoIsTy3621]

Abortions were happening before it was legalized in 1973. Abortions have been going on for all of human history. Before abortions were legalized, about 1/3 of American women sought abortions. After 1973, the number was the same. The only difference is, that once abortions became legal and safe, less WOMEN DIED. Also the majority of abortions are given to women between 30 and 40 who are married and ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN. They have abortions to ensure a good quality of life for their families.