Abortion is as unjust as slavery. An American historical perspective.

No, it is immoral to see anyone in need and ignore it.

I have two family members (one a doctor the other an RN) who have traveled and served (as volunteers paying all their own personal transportation expenses) at medical missions in third world countries. They performed surgeries (no, no abortions) and supported the surgical and follow-up needs of their patients. People with no ability to pay and dirt poor still had access to care (this is a continually supported medical mission). Emergencies came in, were triaged and treated, no charge. I do understand that there will always be someone without access somewhere but we have people like those above to balance the stark assessment that nothing can be done.

Still I'm unable to morally support the goal of killing those not justly judged, found guilty of a capital offense and sentenced to death.

 

So you are against all wars and bombings......right?

 

Hey,

Just curious, why do you quote a poster and then ask a question unrelated to the quoted post? Why not just ask the question without using up the space taken by that (unused/non-referenced) post?

 

Fox you do have a tendency for hyperbole and inaccuracies when it comes to what I'm sharing. But I still think your tops .

 

So now you're denying abortion means losing one's humanity ? Hard to follow you when you keep changing direction...

What is hyperbolic or inaccurate about ""YOUR "morals" are not everyone's..."" ?

 

Killing can be the correct act but not in this circumstance.

Correct, I don't rule, kings and dictators do, I am neither. Can't believe you didn't know that.

Responsibility, well those appointed over us or the law can assign responsibility when we're are judged.

Does the pro-abortion crowd dislike children. What's up with this adoption fixation?

Why does it seem that some pro-abortion posters are fixated on wanting me to adopt children, is it because you /they know or believe I would be an outstanding parent, raising these children in the ways of a God-fearing, caring and moral standard?

I was reading and referring to the Biblical quotes of an Abortion Advocate and one who likely/may subscribe to the Atheist faith. I believe he was sharing some recorded historical events documented in the Bible. Or maybe I'm just confusing him(?) with another. Could you share the specific verses or the post you are concerned with?

Again with this use of force accusation. Where do you get that? What have I made you do? Women stupid...I disagree, I have several who have been running my life for years...wouldn't have it any other way.

What?

here I thought it was a standard adopted by many cultures for various reasons. I do agree that it seems to be a big money maker for Planned Parenthood.

I've never been aborted, I'll have to defer to your experience on what that feels like. Slaves and the unborn do share a lot of the same issues regarding the law, their status to even have a life or being recognized as a human, a person to name some major ones.

What, why?

Not mine to keep, but acknowledge-yes. Awesome Creation though, a true marvel, wait...forgot, your faith is in the world just happening when no one was looking. Enjoy it nonetheless...ah, that is not me forcing you to enjoy it. Don't enjoy if you like.

 

So, do you support laws against abortion?

 

It's not a great idea to use Lie News as a source.


http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-and-the-law-background.html

 

Adoption is wrong and should never be promoted. Abortion is responsible when one knows she cannot or will not care for a child. It is not responsible to give birth to a child you cannot or will not take care of or to pawn it off on others to raise.

 

How about answering Fox's question first?

 

Stunning, adoption is wrong?! What is wrong with adoption? There are childless couples that look to adopt children without parents. There are foster parents who end up adopting.

 

We have to. For example look at the Abortionist Kermit Gosnell, he didn't and was held responsible for it. I know people would say his victims were aborted and were intended for death anyway, so his actions should just be considered as accessory to the act of completing the abortion. Kermit saw it that way (I think President Obama would approve of his actions too), however the court saw it differently. Wielding absolute power can numb the actor from the reality, anguish and pain experienced by the victim. Kermit was a prolific abortionist. Just terrible stuff, so yes, I support the law.

 

Boring playing whack-a-mole with a poster who wanders all over the place and then stumbles back onto something that was already debunked.

 

Gosnell was accused of murder, not abortions.
It's an OLD "argument" by Anti-Choicers that has nothing to do with women's right to have abortions, nothing....and NO, you have NO proof that Obama would approve of what Gosnell did...


YOU: ""Wielding absolute power can numb the actor from the reality, anguish and pain experienced by the victim."""

YES , that's true, but you would have men have absolute power over women ...

....those that want to forbid women to abort have been numbed ( and dumbed ) to the pain and anguish of pregnant women who do not want a child.

 

So now you're denying abortion means losing one's humanity ? Hard to follow you when you keep changing direction...

What is hyperbolic or inaccurate about ""YOUR "morals" are not everyone's..."" ?

 

Would that not be the same as a "death"? And it applies to a set of twins where the remaining baby absorbs the material from the death of the one that dies.

http://americanpregnancy.org/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/

 

Abortion was only legal under specific circumstances. Miscarriages were more common then abortion.

The 14th. applies to citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." However, you choose to ignore the Originalist POV:

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Constitution


* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term “person” meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[422] The relevant clause reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[423]

* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:

[I suppose] that’s not the definition of a person but that’s the definition of a citizen.[424]

* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.”[425] In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that:

is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.[426]

* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but he was cut off by one of judges: [427]

WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.[428]

So, in your opinion, the woman has the right to kill an individual simply because that individual resides in her body. In other words, the baby is the slave of the woman with no right to life.

 

Not at all. Do you understand the concept being discussed? Birth is the conclusion of gestation, and the baby is a living soul. Not dead.

 

Obviously you did not read the article. Even your article says the same:

"Before the founding of the United States, the common law of England permitted abortions before the fetus "quickened." Quickening was the term used to describe the mother's first feeling of the fetus moving in her uterus. Typically, quickening occurs between the sixteenth and twentieth weeks of pregnancy."

Abortions were not legal for the full term of the pregnancy as we see now.

 

Adoption is wrong. It causes problems for the adoptee and the relinquishing mother. Do you know what it's like to grow up not knowing who you are or where you came from? I do and I would never inflict that on a child.

 

It says it was illegal in all states in 1776. It wasn't.

BTW, I do not go to Lie News. For all I know, those ****ers would put a virus on my computer.

 

Guess I don't know what point you're trying to make...miscarriage and abortion can also be the conclusion of gestation....

 

Right now the fetus is NOT a person with rights.


IF the fetus WAS deemed a person, it would have the rights of all persons AND the RESTRICTIONS/......

PERSONS do NOT have the right to use anbother PERSON'S body to sustain their life, you don't, I don't and the fetus wouldn't....therefore women would have a right to abort it since that's the only way to stop it...either way, you lose.

 

The back and forth has no relevance whatsoever to the actual final decision rendered in RvW.

A fetus has no rights until AFTER is is naturally born and unless you can overturn the legal definition of a person you are just fantasizing rather than coming with substantive legal arguments to support your denial of women's rights.

And FTR the DoI is NOT a part of the Law of the Land and is therefore irrelevant.

 

Meaningless distinction since abortions were LEGAL!