Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Murder, or late term abortion ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Murder, or late term abortion ?

    Since we now like to argue about the meanings of words to support insane concepts ei "gay marriage" "trans" gender etc etc couldn't this fellow say he was just performing a late term abortion ? A very necessary one even ! What kind of life would this poor innocent have been subjected too had it been allowed to live ?

    The supreme court already redefined a form of murder into "something else" for us. Something many of us have been hypnotized into accepting as "good" and a "right," even a "choice."

    We should see this for what it really is, just a not yet accepted form of abortion. An extreme, late term abortion, but AN ABORTION.

    Yes ?

    No ?

    Why why not ?

    ----------------------------------------

    DAD MURDERS INFANT GIRL WITH 22 PUNCHES
    4-month-old killed to silence 'baby talk'

    A Minneapolis man is now charged with murder [murder ? really ?] in the death of his 4-month old daughter at their Prospect Park home. Cory Morris, 21, is charged with second-degree murder for allegedly punching the baby girl in her face and chest to quiet her “baby talk.”

    According to the charges, Morris called police shortly before 5 p.m. on Saturday, Aug. 13 and admitted he had just killed his daughter
    [ people kill their offspring every day, this is 'in the news' WHY ?]. When police arrived, they found the 4-month-old unconscious on a changing table.

    Morris, who was alone watching the child at the time of the incident, told first responders he punched the child approximately 15 times in the face and 7 times in the chest with a closed fist, then squeezed her chest with his hands in an attempt to quiet her. The Hennepin County medical examiner confirmed the baby died from blunt force trauma.


    ....

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/dad-murde...s/?cat_orig=us

  • #2
    There was a time in this country that no one could imagine killing their unborn child.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      There was a time in this country that no one could imagine killing their unborn child.
      Until the supreme court played word games with us and convinced us all that invisible magic fairy dust is sprinkled on a "fetus" or "ball of tissue" when it travels through the birth canal making it finally turn into a human infant.

      Until that 'magic' occurs, it is not human and can't be murdered ... even though "science" tells us it is ... ahhh that "science" we use it when we like, abuse it when we can, ignore it when it's convenient and lie about it when it serves our purpose.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
        There was a time in this country that no one could imagine killing their unborn child.
        That was fairtytale time in the land of never been true.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

          That was fairtytale time in the land of never been true.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
          Yes, I agree, abortions have always been around. But legalizing them increased the number of abortions exponentially. But one reason abortions existed, in far less numbers in the past, was because there was a social stigma involved with having a child out of wedlock. If that stigma had not been there, there would have been even less abortions.

          Yet there has been a greater acceptance of killing the unborn human being, once it was made legal. For if it is legal, it must be ok to kill the unborn. So, the law itself changed perceptions.

          Abortions in the past were used as birth control. And yet one would think that when a birth control that was 99 percent effective, the pill, that abortions would have become rare, even when legal. But again, the change in the law, legal abortions, affected attitudes about killing an unborn human being. And so birth control that should have make abortions rare, didn't do that.

          The only way, mostly, that abortions are needed today comes from a total lack of personal responsibility. And so while abortions should remain legal, there needs to be punishment for being totally irresponsible, which is harmful to any society, and no society should tolerate intentional irresponsibility. Whether it is driving while drunk, or not taking contraception when you will not accept a child being born. Afterall, another human life is at stake here. And as soon as any society loses respect for human life, things go to hell pretty fast. Soon even cops have lost respect for human life, and shoot unarmed people, regularly. OR, we invade a nation to save her people from a brutal dictator, and in the process kill more innocent women and children than he could have ever killed. OR, you become so dependent upon our war industries, which require neverending wars in order to keep our economy from crashing, due to its dependence upon war to sustain itself......all of these thing are grounded in a loss of respect for human life. Abortion is much more than that single act. It changes a society in very bad ways.

          Such is the cost of personal irresponsibility that is basically encouraged by abortion laws. The Left accepts interdependence and interrelationships, except when it applies to their murderous beliefs. Then they will deny the reality of these two facts. And pull a right to murder the unborn human being, from their hypocritical rectums. When you only respect your own life, the evil begins.

          Gays, transgenders do not concern me at all. Even mentally confused people should have basic rights, and while I think there should be research done to try and cure these confused people, if they like the way they are, then leave them alone.

          I am just against the murder of unborn human beings. I think killing humans is the greatest evil ever created by man. If this principle is meaningless, then you will continue to have a brutal, sick society. Your cops will kill unarmed citizens. You will wage wars for oil and elite interests and kill countless women and children, for Pandora's Box was opened when the life of the unborn was rendered meaningless. As soon as you create a way to not respect human life, and take it, for convenience, there will be other exceptions to the principle of the importance of human life. It has to happen. And does. And always will.

          As I said, abortion happen today because of irresponsible human beings. And the cost for that irresponsibility is a human life. A society with birth control, the pill, an implant, has no need for abortions. Irresponsible people, create the need. And we should stop accepting this and punish for being dangerously irresponsible.
          But only if we say we value human life. IF we do not value it, we can take the laws for murder off the books. Which of course we have done with abortion.

          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 08-19-2016, 03:27 PM.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            Yes, I agree, abortions have always been around. But legalizing them increased the number of abortions exponentially. But one reason abortions existed, in far less numbers in the past, was because there was a social stigma involved with having a child out of wedlock. If that stigma had not been there, there would have been even less abortions.

            Yet there has been a greater acceptance of killing the unborn human being, once it was made legal. For if it is legal, it must be ok to kill the unborn. So, the law itself changed perceptions.

            Abortions in the past were used as birth control. And yet one would think that when a birth control that was 99 percent effective, the pill, that abortions would have become rare, even when legal. But again, the change in the law, legal abortions, affected attitudes about killing an unborn human being. And so birth control that should have make abortions rare, didn't do that.

            The only way, mostly, that abortions are needed today comes from a total lack of personal responsibility. And so while abortions should remain legal, there needs to be punishment for being totally irresponsible, which is harmful to any society, and no society should tolerate intentional irresponsibility. Whether it is driving while drunk, or not taking contraception when you will not accept a child being born. Afterall, another human life is at stake here. And as soon as any society loses respect for human life, things go to hell pretty fast. Soon even cops have lost respect for human life, and shoot unarmed people, regularly. OR, we invade a nation to save her people from a brutal dictator, and in the process kill more innocent women and children than he could have ever killed. OR, you become so dependent upon our war industries, which require neverending wars in order to keep our economy from crashing, due to its dependence upon war to sustain itself......all of these thing are grounded in a loss of respect for human life. Abortion is much more than that single act. It changes a society in very bad ways.

            Such is the cost of personal irresponsibility that is basically encouraged by abortion laws. The Left accepts interdependence and interrelationships, except when it applies to their murderous beliefs. Then they will deny the reality of these two facts. And pull a right to murder the unborn human being, from their hypocritical rectums. When you only respect your own life, the evil begins.

            Gays, transgenders do not concern me at all. Even mentally confused people should have basic rights, and while I think there should be research done to try and cure these confused people, if they like the way they are, then leave them alone.

            I am just against the murder of unborn human beings. I think killing humans is the greatest evil ever created by man. If this principle is meaningless, then you will continue to have a brutal, sick society. Your cops will kill unarmed citizens. You will wage wars for oil and elite interests and kill countless women and children, for Pandora's Box was opened when the life of the unborn was rendered meaningless. As soon as you create a way to not respect human life, and take it, for convenience, there will be other exceptions to the principle of the importance of human life. It has to happen. And does. And always will.

            As I said, abortion happen today because of irresponsible human beings. And the cost for that irresponsibility is a human life. A society with birth control, the pill, an implant, has no need for abortions. Irresponsible people, create the need. And we should stop accepting this and punish for being dangerously irresponsible.
            But only if we say we value human life. IF we do not value it, we can take the laws for murder off the books. Which of course we have done with abortion.

            As you say; " ..the law itself changed perceptions. . . the change in the law, legal abortions, affected attitudes about killing an unborn human being. ...The Left accepts interdependence and interrelationships, except when it applies to their murderous beliefs. Then they will deny the reality of these two facts. And pull a right to murder the unborn human being, . . "

            And I too "think killing humans is the greatest evil ever created by man. If this principle is meaningless, then you will continue to have a brutal, sick society."

            I used, what seems to be "an extreme" example as a topic opener.

            I did that for a reason. Used are many of the same terms people often use to justify murdering innocents. I included other more recent examples of the games we play with words to justify ideas that don't stand up to reality. There are plenty more. .

            If we can play with words and make certain humans less than human - as we often do in war -

            [ http://www.beyondintractability.org/...dehumanization...dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.]

            - it's easier to kill. It's also easier to convince others that it's justified or good to kill. As someone earlier said:

            "This topic is a %$@#ing sick joke." . . . except it's not a joke ! We have used words and dehumanizing statements and arguments to justify killing the most innocent of humans ! Sick ? Yes sick.

            We do this to infant humans and consider it "legal" up until it is born, as if some magick occurs at that point to change it from something NOT human TO human. This is nonsense and the science we like so much proves it, and we have to consider where our arguments lead if we're going to stick with them don't we ?

            That's what I did. We think we can capriciously decide when a human is human, from that, we then decide we can kill another human . . . based on a definition of convenience.. We can justify killing ANYBODY - justify ANYTHING, with word games. Humans have done this for as long as they've existed. It is part of the sickness - the tragedy - of our condition.

            ?


            • #7
              The killing of the innocent, unborn, will one day be seen as the most basic means test which indicates if the society is a good society, one with a strong moral core, or if it is a society formed around basic self centered selfishness, that places convenience above human life itself. I think man evolves not only physically, but also psychologically and spiritually. We have only minutely evolved when it comes to the mind, and have a long, long way to go. That we cavalierly place some human created "right" the right to murder your unborn child, for convenience is enough evidence to support that we have basically not evolved when it comes to the human mind. We are as brutal, not respecting life, as we were 50,000 years ago. And we have less respect for human life, than we did as a society 60 years ago. So, we are regressing, not progressing.

              I believe in personal sovereignty, that no one but me owns my body and consciousness. And anyone who claims ownership over another person, is no different than the worst brutal dictator madman. But you only own your own body, and not the new human being growing inside a womb. You can play word games, try to complicate what is simple, in order to attempt to argue for the right to murder a developing human being, but it's just an attempt at justification of what everyone with a healthy rational brain knows is murder. As soon as you need to fabricate lines, of what is a human and what is not a human, murder follows, as a matter of course. Then this line dehumanizes, so we do not feel bad about killing an innocent, helpless human being.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                The killing of the innocent, unborn, will one day be seen as the most basic means test which indicates if the society is a good society, one with a strong moral core, or if it is a society formed around basic self centered selfishness, that places convenience above human life itself. I think man evolves not only physically, but also psychologically and spiritually. We have only minutely evolved when it comes to the mind, and have a long, long way to go. That we cavalierly place some human created "right" the right to murder your unborn child, for convenience is enough evidence to support that we have basically not evolved when it comes to the human mind. We are as brutal, not respecting life, as we were 50,000 years ago. And we have less respect for human life, than we did as a society 60 years ago. So, we are regressing, not progressing.

                I believe in personal sovereignty, that no one but me owns my body and consciousness. And anyone who claims ownership over another person, is no different than the worst brutal dictator madman. But you only own your own body, and not the new human being growing inside a womb. You can play word games, try to complicate what is simple, in order to attempt to argue for the right to murder a developing human being, but it's just an attempt at justification of what everyone with a healthy rational brain knows is murder. As soon as you need to fabricate lines, of what is a human and what is not a human, murder follows, as a matter of course. Then this line dehumanizes, so we do not feel bad about killing an innocent, helpless human being.
                Yet we're told "this is progress !" and many believe it !

                It's interesting this phenomenon, it will be to the people of the future maybe IF, as you say, the following does happen;

                "The killing of the innocent, unborn, will one day be seen as the most basic means test which indicates if the society is a good society, one with a strong moral core, or if it is a society formed around basic self centered selfishness, that places convenience above human life itself."

                We do have a long way to go and one never knows if we'll even make it .. if we don't destroy ourselves, or most of us first. But this may play a part in an evolution of sorts too, so who is to say how things might happen. But I think you're right, eventually WE will be talked about like we now talk about people a thousand years ago - brutal, back-wards etc etc.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Yet we're told "this is progress !" and many believe it !

                  It's interesting this phenomenon, it will be to the people of the future maybe IF, as you say, the following does happen;

                  "The killing of the innocent, unborn, will one day be seen as the most basic means test which indicates if the society is a good society, one with a strong moral core, or if it is a society formed around basic self centered selfishness, that places convenience above human life itself."

                  We do have a long way to go and one never knows if we'll even make it .. if we don't destroy ourselves, or most of us first. But this may play a part in an evolution of sorts too, so who is to say how things might happen. But I think you're right, eventually WE will be talked about like we now talk about people a thousand years ago - brutal, back-wards etc etc.
                  Well, I find some solace in thinking we are in a very slow evolution of intelligence, and I equate a moral center as intelligence, for it really is. Basic morality that places human life above money, above self centered behavior, above all things, is fundamental, foundational morality. Everything is built upon that foundation. The same thing can be said about personal sovereignty, the god given right to own one's own body and consciousness, a most basic fundamental god given right, from a higher power, that all other rights stand upon. But personal sovereignty is just that, and as soon as you hurt or destroy someone other than your own vessel, you are no longer indulging in personal sovereignty. It is that simple. And yet the ploy of some people is to use word games, to complicate something that is simple into such complexity that it gives wiggle room, to wiggle out of something, in the interest of selfishness, serving the self, one's own selfish desires.

                  What makes abortion even more wrong and evil is the fact that we have contraception that is 99 percent effective, and yet because of irresponsibility, these people end up killing a human being. So, abortion used for birth control, when it was never necessary to kill a human being.

                  And we are such a pro murder society, that we will not even run advertising, we will not educate in schools, how wrong killing the unborn is. That is, to teach others just how important human life is, and how it should be valued above all things. For as I said earlier, the fact it is legal to kill the unborn, conditions new minds to think it is perfectly fine to kill human beings, if they are not yet born. So, it is one thing to have legal abortion, but quite another to condition people that killing a human life is perfectly fine. You can have legal abortion, while educating, conditioning the new minds of the importance of human life. And that great thought should be involved in abortions. IF one human life is saved because of this, it is worth it, and has great value.

                  So, I do think that we are a work in progress, psychologically. That evolving intelligence will look upon abortion differently, and when we look back we will wonder how we could be so immoral and brutal, so cavalier about human life. And, IMO, if we are not evolving, there will be no humanity on earth that can look back at our ignorant and brutal past. For we will self destruct.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    We see in the opening post, a man murdered his infant because she was an irritation to him.

                    Just a late term abortion...

                    more ...

                    Very late term abortions.

                    Outrageous ?

                    We kill infants when they're in the mothers womb.

                    The mother gets to decide this, it's 'her choice.'

                    This mother, she made that choice a bit later than most - who are we to judge ??

                    Women can and do rid themselves of their babies all the time. It's their legal choice !! Their right !

                    Still, for some odd reason...

                    They're calling these very late abortions MURDERS ???

                    Have we not clearly defined the killing of infants is "abortion" and not murder ? As a womans right !!

                    They have to carry them in their belly for 9 months after-all, should they not get to decide when to abort their infants ?

                    Charging her with murder !?!?? Ridiculous !!

                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Alaska woman charged with killing babies Googled 'how to commit the perfect murder'

                    A 23-year-old Fairbanks, Alaska, woman has been charged with killing two of her baby daughters two years apart after police say they found evidence that she searched the Internet for instructions on how to get away with murder.

                    .....

                    LaFountain is also suspected in the 2015 murder of her 4-month-old daughter, who also died after a breathing emergency.

                    http://www.khq.com/story/39010839/po...perfect-murder


                    Have an abortion !!

                    A LATE abortion. We so easily redefine meanings in our language to suit our wishes everyday, we can do this TOO !

                    ?


                    • #11
                      But then . . . . . .

                      Maybe that won't work out ?

                      Maybe regular abortion won't so easily be defended any more.

                      Things aren't looking good, and it has NOTHING to do with who happens to be nominated to the supreme court.

                      No.

                      It has to do with facts, science and what is quickly becoming common knowledge.

                      Murdering innocents just isn't going to get easier to defend.

                      It's going to get impossible to defend ! It's nearly there already !!

                      We will be seen as the barbarians we are... until we stop sacrificing infants on this altar of death we call "a womans right."

                      We WILL be judged harshly and called "backwards" and "brutish" by future generations.

                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      There are very few issues where you can confidently look forward 100 years and say people are going to look back at us and say we're barbarians people are going to look back at us and say that we're engaged in an act of great moral evil, he said.

                      He said that people are capable of great evil when they don't think about what they're engaged in.

                      As time progresses, he believes abortion will be an issue that will eventually be seen for what it is, as science will further change the dynamics at hand.

                      As science develops, as we are able to get better pictures inside the womb, as we realize the innate value of every human life that springs from conception, it's going to be harder and harder to defend this stuff, he said. And I think frankly it's obvious right now.

                      ..there's a great deal of willful denial that comes along with the abortion debate.

                      I think you have to be willfully blind to take seriously the Democratic position that you should be able to murder a baby up to the point that it exits the birth canal, he said.

                      ..he can't believe that abortion is still defended by so many, calling it beyond ... evil and crazy. Unfortunately, he said there are a lot of people today who simply don't want to see the realities at hand.

                      I think there are a lot of people who have bought into the idea that it's some sort of imposition on a woman's body to talk about the person growing inside her, he said. And anytime you make a moral argument, it's inconvenient.

                      Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, explained her experience.

                      People are living in the lie today ... the good news is, the truth sets people true, Rose said. That is the way that we've seen people change when they actually know what's happening through the story. They know what abortion actually is.




                      https://ijr.com/2018/09/1125731-act-...tles-abortion/

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                        But then . . . . . .

                        Maybe that won't work out ?

                        Maybe regular abortion won't so easily be defended any more.

                        Things aren't looking good, and it has NOTHING to do with who happens to be nominated to the supreme court.

                        No.

                        It has to do with facts, science and what is quickly becoming common knowledge.

                        Murdering innocents just isn't going to get easier to defend.

                        It's going to get impossible to defend ! It's nearly there already !!

                        We will be seen as the barbarians we are... until we stop sacrificing infants on this altar of death we call "a womans right."

                        We WILL be judged harshly and called "backwards" and "brutish" by future generations.

                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        There are very few issues where you can confidently look forward 100 years and say people are going to look back at us and say we're barbarians people are going to look back at us and say that we're engaged in an act of great moral evil, he said.

                        He said that people are capable of great evil when they don't think about what they're engaged in.

                        As time progresses, he believes abortion will be an issue that will eventually be seen for what it is, as science will further change the dynamics at hand.

                        As science develops, as we are able to get better pictures inside the womb, as we realize the innate value of every human life that springs from conception, it's going to be harder and harder to defend this stuff, he said. And I think frankly it's obvious right now.

                        ..there's a great deal of willful denial that comes along with the abortion debate.

                        I think you have to be willfully blind to take seriously the Democratic position that you should be able to murder a baby up to the point that it exits the birth canal, he said.

                        ..he can't believe that abortion is still defended by so many, calling it beyond ... evil and crazy. Unfortunately, he said there are a lot of people today who simply don't want to see the realities at hand.

                        I think there are a lot of people who have bought into the idea that it's some sort of imposition on a woman's body to talk about the person growing inside her, he said. And anytime you make a moral argument, it's inconvenient.

                        Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, explained her experience.

                        People are living in the lie today ... the good news is, the truth sets people true, Rose said. That is the way that we've seen people change when they actually know what's happening through the story. They know what abortion actually is.




                        https://ijr.com/2018/09/1125731-act-...tles-abortion/
                        There are a few things the "pro-life" coalition need to clear up, on their way to initiating (not restoring) respect for all human life. "Initiating" respect, because we never quite got to the point of respecting life in our history. Always an "out" group that could be used and discarded, right up to the previous century, even in developed countries. But I digress. To the point of clearing up abortion, based on the premise that life begins somewhere between conception and "quickening". Well, let's start there; pro-life needs to agree on ....
                        -When life begins. Does it start at conception, or first heartbeat? Or during coitus?
                        -When is abortion "medically necessary"? One pro-life champion claimed it was never necessary, until he was set straight by the professionals, Gyn/Obstetricians. Link:
                        Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh falsely claimed that there wasn’t “one instance” where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth, and more would die if they didn’t have access to abortion. After that, Walsh quickly backed down.
                        https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/th...of-the-mother/
                        -What to do with children born to parents that either do not want to raise children, or (worse) want to raise their kids but are grotesquely unqualified to do so.

                        The last question is easy for pro-lifers: Unwanted kids get adopted; we already have a foster parent and family court system to get kids into loving homes, at least when the system functions correctly.

                        ...But what about the first two questions? Claiming that engaging in coitus is to accept responsibility to carry a fetus to full term makes sense only if birth control is dependable and readily available. Otherwise, pro-life would interfere with married couples' religious and civil rights to both plan their family and aid in the wife's health. Let's suppose pro-life does accept easy and dependable access to birth control. -In that case, pro-lifers might defend against accusations of removing autonomy to control family size, even if they use the definition, "life begins at conception". Agreeing on that definition will differ depending on state law after R v. W is overturned. States that define life some time after conception might legalize the day-after pill, or abortion thru the first trimester ("quickening" or some variation). There likely won't be any states that try to ban birth control, but restricting it might get them into lawsuit territory.
                        -Pro life advocates will also need to agree on "medically necessary" exemptions from abortion law. I suppose an anti-abortion state could fund those few trips to other states where it is legal, or save taxpayer money by ignoring the issue and hoping non-profit organizations pick up the tab. There will be lawsuits against those states when women die due to foreseen complications in pregnancies, backed up by professional opinions.

                        There you have your situation, after R v. W is overturned. It won't be a "we saved all precious human life" scenario (never has been), but with some careful planning, the anti-abortion states should be able to stay clear of the lawsuits and electoral massacres.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          I don't agree "we" have to agree on the responses to your questions before we can move toward respecting life (nor, as the liberals will bring up, "if you respect human life, why don't you do away with the death penalty or war?"). We at least agree that abortion ends a human life: Not a potential life, not a potential human: The so-called "fetus" is demonstrably, observably human (it's not a lizard or a giraffe, it is completely human); and living (it's not inert, it is not non-living).

                          That it is dependent on another for it's continued life is irrelevant as it doesn't diminish either it's humanity or it's life: Invalids and quadriplegics are also dependent on others. That it is not yet fully developed is similarly irrelevant: So are preemies, so are some born with birth defects. The only part of "development" that is accurate is early in the gestation when the "clump" of cells is not yet recognizable as a human being but that is resolved within 12 days as arm buds and leg buds and even the rudimentary brain and heart are visible. ALL those arguments are used by the pro-abortion folks to justify ending a human life.

                          However, to your questions:
                          1. When life begins. Does it start at conception, or first heartbeat? Or during coitus?
                            Scientifically, life begins when a sperm enters and fertilizes an egg. There are misinformed people who will place it at some other point pre-or peri- or post-conception, but believing doesn't make it true.
                          2. When is abortion "medically necessary"? One pro-life champion claimed it was never necessary, until he was set straight by the professionals, Gyn/Obstetricians.
                            An abortion is medically "necessary" when it is needed to save the life of the mother... the actual, physical continuation of life (not "quality" of life and not "health"). But Medical necessity doesn't necessarily mean it still has to be done. The pro-life advocates have tried to avoid the "medically necessary" question all together because NO ONE wants to tell a woman, "gee, too bad, you'll just have to die." Because that would be heartless. Further, as a follower of Christ, I am personally willing to let God decide, but I do understand not everyone follows my preference. SO, my offer is, in those rare circumstances when an abortion is needed to save the actual, physical life of the mother, then let their conscience be their guide. Another question that has not been asked (but is generally asked when this argument arises), What about in the cases involving rape or incest? Well, "incest" IS rape so conjoining the two terms, studies done in states that require a reason be given for seeking an abortion show .8% (that's .08) of all cases reported "rape" as the reason. So, again, to avoid unnecessary misdirection, pro-life advocates have also tried to bifurcate these rare circumstances from the debate (although often, by attempting to do so, make it the centerpiece of the argument and DO get misdirected into this argument). In my personal opinion, I don't think requiring the unborn child to pay the price for the crime of the sperm donor is appropriate. Yes, it is difficult for the mother to carry the child to term, knowing how it was conceived, but a difficult 9 months is infinitely preferable to sacrificing the life of the most innocent.
                          3. What to do with children born to parents that either do not want to raise children, or (worse) want to raise their kids but are grotesquely unqualified to do so.
                            I agree, and I see this all the time, all around me. I would love to have a nickel for every "family" about whom I've opined the absence of some kind of qualifying test before they'd be allowed to sire children. My own family has been involved with fostering these "unwanted" children for decades so we do get to see the seething underbelly of that beast. I don't have an answer to that question. But I still do not accept the premise that killing the child is the answer. Claiming that engaging in coitus is to accept responsibility to carry a fetus to full term makes sense only if birth control is dependable and readily available. Your statement here makes sense only if "engaging in coitus" is unavoidable: Some sort of biological mandate. Engaging in unprotected sex is that "choice" people make. To later claim "I can't afford birth control so I have to now abort the baby" is nonsensical and ONLY contrived (again, in my opinion) in an attempt to escape the consequences of one's choices. If one doesn't wish to become pregnant, the process for which is clearly known, then keep one's legs closed <period>! We are not animals, sex is not something we must do, over which we have no choice. "you" want to be pro-choice? Then be "pro" over THAT choice.


                          In my perfect world, no child would be "unwanted" and no child would ever be killed in-utero. But we're not in my perfect world. We are, in fact, in a fallen world where people are selfish and self-righteous. We think we can act out whatever we want with impunity and, when confronted with the consequences of our actions, we want to run away: We don't like consequences... at least we don't like negative (by our own perception) consequences. Roe-v-wade was an assuage to our conscience: "You don't have to bear the consequences of your actions. There are no consequences to an abortion: "Plop, Plop, Fizz Fizz, oh what a relief it is." In by 9, out by 5 is our catch phrase.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                            I don't agree "we" have to agree on the responses to your questions before we can move toward respecting life (nor, as the liberals will bring up, "if you respect human life, why don't you do away with the death penalty or war?"). We at least agree that abortion ends a human life: Not a potential life, not a potential human: The so-called "fetus" is demonstrably, observably human (it's not a lizard or a giraffe, it is completely human); and living (it's not inert, it is not non-living).

                            That it is dependent on another for it's continued life is irrelevant as it doesn't diminish either it's humanity or it's life: Invalids and quadriplegics are also dependent on others. That it is not yet fully developed is similarly irrelevant: So are preemies, so are some born with birth defects. The only part of "development" that is accurate is early in the gestation when the "clump" of cells is not yet recognizable as a human being but that is resolved within 12 days as arm buds and leg buds and even the rudimentary brain and heart are visible. ALL those arguments are used by the pro-abortion folks to justify ending a human life.

                            However, to your questions:
                            1. When life begins. Does it start at conception, or first heartbeat? Or during coitus?
                              Scientifically, life begins when a sperm enters and fertilizes an egg. There are misinformed people who will place it at some other point pre-or peri- or post-conception, but believing doesn't make it true.
                            2. When is abortion "medically necessary"? One pro-life champion claimed it was never necessary, until he was set straight by the professionals, Gyn/Obstetricians.
                              An abortion is medically "necessary" when it is needed to save the life of the mother... the actual, physical continuation of life (not "quality" of life and not "health"). But Medical necessity doesn't necessarily mean it still has to be done. The pro-life advocates have tried to avoid the "medically necessary" question all together because NO ONE wants to tell a woman, "gee, too bad, you'll just have to die." Because that would be heartless. Further, as a follower of Christ, I am personally willing to let God decide, but I do understand not everyone follows my preference. SO, my offer is, in those rare circumstances when an abortion is needed to save the actual, physical life of the mother, then let their conscience be their guide. Another question that has not been asked (but is generally asked when this argument arises), What about in the cases involving rape or incest? Well, "incest" IS rape so conjoining the two terms, studies done in states that require a reason be given for seeking an abortion show .8% (that's .08) of all cases reported "rape" as the reason. So, again, to avoid unnecessary misdirection, pro-life advocates have also tried to bifurcate these rare circumstances from the debate (although often, by attempting to do so, make it the centerpiece of the argument and DO get misdirected into this argument). In my personal opinion, I don't think requiring the unborn child to pay the price for the crime of the sperm donor is appropriate. Yes, it is difficult for the mother to carry the child to term, knowing how it was conceived, but a difficult 9 months is infinitely preferable to sacrificing the life of the most innocent.
                            3. What to do with children born to parents that either do not want to raise children, or (worse) want to raise their kids but are grotesquely unqualified to do so.
                              I agree, and I see this all the time, all around me. I would love to have a nickel for every "family" about whom I've opined the absence of some kind of qualifying test before they'd be allowed to sire children. My own family has been involved with fostering these "unwanted" children for decades so we do get to see the seething underbelly of that beast. I don't have an answer to that question. But I still do not accept the premise that killing the child is the answer. Claiming that engaging in coitus is to accept responsibility to carry a fetus to full term makes sense only if birth control is dependable and readily available. Your statement here makes sense only if "engaging in coitus" is unavoidable: Some sort of biological mandate. Engaging in unprotected sex is that "choice" people make. To later claim "I can't afford birth control so I have to now abort the baby" is nonsensical and ONLY contrived (again, in my opinion) in an attempt to escape the consequences of one's choices. If one doesn't wish to become pregnant, the process for which is clearly known, then keep one's legs closed <period>! We are not animals, sex is not something we must do, over which we have no choice. "you" want to be pro-choice? Then be "pro" over THAT choice.


                            In my perfect world, no child would be "unwanted" and no child would ever be killed in-utero. But we're not in my perfect world. We are, in fact, in a fallen world where people are selfish and self-righteous. We think we can act out whatever we want with impunity and, when confronted with the consequences of our actions, we want to run away: We don't like consequences... at least we don't like negative (by our own perception) consequences. Roe-v-wade was an assuage to our conscience: "You don't have to bear the consequences of your actions. There are no consequences to an abortion: "Plop, Plop, Fizz Fizz, oh what a relief it is." In by 9, out by 5 is our catch phrase.
                            Let's do this in reverse. I agree, we are in a fallen world, but we never lived in a moral world. So, we are yet struggling up the hill, yet to reach the crest. We will never reach the top, because we are mere mortals. But that struggle is critical, to continue to improve ourselves and our society. Abortion was always with us, and was made illegal after a "heartbeat" or similar standard ("quickening") was reached, well before and into the modern era of common law (the last 800 years). This is not a justification or condemnation of abortion -it is background for restricting abortion. That is what you, among other pro-life people have accepted: A restriction to abortion, rather than an attempt to eliminate it altogether. Elimination of abortion is one of many goals that stay in that category that cannot be reached, but is worth struggling for. Nothing wrong with that; many left and right wing political goals fall into that category. You accepted restriction over elimination (saving the life of the pregnant woman), so you can proceed to place those restrictions based on real-life conditions.

                            Next point, you are correct in that I claim that birth control must be dependable and readily available, because "coitus is unavoidable". In a de facto sense, coitus (and risk of pregnancy) is unavoidable for healthy young adults who pair bond. In most religious instruction, this is both accepted and expected, within the bounds of marriage. If you can find religious beliefs to the contrary, you should answer that point. You can find examples, but they will be in the minority for obvious reasons. "Go forth a multiply" is a winning formula to populate a continent. Religions that put the brakes on a vague encouragement to "make babies" -after marriage- are few and far between because they depopulate themselves. My argument moves to it's conclusion by noting the possibility of real family planning with modern technology (excluding abortion, the surgical version of which goes back centuries). Having run out of continents with which we can comfortably populate without restriction, family planning with modern medicine is the practice in developed countries. "Not engaging in coitus" can be stated, it just won't be taken seriously by couples of child-bearing age. Even less so in a religious context. Never has, never will.

                            In the next point, you and I are nearly in agreement. With the exception of your statement, "let your conscience by your guide". Conscience is just one thing that enters into the situation when deciding between the life of the woman or the developing fetus. At least one other thing must enter into the equation: State law. Supposing your given state wants to preserve all lives involved in pregnancy, but accepts the reality face by ob/gyn specialists. That means they have laws in place to note those exceptions to protect all life in the womb, in short, the woman's life is at high risk. Sorry, that can't be done on a "case by case" basis, it must be established law. We're not going to wake up the judge at 2 am for a 15-minute deliberation, hopefully before mom's femoral artery blows on the operating table. The obstetrician can be more pro-life than you, and he or she knows what must be done after talking with a mother of 2 who decides her kids are going to continue to have a mother. The Ob/Gyn needs that law on the books before, and so does the pregnant woman. The state requests the medical report for the judge to mull over, later.

                            The point at which it becomes life might agree with yours -some 48 hours after coitus and fertilization. I don't know if the states will vary from that definition, or if they will be guided by details in the probable SCOTUS decision that overturns R. v W. Supposing the 2 day standard applies, that would allow a day-after pill while prohibiting almost all abortion.

                            That doesn't agree with many of my views on abortion, but under the above circumstances, it leaves something for pro-choice people to work with. Some basic legal protection for women whose life is at high risk, regardless of her state of residence. Reliable access to dependable birth control (regardless of which religion dominates state lawmaking), so couples can make family planning decisions without interference from the state. Somewhere between a few and many states where elective abortion is legal, up to 6 months; I suppose that technology is not so far off, that the fetus can be removed at 6 months and incubated to full term in an artificial environment.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Clarification: As I said, in my perfect world, no child would be killed or unwanted. I have not accepted a restriction to abortion. I have placed those two issues (rape and life of the mother) on a back burner to avoid the incessant desire of pro-abortionists to drag the discussion over there. They have to: They cannot logically and factually respond to the observation that an in-uterus child is both living and human.

                              Next, I carefully worded my dictum that having sex is not a Biological mandate to stipulate however compelling and desired it is, we always have a choice. I understand religious (albeit, Old Testament) instructions. That was not the point I was making. My obviously feeble attempt was to show a womans (well, and also a mans) choice occurs prior to conception, not after.

                              i am also unwilling to get mired in the swamp of what does a mothers life is at risk mean? It is emotionally manipulative to drag the life of the mother and rape into this argument and, IMO, to eradicate abortion completely, yes, it will have to be dealt with sooner or later, so I choose later.

                              finally, I have now seen twice that your suggestion seems to stipulate that Roe v Wade will be overturned. I dont see it. I definitely see some restrictions like banning partial birth abortions, but outright overturn, no ... cant see it.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X