Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)


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.


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.


You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software),, sites affiliated with, 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
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.


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.


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.


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.


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 ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    This investigation is limited to the scandal at hand (Ford's case). I don't know if the FBI"s previous investigations already covered that or similar allegations. If they did cover those bases, why didn't they come forward by calling Linsday Graham on his cell phone? "No need to take a week for this one, we at the Bureau already checked on this years ago. He's squeaky clean." Or something.

    I was interviewed by a federal agent doing a "Q clearance" on someone I knew, who worked for a federal enforcement agency. They asked about personal habits and they go back as far as one knew the person, and that's on top of the legal background check. Supposing the FBI finds something or nothing on Kavenaugh, two questions remain: 1) Why didn't the FBI get put on speaker phone to cancel the one week postponement of the vote ("..squeaky clean" above)? ...Or 2) If the FBI does find something sketchy on Kavanaugh relating to this issue, why didn't that turn up in previous Q/L clearance investigations?
    There is no scandal, OTHER than the fact that we're now seeing a new trend in politics... this is the scandal.

    We now use impossible to prove or disprove allegations of 'sexual improprieties' to destroy our opponents. Worked with Roy Moore...

    Proof isn't necessary.

    We have the "media" spread the garbage ( allegations ) thick, far, wide and loud to damage a person and it works !

    Written about here;

    and here;

    Without a time machine the FBI cannot prove or disprove these allegations. They can do nothing beyond find information that's already available and spit it back at us.

    Present it to us.

    It won't undo the damage done and won't convict anyone of ANYTHING.

    Smear campaign successful


    • #32
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      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.
      You have the choice between making abortion safe and legal or unsafe and illegal. Either way you are not going to stop people from having abortions. Before Roe. It was not at all rare. Of course women in the upper classes will have better options than poor women. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions and presidents wouldn't lie and gun nuts wouldn't shoot people.


      • #33
        Originally posted by redrover View Post
        You have the choice between making abortion safe and legal or unsafe and illegal. Either way you are not going to stop people from having abortions.
        We're probably not going to ever stop people from armed robbery, rape, genocide and pedophilia either. We better make them safe and legal.

        Originally posted by redrover View Post
        Before Roe. It was not at all rare. Of course women in the upper classes will have better options than poor women. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions and presidents wouldn't lie and gun nuts wouldn't shoot people.
        In a perfect world. Yes that place that isn't. What IS a gun nut ? Gun nuts shoot people ?

        I thought it was criminals and crazy people that shot people. There are a lot of people who have guns in America that don't shoot people...?


        • #34
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          We're probably not going to ever stop people from armed robbery, rape, genocide and pedophilia either. We better make them safe and legal.

          In a perfect world. Yes that place that isn't. What IS a gun nut ? Gun nuts shoot people ?

          I thought it was criminals and crazy people that shot people. There are a lot of people who have guns in America that don't shoot people...?
          And there are many people who have never had an abortion either.


          • #35
            Originally posted by redrover View Post

            And there are many people who have never had an abortion either.

            So the world really doesn't revolve around the issue. It's never going to be outlawed, any more than our second amendment rights will be.


            • #36
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post


              So the world really doesn't revolve around the issue. It's never going to be outlawed, any more than our second amendment rights will be.
              I think you can' make laws to outlaw homosexuality and abortion. That might be a good issue for Republicans to run on. With the softening of drug laws we need to create a new class of criminals to keep our prisons full.


              • #37
                Originally posted by redrover View Post

                I think you can' make laws to outlaw homosexuality and abortion. That might be a good issue for Republicans to run on. With the softening of drug laws we need to create a new class of criminals to keep our prisons full.
                I disagree. More laws aren't the answer either.


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  I disagree. More laws aren't the answer either.
                  As California is ably showing, it is not possible to legislate morality or intelligence. As redrover ably shows, those attempts to do so don't work.


                  • #39
                    We began this as a discussion about killing children.

                    Which to most of us is something we couldn't imagine allowing, or arguing in favor of.


                    We argued in favor of allowing the killing of the unborn.

                    To justify this, we claimed they were something other than people, other than human.

                    We defined down what they were, so we could make it acceptable to ourselves.

                    This has led us to here. Where we are now, is where I took this thread in the very beginning.

                    We now have people arguing in favor of what I called in the opening post "Late Term Abortions"

                    While this doesn't at all surprise ME ( logic and human tendencies generally follow certain paths ) I hope it's able to open the eyes of those who were previously so dismissive of "the slippery slope."

                    Here it is


                    Bioethicists argue for killing children

                    Joona Rsnen (photo above) is among the latest bioethicists to argue that parents should be permitted to kill their born children. He said in the Bioethics online medical journal that infanticide is not immoral and should be legal:

                    [T]here might be an argument that gives, for example, the genetic parents a right to kill (or leave to die) their newborn infant even if the infant has a right to life. For example, it might be argued that people have a right to their genetic privacy and having the newborn infant in the world that carries the genetic material of the genetic parents violates their right to genetic privacy. Put another way: the [child] does not have a right to the genetic material of her parents.

                    Rsnens claims follow Australian bioethicists who sparked international anger for advocating after-birth abortion in situations where children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.

                    Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has likewise argued in favor of infanticide. When asked if he would kill a baby with a disability, Singer answered, Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.



                    • #40
                      This is neither new nor unexpected: As we plunge further and further towards a complete lack of regard for human life and dignity, we will hear this become more and more mainstream...

                      Come quickly Lord.


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                        This is neither new nor unexpected: As we plunge further and further towards a complete lack of regard for human life and dignity, we will hear this become more and more mainstream...

                        Come quickly Lord.
                        And they always argue against the slippery slope when it's pointed out ..when these kinds of things are considered.

                        They say it's silly to think they will progress to such madness.

                        Then we see that this is always what happens.

                        Abortion became "a womans right" and now we have "bioethicists" arguing in favor of killing children...

                        ... we'll say they're extra late term abortions to make ourselves feel better. - we like playing word games with ourselves

                        We decided to call "gays" married and now we have people demanding to go into restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex claiming to be "trans" gender. We have people arguing to lower the age of consent for sexual activity.

                        These paths to madness will not stop. We allowed them to start and they cannot be turned back.

                        We have no excuses, we were warned.


                        • #42
                          a standard tactic is to disparage that against which they have no argument.


                          • #43
                            It's gruesome & sick.

                            We've been fighting for this, as if it's a good thing, since 1973 !?

                            Proof that masses of people can be convinced of ... just about anything if it's said just the right way..

                            We like to think of ourselves as 'civilized' ... - laughs -

                            A "womans right" to slaughter a child is holy.

                            Holy in the Satanic church, which has a history of infant & child sacrifice.


                            There are just seven countries in the world that allow children to endure this barbaric procedure and that disgraceful list includes the United States. We must make the womb a safe place again.

                            The brief notes the accuracy of the description as a dismemberment abortion.

                            One expert quoted there explained, A leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled the process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.

                            When the case was at the 11th, the judges were revolted by the procedure.

                            They snarked that a majority of the Supreme Court discovered that [abortion] right lurking somewhere in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights as illuminated by the concept of ordered liberty.'

                            In this type of abortion the unborn child dies the way anyone else would if dismembererd alive. It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb,' the ruling said

                            It can, however, survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.'

                            The 11th Circuit is not the only court to take the U.S. Supreme Courts affinity for abortion to task lately.

                            About the same time as the 11th Circuit ruling came down, so did one from the Alabama Supreme Court, which said an unborn baby is a person under the law, and, consequently, causing the death of that person can be punished with execution.

                            Further, in a special concurrence, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that created a right to abortion.

                            I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade, he said. I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.

                            Parker affirmed the Alabama courts rationale that unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.

                            He asserted Roe v. Wade is without historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn childs inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a womans right to abortion.

                            This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law and common law of the states, Parker said.



                            • #44
                              When I started this thread, there was complaining & upset that I was comparing "abortion" to child murder.

                              In 1973, we imagined a "right" women had to end a pregnancy. It was called an abortion.

                              That we've allowed this, it's become "mainstreamed" into our culture, to be taken to this level is an indication of where we're going.

                              This is Satanic death worship out in the open.

                              We're not going to like what the future brings if we do this.

                              The opening story of this thread ?


                              Just an unfortunate, but perfectly legal "late term abortion."


                              Today, a perfectly viable baby of nine months, ready to be born at any minute, can be slaughtered by the will of the mother.

                              That is blood lust.

                              That is the spirit of baby killing.

                              There is nothing humanitarian or compassionate about it.

                              It is cruel. It is unwarranted. It is murderous.

                              We're talking about a totally viable baby! A baby who, under normal circumstances, would soon be crying and nursing outside the womb.

                              Today, however, that baby's well-being is at risk until the moment of the birth.

                              This is madness. This is murderous. Shades of Kermit Gosnell on steroids!

                              Princeton professor Robert P. George expressed it so well. He wrote:

                              "A huge irony: The NY law authorizing the killing of babies in the third trimester PROVES that the aim of the abortion lobby is NOT the protection of maternal health in circumstances of hazardous pregnancy, but is rather the right to destroy an unwanted child whose existence poses no risk to maternal health (in any sense of the term 'health' that amounts to anything other than a rationalization for killing unwanted babies). The only reason to kill rather than deliver a child in the third trimester of pregnancy and gestation is that the woman (or someone who is pressuring her to abort) wants the child to be dead rather than alive. It's the child's *existence*, not the pregnancy, which poses the alleged 'health' risk. The pregnancy can be ended ('terminated') by delivering the baby alive, rather than killing him or her. So do you see the see the sophistry in the argument for abortion here? It's glaring."

                              ..why not deliver it?

                              Plenty of parents would love to adopt the child.

                              Plenty of parents would gladly open the doors of their home to this precious little one.

                              Why kill it?

                              And let's not have some romanticized view of how a third-trimester baby is terminated. As noted by Steven Ertelt (with reference to a former abortionist):

                              "... The baby is injected with a poison directly into his skull or torso. He then suffers a hideously painful death, which he will certainly feel because of his developed nervous system. The mother carries the corpse around in her womb for a day. The next day, there is an ultrasound to check if the baby is dead. If he isn't if he has been writhing and suffering in agony for the past 24 hours, clinging onto life then he will be injected again. The following day, the mother delivers her dead child. Sometimes she delivers him at the clinic, but if she can't make it on time, the clinic is perfectly happy to recommend that she give birth into her toilet."


                              ...can this possibly be for the good of the mother? And under what moral code is this not barbarous and inhuman? Or should we mention the grisly details of "partial-birth abortion," where the child is delivered feet first, then the skull is pierced with scissors and its brains sucked out while still alive?

                              And if a baby somehow survived the murderous attempts of the abortionist, who does not even have to be a doctor? What if it was still born alive? Under previous New York law, efforts would be made to care for the child. But no longer! Under this new law, those provisions have been removed. The baby must die!




                              • #45
                                I came across this blog from the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

                                it is in response to two actions taken by two different states on the anniversary of the flawed Roe v Wade decision. Each action was hailed and lauded by the media and celebrated in the respective states. The blog is sub-titled, A statement from the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, in response to recent gubernatorial actions expanding abortion in New York and Illinois:
                                On Jan. 22, 2019, the 46th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand, the governors of both New York and Illinois signed laws to extend and promote abortion.

                                As he signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described it as the evolution of humankind in America. In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed an executive order to ensure taxpayer funding of abortions, saying that it would make his state the most progressive in terms of womens reproductive rights.

                                Life, not death, is the goal of humanity. History testifies that death is never the means through which justice and human rights prevail. We do not advance on the graves of our children. Germany, which sought eugenics as the solution to problems, now has strict abortion laws. To defend and support life is the goal of every just government, and the right to life is the hallmark of a good society.

                                Yet abortion laws have allowed the abortion of more than 61,000,000 children since Roe v. Wade. Thats nearly 50 times the number of American soldiers killed in all wars. The abortion industry and its proponents take great lengths to avoid facing the fact that abortion dismembers a living child in a horrid pool of its own blood. This is barbaric.

                                Abortion is a lie. Science is on the side of life. We shall stand against the barbarism of abortion until our dying breath. Abortion is illogical, as we slaughter babies in the womb while developing ever-better care for other unborn children. Abortion contradicts the natural law written on human hearts that teaches us it is wrong to kill.
                                there is more to the letter and I encourage you to read it in its entirety. But the portion above is sufficient to give you the tone and intent of this blog.

                                i agree with Dr. Harrison. What are your thoughts?
                                Last edited by DavidSF; 01-28-2019, 07:06 AM.