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

Giving abortions should be illegal!

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    When did abortion become illegal in our history, and when did it become legal? How is it that it was illegal and then legal? Why was it illegal, and what took place that made a fetus no longer a human life to be protected? Was it just the argument that the unborn had no rights under our laws until it was spurt out of the woman? And why did it have rights before, when it was illegal? Or was it simply that people knew it was a human life at one time and then someone said it was not and then the murdering began?

    We all know that Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist who wanted to get rid of black babies to keep their population down. So not to be over run with black people who some people used to see as chimps that could dance and talk. And didn't want too many animals running around. I think this was back when some also thought we should get rid of the mentally retarded too, and Hilter liked the idea once he read about what americans were talking about.

    This abortion idea sounds to me like it goes with the idea of getting rid of any human being being a drag on society, a leech, and what is a bigger leech than the unborn? Contributing nothing, can't pick cotton or cut your grass, nor do your cooking and housework. But how to do that when a part of society saw it as murder. Oh, you could say it was the right of the mother to do what she wanted to her baby for she owned her body. Just do not try to use illegal drugs though, for in that case you did not own your body at all, the State does. But we live with the illogic of this, the incoherence and never question it. For someone might get a woman pregnant, and he is already married, and he might need to get rid of the evidence. Probably a few in the USSC when the law was changed.
    As I was saying above in # 44.

    You ask;"But how to do that when a part of society saw it as murder."

    You redefine the beginning of a human beings life as something else, something other than human. Never-minding what the science of biology tells us. We only want to use science when it supports our current interests, if it doesn't, we must ignore it shut it up !!!

    Another instance of this:

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

    ....homosexual activists are threatening to punish Johns Hopkins University after two researchers released a study that's unflattering to their cause.

    The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual-rights lobbying group, issued the threat after science journal The New Atlantis published the work of a scholar in residence, and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, from the research university.


    http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-te...-the-pc-police

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

    Anyways, .... in this manner, you have changed the definition of murder. After-all, you aren't murdering something if it isn't human.

    Redirect any further argument to be about "a womans right to her body" yadda yadda yadda . . . .

    Game over.

    ?


    • #47
      The Sanger Hillary doesn't want voters to know

      Spearheading and driving the eugenics movement in the United States and abroad during the 1930s and 1940s, Sanger played an integral part in forwarding what Americans know as the population control agenda which ultimately led to legalized abortion several decades later via 1973s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Roe V. Wade.

      Her views and those of her peers in the movement contributed to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including people she considered feeble-minded, idiots and morons, the Washington Times Arina Grossu reported.

      It is also reported that she felt at home and enthusiastic to be with other notorious racists of the 20th Century, including the Ku Klux Klan. She presented for the group in Silver Lake, New Jersey, back in 1926, and even noted the experience in her autobiography.

      I accepted an invitation to talk to the womens branch of the Ku Klux Klan, Sanger recounted. I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses ... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak ... In the end, through simple illustrations, I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.
      http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-te...voters-to-know

      ?


      • #48
        Progresives are real good at getting other people to make sacrifices or force them to do so by law. Authoritarias should never be believed just becasue they are the authoritarians.
        That's why abortion should remain a valid choice under the law even if it's an awful choice.

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
          Progresives are real good at getting other people to make sacrifices or force them to do so by law. Authoritarias should never be believed just becasue they are the authoritarians.
          That's why abortion should remain a valid choice under the law even if it's an awful choice.
          I think it will. Whether we like it, agree with it or not, it's something that's always been with us.

          I think it's good that all information be made available - as it generally is today - and all options as well.

          ?


          • #50
            So watch this video and remind me when it's exactly okay to rip this fetus apart or stick scissors into it's head.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH9ZJu4wRUE

            Perhaps we should first find out if this child fetus is from a rape or not. Can anyone tell from looking at it? Do you think the child fetus of a rapist feels less, than a simply unwanted child, or wanted child? Do you think this fetus knows if it's dirty or not?

            The child is a child. We respect the life of ALL fetus' or respect the life of none. Whether it's wanted or unwanted is irrelevant to the being of the child. To make an exception for rape is inconsistent with respecting the life of the innocent child who's done nothing wrong. All fetus children are the same in innocence.

            And putting rape aside, perhaps someone can tell if this fetus is wanted or unwanted. Because it appears that we do need to know that first before deciding if this life has any value. Surely a scientific determination.
            Last edited by msc; 10-29-2016, 03:41 AM.

            ?


            • #51
              I admit, I am very biased in this debate. I have a wonderful, beautiful, daughter who we adopted. She was the result of the statutory rape of a 14 year old. Fortunately, the 14 year old went against all family pressures and cultural pressures and carried her to term. Our church supports a pregnancy center which gives young women an alternative to abortion, there is always an alternative.

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                I admit, I am very biased in this debate. I have a wonderful, beautiful, daughter who we adopted. She was the result of the statutory rape of a 14 year old. Fortunately, the 14 year old went against all family pressures and cultural pressures and carried her to term. Our church supports a pregnancy center which gives young women an alternative to abortion, there is always an alternative.
                God Bless the woman who protected and cared for your child.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                  I admit, I am very biased in this debate. I have a wonderful, beautiful, daughter who we adopted. She was the result of the statutory rape of a 14 year old. Fortunately, the 14 year old went against all family pressures and cultural pressures and carried her to term. Our church supports a pregnancy center which gives young women an alternative to abortion, there is always an alternative.
                  There isn't always an alternative, there are just not enough people stepping up to help.

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

                    There isn't always an alternative, there are just not enough people stepping up to help.
                    There is a waiting list a mile long for healthy newborns. I know. The only reason we were able to adopt easily was because my wife worked in labor and delivery and Texas allows private adoptions. If other states did the same, there would be no newborns go unadopted.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      There is a waiting list a mile long for healthy newborns. I know. The only reason we were able to adopt easily was because my wife worked in labor and delivery and Texas allows private adoptions. If other states did the same, there would be no newborns go unadopted.
                      Again Bureaucracy getting in the way of prosperity.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        This person of roevwade has her own say now . . years after. She "asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, gathering up a large amount of evidence to overturn her own case."

                        Saying; "On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America."

                        Because people who have been awarded high "authority" by, and over others, would naturally find it repulsive to later admit they were wrong.

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

                        Wayne_B 10 hours ago
                        "Roe" of Roe v Wade asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, gathering up a large amount of evidence to overturn her own case. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear her. She then went to the Senate to ask them never to confirm any Senator that believed in Roe v Wade. Below is an excerpt:

                        On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America.

                        The Supreme Court of the United States should be ashamed of itself. It has taken this matter of abortion away from the states, the people, and the legislatures, but it refuses to look at the evidence of what it has done. How shameful is that? How can we have liberty without life? Every member of the Supreme Court who supports Roe should be impeached and I believe we should to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 8 years.

                        The Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade. Since the Supreme Court did not reject our arguments, we are continuing to bring those arguments before the court in case after case after case, including Sandra Cano's case which is in the courts now. Please do not ask a judicial nominee to pledge to maintain Roe v. Wade.

                        If new evidence comes before the court, then the court should be willing change its old precedent, as it has many times. Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution. It is just a bad Supreme Court decision with bad effects and needs to be reversed. I also support a constitutional amendment to protect all human life. I am also attaching a copy of my 13-page affidavit which was filed in our lawsuit to reverse Roe v. Wade. Some things should never be allowed, even if we want to do them. Murder is one, child abuse is another and allowing abortionists to harm women is another. Thank you, Senators.


                        - Excerpt: Testimony of Norma McCorvey (The former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) June 23, 2005

                        http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/...y%20062305.pdf

                        http://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2...on-without-roe

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                          This person of roevwade has her own say now . . years after. She "asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, gathering up a large amount of evidence to overturn her own case."

                          Saying; "On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America."

                          Because people who have been awarded high "authority" by, and over others, would naturally find it repulsive to later admit they were wrong.

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

                          Wayne_B 10 hours ago
                          "Roe" of Roe v Wade asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, gathering up a large amount of evidence to overturn her own case. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear her. She then went to the Senate to ask them never to confirm any Senator that believed in Roe v Wade. Below is an excerpt:

                          On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America.

                          The Supreme Court of the United States should be ashamed of itself. It has taken this matter of abortion away from the states, the people, and the legislatures, but it refuses to look at the evidence of what it has done. How shameful is that? How can we have liberty without life? Every member of the Supreme Court who supports Roe should be impeached and I believe we should to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 8 years.

                          The Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade. Since the Supreme Court did not reject our arguments, we are continuing to bring those arguments before the court in case after case after case, including Sandra Cano's case which is in the courts now. Please do not ask a judicial nominee to pledge to maintain Roe v. Wade.

                          If new evidence comes before the court, then the court should be willing change its old precedent, as it has many times. Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution. It is just a bad Supreme Court decision with bad effects and needs to be reversed. I also support a constitutional amendment to protect all human life. I am also attaching a copy of my 13-page affidavit which was filed in our lawsuit to reverse Roe v. Wade. Some things should never be allowed, even if we want to do them. Murder is one, child abuse is another and allowing abortionists to harm women is another. Thank you, Senators.


                          - Excerpt: Testimony of Norma McCorvey (The former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) June 23, 2005

                          http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/...y%20062305.pdf

                          http://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2...on-without-roe
                          I knew she disagreed with the ruling in later years, but I didn't know to what extent. Though I have argued against abortion on a moral, scientific and legal consistency stance, I did not as much focus on the constitutional illegality of the ruling.

                          Thank you for sharing this article. A couple of days ago, I had an abortion debate with a very intelligent young man, a millennial. He's a good and passionate boy that is sincerely trying to figure out right and wrong. Currently he believes in abortion at certain stages and for certain reasons, but he listens when we debate, as I listen to him as well. I look forward to sharing these articles with him.

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Trump calls Planned Parenthood's bluff. Planned Parenthood has always claimed that abortions were an insignificant portion of their overall work providing health care for women. Trump makes them an offer they can't refuse if they want continued taxpayer support.
                            Trump Says Planned Parenthood Can Keep Federal Funding...If They Stop Doing Abortions

                            As I said throughout the campaign, I am pro-life and I am deeply committed to investing in womens health and plan to significantly increase federal funding in support of nonabortion services such as cancer screenings, he said. Polling shows the majority of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, even those who identify as pro-choice. There is an opportunity for organizations to continue the important work they do in support of womens health, while not providing abortion services.
                            https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...tions-n2294887

                            ?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              Trump calls Planned Parenthood's bluff. Planned Parenthood has always claimed that abortions were an insignificant portion of their overall work providing healthcare for women. Trump makes them an offer they can't refuse if they want continued taxpayer support.
                              Trump Says Planned Parenthood Can Keep Federal Funding...If They Stop Doing Abortions

                              https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...tions-n2294887
                              It's just ridiculous for planned parenthood to claim the abortion services come from the donations, yet the federal funding all goes to other services. The funds are intermingled.

                              If there are millions of people who care so much about women having abortion services, then why don't these people get together and form multiple abortion clinics throughout the United States, that run solely off donations. Problem solved.

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Do you have the right to use force to defend your home, eonomic security, and way of life?

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X