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

  • Not only did they sell murdering infants with lies, they support their death cult with threats of violence !

    These are very sick people.

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


    Univ. prof threatens violence against pro-lifers


    Matthew Kapell, a part-time lecturer at San Jose State University, used Twitter to publicize his desire to commit violence against pro-lifers, tweeting that he wanted to "beat the ****" out of pro-life protesters.

    Matthew Lamb, communications director at Students for Life, expressed concern for the feelings of pro-life students in Kapell's classes upon learning their professor wants to beat them up.

    "It would be like if you're a Christian student, or a Jewish student, or a Muslim student," Lamb explains, "and your professor said he wants to beat up Christian, Muslim, or Jewish students. I'd be a bit worried."

    School administrators wouldn't likely tolerate such behavior, so Lamb says threats of violence against pro-lifers should not be acceptable either. Students for Life contacted the school to express concerns.

    Lamb says that while academic freedom certainly exists, threatening violence against people will probably lead to more of the same threats.

    According to Lamb, a university spokesman said the administration would look into the situation and follow up with a response. Lamb contends that while that's a good first step, the school should either remove the professor from teaching for a semester or require him to undergo counseling.

    In the recent past, Students for Life has recorded increased threats against pro-lifers and their message, and Lamb believes it's time now for the schools to respond.


    https://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/...nst-pro-lifers

    ?


    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
      Not only did they sell murdering infants with lies, they support their death cult with threats of violence !

      These are very sick people.

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


      Univ. prof threatens violence against pro-lifers


      Matthew Kapell, a part-time lecturer at San Jose State University, used Twitter to publicize his desire to commit violence against pro-lifers, tweeting that he wanted to "beat the ****" out of pro-life protesters.

      Matthew Lamb, communications director at Students for Life, expressed concern for the feelings of pro-life students in Kapell's classes upon learning their professor wants to beat them up.

      "It would be like if you're a Christian student, or a Jewish student, or a Muslim student," Lamb explains, "and your professor said he wants to beat up Christian, Muslim, or Jewish students. I'd be a bit worried."

      School administrators wouldn't likely tolerate such behavior, so Lamb says threats of violence against pro-lifers should not be acceptable either. Students for Life contacted the school to express concerns.

      Lamb says that while academic freedom certainly exists, threatening violence against people will probably lead to more of the same threats.

      According to Lamb, a university spokesman said the administration would look into the situation and follow up with a response. Lamb contends that while that's a good first step, the school should either remove the professor from teaching for a semester or require him to undergo counseling.

      In the recent past, Students for Life has recorded increased threats against pro-lifers and their message, and Lamb believes it's time now for the schools to respond.


      https://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/...nst-pro-lifers
      Are you guys against abortion because you kill them before they are born they won't be available to molest when they get to be 14? I I remember how outraged you were when Trump threatened protesters at his rallies, promising to pay the legal bills of loyalists who would attack protesters.Are we to believe that violence toward some protesters is OK?

      ?


      • Originally posted by redrover View Post
        Are you guys against abortion because you kill them before they are born they won't be available to molest when they get to be 14?
        Thanks for again proving that, as Michael Savage explains - "liberalism is a mental disorder." Only a liberal could "think" like that LOL

        Originally posted by redrover View Post
        I I remember how outraged you were when Trump threatened protesters at his rallies, promising to pay the legal bills of loyalists who would attack protesters.Are we to believe that violence toward some protesters is OK?
        Maybe he was talking about defending against other violent leftist "protesters."

        http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...827-story.html

        It's always cute how liberals want to accuse others of their own crimes... tell everyone about how other people are intolerant, hateful, violent and perverted ...

        ....while YOU are the ones who are intolerant, hateful, violent and perverted.

        Sorry, the games over. It doesn't work anymore.

        ?


        • When a people accept an evil as "good," they shouldn't be surprised when that evil multiplies.

          As stated in the below article;

          "Americas mass acquiescence to abortion is rooted in our devotion to what has become a near-sacred belief in total sexual freedom. However disastrously, we have determined as a modern, secular, post-Christian society that we have the absolute right to engage in sexual relations with whomever we want, whenever and wherever we want, and we repudiate any notion that we must take responsibility for the natural result of sex which is children. Having committed so deeply to this proposition, it matters not how barbaric and inhuman abortion is, how many gorgeous children we see with their throats cut, heads cut off, chemically burned alive, brains sucked out or spinal cord snipped with scissors. We must allow for abortion-on-demand or our sacred right to total sexual freedom ceases to exist. Thats our current operating paradigm, without its clothes."

          In other-words, we've decided that sex is our God and are willing to sacrifice to it in massive numbers !

          Also stated;

          "One baby has inestimable value backed by the legal protection of the state solely because the parents want and love it, while another child of identical attributes and age, but whose parents dont want it, is considered worthless medical waste.

          Is this not a form of madness?"


          Of course it's madness.

          Like those addicted to any form of madness - serial killing, pedophilia, bestiality - we deny and rationalize that what we're doing is what it is, insane and sick !

          The way we fool ourselves into accepting evil is by playing games with words & definitions.

          "One baby has inestimable value backed by the legal protection of the state solely because the parents want and love it, while another child of identical attributes and age, but whose parents dont want it, is considered worthless medical waste..."

          Killing THESE babies isn't murder.

          NO !

          It's a "womans right."

          It's "abortion."

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

          ....parallel to this moral, rational world exists yet another world an amoral, irrational one rooted in deepest denial, and constructed over several decades with great effort and ingenuity. Were talking about the realm of well, what shall we call it? Every official label abortion, choice, womens health, reproductive freedom, pregnancy termination, voluntary miscarriage is a fragile euphemism designed to obscure a dark reality.

          That reality, stated objectively, would be: the premeditated killing of human babies residing inside their mother.

          In this strange parallel world, the same killing of a baby that in the real world outrages us and results in prosecution, prison and possibly execution, is mysteriously transformed into a medical procedure and constitutional right, provided for and fiercely defended by a multi-billion-dollar industry and all the powers of government and funded by taxpayers.

          These two worlds collided spectacularly in the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

          As everyone who followed the 2013 trial knows, Gosnells clinic, despite its dignified-sounding name, Womens Medical Society, was actually a house of horrors more reminiscent of the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele than a legitimate medical practice. Heres the grand jurys summary:

          This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.

          The grand jurys report is horrifying not just for what it reveals about Gosnells crimes, but because it documents that a lot of what was later universally condemned about Gosnells abortion business had been known throughout the Pennsylvania regulatory agencies for years but no one lifted a finger to stop it.

          For a mainstream press overwhelmingly skewed toward reproductive rights, it was stunning when top news organizations from the New York Times to the Washington Post suddenly proclaimed their outrage over Gosnells abortion crimes and the lack of news coverage.

          Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure, wrote liberal Democrat and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers in an impassioned and widely read USA Today column. Havent heard about these sickening accusations? Its not your fault, she explained:

          Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnells former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

          ...

          ...the babies Gosnell was convicted of murdering were no older, larger, more viable, more human or more precious than other late-term babies aborted routinely over the past 40 years. Its just that Gosnell pulled them out of their mother before killing them. Had he done exactly the same horrendous things (like snipping infants spinal cords) while the baby was still inside the mother, many who today express horror would have regarded it as just another late-term womens health procedure that mother and doctor determined to be in her best interest.

          How is this possible? Aside from legal restrictions imposed (but routinely ignored) by a few states, abortion in America under Roe v. Wade is legal from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, if the mothers life or health is determined to be endangered. And health heres the giant loophole is broadly interpreted to include both physical and mental health. That means late-term abortionists (with a cooperating second doctor) can, and routinely do, sign authorization forms claiming the mother risks becoming, oh lets just say, depressed if denied the procedure or therapy.

          ..Powers forthrightly confronted this now-institutionalized mass delusion: [W]hether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb as in a routine late-term abortion is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

          Americas mass acquiescence to abortion is rooted in our devotion to what has become a near-sacred belief in total sexual freedom. However disastrously, we have determined as a modern, secular, post-Christian society that we have the absolute right to engage in sexual relations with whomever we want, whenever and wherever we want, and we repudiate any notion that we must take responsibility for the natural result of sex which is children. Having committed so deeply to this proposition, it matters not how barbaric and inhuman abortion is, how many gorgeous children we see with their throats cut, heads cut off, chemically burned alive, brains sucked out or spinal cord snipped with scissors. We must allow for abortion-on-demand or our sacred right to total sexual freedom ceases to exist. Thats our current operating paradigm, without its clothes.

          Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, designed to prevent the killing of babies that, despite the abortionists best efforts, are born alive in other words, it was crafted to prevent precisely the crimes for which Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder. But Obama took that extreme position because, once you start allowing for the restriction of abortion in even the slightest way, you are acknowledging the humanity of the unborn (or in this particular case, the born) child, and the whole abortion delusion is in danger of unraveling.

          ...

          In a desperate attempt to reconcile these two opposing worlds, we endlessly draw magic lines arbitrary points before which killing babies is a revered constitutional right, and after which its a monstrous crime. We create lots of these artificial lines from first trimester, second trimester and third trimester to heartbeat, 20 weeks and viability.

          Of course, overshadowing all these magic lines is an even more arbitrary and irrational measure of infant humanity namely, whether or not the parents want the child!

          One baby has inestimable value
          backed by the legal protection of the state solely because the parents want and love it, while another child of identical attributes and age, but whose parents dont want it, is considered worthless medical waste.

          Is this not a form of madness?



          http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/abortion-...orlds-collide/

          ?


          • That was always the purpose of legalizing abortion. Women's rights. Women should have just as much freedom to sexually promiscuous as men.

            ?


            • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              That was always the purpose of legalizing abortion. Women's rights. Women should have just as much freedom to sexually promiscuous as men.
              We have to ask;

              "Shouldn't they ?"

              After-all, why is it Ok for men to go around like rabbits and not women ?

              And by what logic is this issue resolved by killing innocent people ?

              ?


              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                We have to ask;

                "Shouldn't they ?"

                After-all, why is it Ok for men to go around like rabbits and not women ?

                And by what logic is this issue resolved by killing innocent people ?
                Isn't your concern for the unborn driven by the fear that abortion might cause a scarcity of game for school shooters? After they are born they are no longer so innocent and worthy of support and protection.

                ?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Isn't your concern for the unborn driven by the fear that abortion might cause a scarcity of game for school shooters?
                  Absolutely ! We have to have kids sitting in our "gun free zones" easy to shoot !

                  Crazy people need target practice too - equal rights for all y'know ?

                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  After they are born they are no longer so innocent and worthy of support and protection.
                  Clearly.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    Absolutely ! We have to have kids sitting in our "gun free zones" easy to shoot !

                    Crazy people need target practice too - equal rights for all y'know ?



                    Clearly.
                    I would have more sympathy for your movement if you could expand your level of concern for life to include poor black children living on welfare and criminals living on death row.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      I would have more sympathy for your movement if you could expand your level of concern for life to include poor black children living on welfare and criminals living on death row.
                      You have those covered.

                      I'll worry about slaughtered infants and children.

                      I can only do so much ! You have your own limits obviously ..

                      ?


                      • Like magic, the right to kill was created, accepted by all as something desirable !

                        By asking ourselves

                        By what measure ??

                        By whose definition ??


                        Then creatively rationalizing and playing with language, we can make ANYTHING "good" or a "right."

                        It has been done so many times.

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

                        Flaws in 'Death Roe'

                        When Socrates appeared before the jury of Athens, he said he was not used to the specialized idioms and restrictive language of the court; he was a stranger there.

                        In that spirit, let's look at Roe as outsiders. Maybe we can see flaws that the professionals don't or won't.

                        The first point shows the weakness in our Constitution itself.


                        1. Article Three (Judicial) overrode Article One (Legislative).

                        State legislatures (in the Roe case, it was Texas) said no to abortion, and these laws were not unreasonable or unjust in themselves. They stood for long time. But Blackmun said they were indeed unconstitutional. Why the power-grab? In Marbury v. Madison (1803), for the first time, SCOTUS gave itself permission to review legislation that the justices deemed unconstitutional. Now who can stop an aggressive left-wing judiciary that wishes to revolutionize and overturn laws it does not like?

                        With so much power in the hands of the few, Justice Harry Blackmun and other liberals before and after him have become Plato's (unappealing) enlightened philosopher-kings who run roughshod over the hoi polloi and their representatives.


                        2. The penumbra of rights, based on the Ninth Amendment, gave Blackmun permission to expansively interpret the Constitution.

                        He referenced the Ninth Amendment nine times in Roe. The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) held that Connecticut's birth control law was unconstitutional. Then the justices opened the door to unwritten rights adjoining the written ones. The written rights cast a "shadow" on the unwritten ones (umbra is Latin for "shadow" or "shade").

                        To outsiders like us, it looks as though liberal justices are simply going on fishing trips looking for rights by which they can impose their own politicized will on we the people. But let's say penumbral rights exist. Then why can't Article One discover them and extend them to prenatal living babies? There is nothing unreasonable or outlandish about doing that.


                        3. Blackmun followed the questionable method of mountains of interpretations built on silence.

                        He wrote: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." Then he went on to reference case after case in which justices found this right in the Constitution. He expanded the silence and earlier interpretations to include the right to abortion.

                        The immediate source of this convoluted legal reasoning is rooted in postmodernism, which was influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzsche on perspectivism:


                        Everything is Interpretation:... Against those who say "There are only facts," I say, "No, facts are precisely what there is not, only interpretations." We cannot establish any fact in itself. Perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing. (Quoted in Louis P. Pojman, Classics of Philosophy, Oxford UP, 1998, pp. 1015-16, emphasis original.)

                        Intellectuals going to universities and law schools absorbed the whole postmodern project in the water they drank and air they breathed.

                        Where does this expansive, interpretational method end? It doesn't, but what do liberals care? The razor-thin, laconic Constitution hinders their agenda, and the philosopher-kings sniff at its silence.


                        4. This expansive interpretational method opened the door for Blackmun to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment out of its historical, original context.

                        He referenced the Fourteenth Amendment thirty-eight times. However, in his dissent, Justice William Rehnquist shoots down Blackmun's expansive interpretation, noting that there were thirty-six laws in states and territories restricting abortion when the amendment was ratified in 1868; the authors did not have abortion in mind. "The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter [of abortion]." But why would a liberal, activist judge like Blackmun wish to limit himself to what the Constitution actually says or does not say? It is outdated and too restrictive to begin with.

                        5. Blackmun was confused about "potential life" and "viable life."

                        He used the odd phrase "potential life" several times in his decision. But it is clear that the baby is not a potential life, but is actually living all along his stages of growth. He certainly is not dead. However, Blackmun (wrongly) believed that a baby is not living until he become viable outside of the womb. Blackmun placed viability at 24 to 28 weeks (six to seven months, so late-term abortions are allowed). However, this opinion is based on primitive science. A baby can live outside the womb before that time frame.

                        And why the criterion of viability in the first place? Why not when the baby's heart begins to beat, or when he undergoes neural development? Justice Blackmun may not have known about these other criteria because he wrote his decision in 1973. Alternatively, he may have known about them but simply ignored them because they did not support his foregone conclusion. Either way, his reasoning was arbitrary and wrong.


                        6. Blackmun tendentiously followed scholars who supported his views and ignored others.

                        For example, the Hippocratic Oath says: "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy," a clause Blackmun quoted (Sec. VI). Doctors have been swearing this oath for a long time, so it was imperative that Blackmun dispense with it. To do that, he referred to Dr. Edelstein, who said it was not that important historically. He ignored others who said it was (endnotes 8-19). If an M.A. thesis were so tendentious, it would be rejected or required to be rewritten.

                        7. Blackmun was unqualified to judge matters relating to prenatal life.

                        This is not a criticism of Blackmun alone. All justices (and judges) are unqualified. They are not specialized scientists. Justices live in a closed loop, as they sit in paneled courtrooms and listen to other lawyers arguing about their interpretation of other interpretations and read amicus briefs that promote one view of science over another. They do not call in real experts whom they can examine, face to face. However, members of legislatures can do exactly that. Therefore, the issue of abortion must be placed back in legislatures.

                        The Constitution has a major flaw there is no way to stop a runaway judiciary, based on first principles. We are now in danger of being run completely by enlightened philosopher-kings who gleefully thwart the will of the people when it suits them.

                        Unfortunately, the only solution is political. People must elect politicians who will nominate or vote for judges and justices who respect Article One and the entire Constitution in its original context who will let its silence stand.


                        https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...h_emroeem.html

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          I would have more sympathy for your movement if you could expand your level of concern for life to include poor black children living on welfare and criminals living on death row.
                          No one cares whether or not you nphave sympathy...

                          what is is at stake here is the wanton slaughter of our children for no better excuse than the insecurity or vanity of the host womb. It is a barbaric procedure and should be made criminal.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                            No one cares whether or not you nphave sympathy...

                            what is is at stake here is the wanton slaughter of our children for no better excuse than the insecurity or vanity of the host womb. It is a barbaric procedure and should be made criminal.
                            That sounds very strange coming from someone who condones every manner of barbarism known to man. Just take your pick All the way from torture to locking children in cages.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              That sounds very strange coming from someone who condones every manner of barbarism known to man. Just take your pick All the way from torture to locking children in cages.
                              which photos are from the Obama administration ... DO try to keep up.

                              Now, do you have anything intelligent to contribute to THIS topic or is it time to close the thread?

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                                which photos are from the Obama administration ... DO try to keep up.

                                Now, do you have anything intelligent to contribute to THIS topic or is it time to close the thread?
                                This thread is Captain Trips baby not mine go ahead and abort it if you want to. I've always find it to be a dead end issue. Where do where we go after the right wingers finish calling the liberals baby killers and the liberals demand to know what the plan is for dealing with all these unwanted children? Leaving us back on square one.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X