Baby butchers admitting prenatal infantacide kills a baby

[skyraider]

The document gives neither right, nor any other, though it would be great if the END OF STORY attitude you mention was regarded as such in the gun issue.
There is no privacy to murder. You can't murder someone in your living room and cite your right to privacy, nor can a woman murder a fetus in her womb and cite privacy.
I forget when this was, but the challenge to Roe vs. Wade that got the farthest--I think it was in the mid-late 90s--saw SCOTUS admit that Roe vs. Wade was flawed on that issue, but they still upheld Roe vs. Wade, saying that over the years since the decision, prenatal infanticide had in practice become a right. iow, the court said we've had it for so many years, we don't feel we can undo it. I remember listening to the Randall Terry Show on the radio the day that came out, and of course, that was the subject that day.
Hell is hot, and those that don't fear God now, will later. SCOTUS judges should remember that. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." There is a Judgment Day for us all, including judges, by the real Judge.

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

An old saying: You can be earthly right, and Heavenly wrong....... but we do here on this planet have freewill, least we be robots, but and but, don't place your hand on a hot stove eye, ......................

 

[xiggi]

Not declaring sides on a personal level but here is an article on a doctor who had a change of heart.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[letzrockexpress]

"The same document gives them both of these rights."


This is a VERY incorrect statement.

Neither the federal government, or the Bill of Rights, grant us our rights. The federal government also has no LEGAL authority to grant, restrict or take away our rights.

The People are the ultimate power in the United States. The power flows DOWN from the People, to the States, and the remaining responsibilities are delegated to the federal government. The People retain the bulk of the rights. States have rights, but far fewer than the People.

What we see now is a federal government that is entirely out of control. It is pushing to replace the People with itself, as the sole power in the Nation. It must be resisted.

Ok. You're right about that. My point is it is not murder under the law.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ok. You're right about that. My point is it is not murder under the law.

There has never been a law passed allowing abortion. It is ONLY legal due to a VERY bad SC move. It is STRICTLY a State issue in which the Federal Government should NOT be sticking it's cancerous nose in, like just about every thing else they are doing.

 

[Turtle]

It was only ILLEGAL, and for a relatively short time, largely because of the efforts of a few religious folks, and a few other equally silly reasons. It's been legal in the US for much longer than it has been illegal. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. Some were religious reasons prompted by a handful of religious leaders and religious doctors who were simply trying to enforce their will of what is right and wrong onto the larger population. A ridiculously common reason was the fear that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. Immigrants were not having abortions, WASPS were. So the states started enacting anti-abortion laws. All the SC did was bring and end to nearly a century of nonsense, and did so based on <gasp> Constitutional freedom grounds.

 

[AMonger]

All the SC did was bring and end to nearly a century of nonsense, and did so based on Constitutional freedom grounds.

Well, not 'zackly. Remember the underwhelming and creative language used in Roe vs. Wade. It had to be invented, via a "penumbra." And the SCOTUS decision in the late 90s recognized this, but stated that abortion had become a right over time.
There is only one ultimate Judge. Hell is hot. The temporal judges had better have their mortician pack their asbestos underwear.

 

[moose]

charity
" In Los Angeles County alone, 900,000 children live in poverty"
"Of the 100,000 foster children in California, 35,000 are in LA County"
money talks. for all of you pro-life crowd, please go to:
"to make a DONATION, please go to www.hollygrove.org"
then we can talk.

 

[moose]

Not declaring sides on a personal level but here is an article on a doctor who had a change of heart.

Doctor Who Did 1,200 Abortions Tells Congress to Ban Them | LifeNews.com

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

this one: Plain Truth (2004) - YouTube
also gives an outlook on our justice system inability to understands why baby's are killed.
good story.
one question : if you are the skinny getting the murder weapon, will you go to the police ?
{i will...}

 

[AMonger]

charity
" In Los Angeles County alone, 900,000 children live in poverty"
"Of the 100,000 foster children in California, 35,000 are in LA County"
money talks. for all of you pro-life crowd, please go to:
"to make a DONATION, please go to www.hollygrove.org"
then we can talk.

As has been covered here many times, this is specious.

 

[layoutshooter]

It was only ILLEGAL, and for a relatively short time, largely because of the efforts of a few religious folks, and a few other equally silly reasons. It's been legal in the US for much longer than it has been illegal. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. Some were religious reasons prompted by a handful of religious leaders and religious doctors who were simply trying to enforce their will of what is right and wrong onto the larger population. A ridiculously common reason was the fear that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. Immigrants were not having abortions, WASPS were. So the states started enacting anti-abortion laws. All the SC did was bring and end to nearly a century of nonsense, and did so based on <gasp> Constitutional freedom grounds.

In your opinion. I disagree. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government the RIGHT to control ANYTHING with health care. PERIOD. It is STRICTLY a STATE issue.

Since abortion is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and the People. So says the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Turtle]

In your opinion. I disagree.

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? Because nothing I posted up there was opinion, other than the "nonsense" characterization, it's all 100% verifiable fact.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government the RIGHT to control ANYTHING with health care. PERIOD. It is STRICTLY a STATE issue.

I never said any different.

Since abortion is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and the People. So says the 10th Amendment.

Roe v Wade was, in fact, a State case, not a federal case. "Roe" was Norma McCorvey and "Wade" was Henry Wade, the DA of Dallas County, Texas. The case was "Roe, et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County."

The Tenth Amendment didn't apply at all in Roe v Wade. It was the Ninth (from a lower court that the SC declined to use) and Fourteenth that did. The SC ruled that the right of privacy founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Much to Amonger's chagrin, they didn't invent what a right to privacy means, they merely adjudicated one small aspect of it.

 

[AMonger]

Much to Amonger's chagrin, they didn't invent what a right to privacy means, they merely adjudicated one small aspect of it.

That they invented a right is obvious to anyone honest enough to admit it. The outrageous and blatant sophistry in the decision is glaringly obvious, with its shadows and penumbras. The dissent made it clear that it was obvious at the time even to others on the court, and the SCOTUS decision in the 90s confirmed it; they just lacked the testicular fortitude to overturn it.

 

[AMonger]

Since abortion is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution, it is reserved to the States and the People. So says the 10th Amendment.

Not entirely true. The constitution guarantees us the right to life, and prohibits anyone from depriving us of it absent due process. That being the case, no state may decriminalize murder. Just as the feds enforced the right of black children to go to school, it is not only the right, but the responsibility, of the feds to impose regard for constitutional rights on the states. It's one of the few legitimate powers of the federal government. If your state did away with your freedom of religion, it would be entirely appropriate for the feds to clear their throat and tell your state, "Don't make me come down there." Same with denying the protection of the law to those being denied their right to life and due process.

 

[Turtle]

That they invented a right is obvious to anyone honest enough to admit it.

They hardly invented a right to privacy or the right of doctor-patient right of privacy.

The outrageous and blatant sophistry in the decision is glaringly obvious, with its shadows and penumbras.

That's because you disagree with it. You think the right to privacy extends only as far as whether or not you agree with that people are doing in private. Some things should remain private and off limits from outside intrusion and interference, while there are other things, obviously, that shouldn't be. Which is the reason for the gray area of a penumbra. It's hardly a false argument. Anti-abortion laws had no real significant historical precedence, with abortion being legal for most of human history with a few small isolated exceptions. Abortion laws were, and still are an attempt of a small number of people to force their will onto a large number of people, at the expense of personal liberty and a right of privacy, and those laws are about as effective and "moral" as Prohibition was. And just like the ridiculousness of Prohibition was corrected, the Court did the same thing for abortion and the right of the doctor-patient privacy. The fact that you don't agree with those rights is largely irrelevant, since the right to have an abortion is seen as a fundamental right, same as it has been since early recorded history. What isn't a fundamental right, however, is you or someone else forcing your will or your morality onto others for your own satisfaction.

The dissent made it clear that it was obvious at the time even to others on the court,...

Yeah, all BOTH of them who dissented.

...and the SCOTUS decision in the 90s confirmed it; they just lacked the testicular fortitude to overturn it.

The SC decisions in the 90s didn't confirm that at all. While Planned Parenhood v Casey weakened Roe v, Wade somewhat, it reaffirmed its basic tenet - that abortion in some form is protected by the Constitution as a fundamental right of privacy.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court has revisited the issue another 24 times, and not once have they overturned it. More times than not, by a large margin, they have reaffirmed Roe v. Wade resoundingly and with great testicular fortitude, even by the chicks on there. But in the meantime, the pro-lifers have been Hell bent on chipping away at it, which is why the Court has had to revisit it so many times. Pro-lifers and their cohorts in various legislatures have enacted laws to chip, chip, chip, anything to get their way at reducing Roe's effects.

States have enacted a variety of laws restricting abortion, such as those requiring parental notification, spousal consent and a waiting period before the procedure is allowed. Others required that women having second-trimester abortions do so in a hospital (rather than a free-standing clinic), and they mandated that physicians use abortion methods most likely to result in the survival of the fetus. New laws and regulations also prevented public funds from being spent on abortion procedures. They've even tried to enact laws that redefine established terms to fit their agenda. Anything to make it harder for someone to exercise their fundamental right to do as they please.

This has now gone way beyond anything resembling right and wrong. It's now all about winning. It reminds me of the Gay Agenda, 'cause that's not about right or wrong or equal rights, either. It's about winning. Period.

Ironically, and I do love a good irony, all this silly adolescent legislative deluge by the Pro-lifers led to a string of Supreme Court rulings that have served to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, but at the same time has firmly established it as a legal precedent. And once that happens, there's very little chance of going back. Wazoos are gonna keep on pushing and enacting new abortion laws, and the Supreme Court is gonna keep on ruling based on precedent. And every time they do, the precedent gets stronger.

Personal liberty is very simple - if you don't want to do something, then don't do it. But you don't have the liberty to force others to do the same as you.

 

[skyraider]

I would suspect the unborn does not give a xxxxxxxxxxxx what we think ....He or she ...just saying.

 

[layoutshooter]

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? Because nothing I posted up there was opinion, other than the "nonsense" characterization, it's all 100% verifiable fact.

I never said any different.

Roe v Wade was, in fact, a State case, not a federal case. "Roe" was Norma McCorvey and "Wade" was Henry Wade, the DA of Dallas County, Texas. The case was "Roe, et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County."

The Tenth Amendment didn't apply at all in Roe v Wade. It was the Ninth (from a lower court that the SC declined to use) and Fourteenth that did. The SC ruled that the right of privacy founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Much to Amonger's chagrin, they didn't invent what a right to privacy means, they merely adjudicated one small aspect of it.

I was disagreeing that it was done on "constitutional" grounds, not with anything you wrote.

Roe Vs. Wade was nothing more than the federal courts limiting states rights and/or installing new federal powers OVER the states.

It is a stretch for the 14th and I don't see their claiming the 9th at all.

Just how I see it. No matter which side of this particular issue one may be on everyone SHOULD be leery of ANY court decision that overrides the voice of the People WITHIN a state. Like the court even hearing arguments on CA laws on banning gay marriage. The PEOPLE had a DIRECT VOTE and passed those laws. It is NOT a federal issue and I don't believe that abortion is either. Just my opinion.

On a side note, I heard Norma McCorvey, or at least a person claiming to be her, saying that she is now opposed to abortion on demand and that the case was the biggest mistake in her life. Just an interesting side not.

I also have a problem with the idea that the FATHER of the child cannot stop an abortion. It is just as much his as her's. I find that wrong. Just how I see it.

 

[Turtle]

Just the same, the Constitution prevents the voice of the majority from trouncing the rights of the minority, or the individual.

 

[layoutshooter]

Just the same, the Constitution prevents the voice of the majority from trouncing the rights of the minority, or the individual.

Yes, to a point. It also stops the minority from stomping the rights of the majority and was primarily written to keep the federal government in a subordinate position. Roe Vs. Wade was designed, in my opinion, to do the opposite and it is STILL being used in that regard to this day.

 

[Turtle]

You're assuming the majority then, and now, prefer they women not bee able to make the choice on whether to have an abortion. Both history and every impartial survey that's been done show otherwise. In addition, by definition, personal liberty cannot ever trounce the rights of the majority. The majority might certainly disagree with how one chooses to exercise their personal liberties, but the only way that can trounce the rights of the majority is of the majority has the right to trounce the rights of the minority, and they don't.

 

[layoutshooter]

You're assuming the majority then, and now, prefer they women not bee able to make the choice on whether to have an abortion. Both history and every impartial survey that's been done show otherwise. In addition, by definition, personal liberty cannot ever trounce the rights of the majority. The majority might certainly disagree with how one chooses to exercise their personal liberties, but the only way that can trounce the rights of the majority is of the majority has the right to trounce the rights of the minority, and they don't.

Right now, what I believe is the minority, is trouncing the minority. A federal court has overturned a law, passed by the congress in Indiana, to NOT fund Planned Parenthood, with tax dollars.

It is my belief that IF abortion on demand, for "birth control" for lack of a better term, was put on the ballot, in MOST states, it WOULD lose.

I have also NEVER seen "equal rights" for the fathers, after all, it IS there child as well. What about THEIR rights?

The problem is that there is NO such thing as "special rights" . There is NO "reproductive rights", Gay rights, Minority rights, etc etc etc. We ALL have the same rights and when we single out SOME for SPECIAL treatment is subverts the entire ideal that this country was based on. Example: a RIGHT to "gay marriage, there is NO "right" to heterosexual marriage, but soon, once the SC court oversteps their bounds AGAIN, homosexuals will be given "special rights", a minority given rights that the majority does not have.

(by the way, this is a FUN discussion and I HOPE that it stays that way without some getting out of control. This is how it should be in here. I am enjoying this, thank you)