Late-term abortionist killed

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm sorry but it's not a women's issue it's a humankind issue. As soon as they figure out a foolproof way to absolutely determine and confirm the wishes of the baby to live or die then abortion absent rape/incest can be debated. Until then, it is wrong except in rape/incest. That has nothing to do with being male or female. It has everything to do with being right or wrong. End of story.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
If all the pro-abortion advocates have is "Mind Your Own Busines" and a lame claim to privacy, well, they've got nothing.

In Sobibor, local villagers were told, "MYOB."

In Buchenwald, same thing: MYOB.

Treblinka: MYOB.

Auschlitz: MYOB.... the list of atrocities hidden behind MYOB has no equal. MYOB is the weakest, most guilt-laden retort in human history.

As to abortion supposedly being a privacy issue... OF COURSE THEY WANT TO KILL THE BABIES PRIVATELY. It is a salve to the mother's conscience, and the doctor's, to do their deeds in a clean, sterile clinical setting where perhaps Oprah Winfrey's voice can be heard in the background as a television plays.

Liberals have succeeded in convincing some governments they have no interest in protecting all innocent life. It's a variation on a theme played out in history many times before. The liberal mindset, when you get down to the crux of it, is little more than a death cult. The smugness with which they defend slaughter of innocents is breath taking. They should never be allowed to become comfortable with this vile practice. Pro-lifers have been bullied and ridiculed into virtual silence. We can only hope life-affirming values come back into vogue.

MYOB is a mighty fine slogan for a death cult. It has a debonair ring to it, too. Might catch on.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It is. Soon there will be "death chambers" for old sick people. This is NOT a good time to be in. :(
 

jujubeans

OVM Project Manager
I am quite sure there are other women on this site...my point is I'm not hearing their voices....we at least have as MUCH say in this issue as you fellas...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It is thier choice!! :rolleyes: So sorry, I had to do that. At least this is a choice that does not kill.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
As things are today, we men have no legal standing to protect unborn children. Only women have the wisdom to decide who shall live.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
OOPS!!! Oh yeah. Hey talk about my spelling. While working on a VERY special photo project here my wife and I were looking through my medals and awards. LO and Behold we found the spelling medal I recieved when I was in 6th grade!!! I got that medal for getting a very solid "C" on a spelling test. That was the HIGHEST spelling grade I had got for more than two years!!! LOL!! Some things never change!! :D
 

jujubeans

OVM Project Manager
I USED to win those spelling bees...now I can't spell for squat!

Ken just called..he'll be traipsing thru NYC sometime tonight on the way to CT. Time for me to get some chores done!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Looks like you spelled squat right to me!!!! LOL!! Yeah, you better get busy on those chores!!!! :rolleyes:
 

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
I do NOT want to interfere with others liberty. I DO however believe that a moral socaity have the duty to protect innocent life. The condoning of killing of innocent life by a people speaks voluums to it's lack of morals, standards and it's almost total lack of respect for human life. What is next? Killing severly retarded people? It has been suggested by some very liberal college professors. The slope has been greased and it steepens with each step down.

I have to say that I find it ironic that you are going on about morals and having a duty to protect innocent life and you are wanting to pass laws to prevent this from happening.. and yet you are gung ho about the people's right to bear arms, people who you know are going to be killing innocent life. You scream about the mere possibility of your rights being taken away in an effort to protect the innocent, and yet you are all too willing to take away the rights of a woman to decide what her body will or won't do. How do you justify the difference?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Pjjjjj,

1 - the right to fire arms, to me and a lot of others has nothing to do with taking an innocent life, it means I have the right to protect myself and others from harm and protect my constitution and country. The founding fathers of my country saw the disarming of citizens under english rule and understood that to be one of the reason that many were repressed. They were more knowledgable of european history than we are today and understood what was happening in France and parts of what is now Germany. If you look at english history, they were a very structured society based on the class or station one held in life. the people at the lower end of society didn't have the rights or privalige to live free. One of the reasons we could do away with this was allowing people to be equal through arms and votes and it actually worked. Anyone can move up in life if they really want to, there is no system to buy one into the upper crust of our country.

2 - the supreme court here decided a case based on privacy, the woman's right to her body only exists in people's minds. It is between a doctor and the patient that the right exists and extends to both genders but that will right go away here if we get any form of government sponsored health care because they can't control it if there is decision making at the patient's level and no disclosure of the patients condition.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life... all men are created/conceived equal...

It doesn't say the right to life begins at birth. It says the right to life begins at creation. That would be the merging of sperm and egg. They were well aware of the cause of pregnancy even if they didn't know as much as we do now. They could/would have said all men are born equal if they meant the right to life begins at birth. Case still closed.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Sorry, Leo. For one, we can read. We don't need the meaning of the Declaration of Independence interpreted to us. We already know what it means. Second, they say all MEN, not babies, and even boy babies aren't men, so trying to put your desperate literal spin on things won't work, either.

Nowhere in there does it say "life begins at creation," and even if it did, it would say "all life is created equal," or "all human life is conceived equal," but it doesn't say that, because neither is true, and neither is certainly self-evident. The framers of the Declaration of Independence did not address whether life begins at conception or not, despite you somehow seeing in there.

Nor does it say that creation and conception are one in the same, because they're not. Conceiving of something and realizing it are two different things. That's why they use two different words for it that have two very different meanings. The Conception (the concept) is the beginning of it, and the Birth (the coming into existence) is the realization of it, and everything in between are the developments of the concept into the realization of the creation.

If you really want to go and gt all literal with it, the Conception is the beginning, and everything from conception up to the point of adult manhood are the steps to get to the point of the creation of a man, because prior to becoming a man, you're not a man, you're something else, be it a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a pre-:censoredsign: or a teenager, but definitely not a man. So, according to the literal version as interpreted by Leo, you don't have the right to life until you become a man, because all men are created equal, and all that.

You can spin it anyway you like, try and justify it anyway you like, redefine and interpret whatever you want any way you want, but the bottom line is still: you are taking your own morals and beliefs, and using them to justify sticking your nose into other people's business, and telling others what to do by forcing your morals and beliefs onto them against their will.

And if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming like a little girl. If you don't believe me, read some of your own posts regarding gun control. They don't come across as being penned by someone who will easily bend to someone else's will. Yet you're trying to get others to bend to yours. What's up with that?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
MYOB is the weakest, most guilt-laden retort in human history
People say that, until someone else starts minding their business. If I started sticking my nose in your business, and you didn't like what I was telling you to do, you'd tell me to mind my own business. Betcha. :D

Many morality issues are society wide, they are adopted and accepted by society as a whole, and are unambiguous to the masses. They cross all boundaries of a society, be it religious, racial, economic, whatever. These are the morals of society.

There are other morals that are adopted and accepted only within certain segments of society, most notably religion, where the followers of specific religious doctrines will have morals that are based on the beliefs of those doctrines.

You will never get someone who is not an adherent of those doctrines, to adopt and accept morals which are based on those doctrines.

Doesn't matter how much you yell and scream at them, doesn't matter how you try to justify your morals and beliefs, doesn't matter how badly you want them to change their mind, unless you can convince them to believe in the basis of those moral beliefs, they will not be able to believe your morals, and thus will not adopt and accept them as their own.

If you take a step back and look at it, abortion and Islam are exactly the same. If you attack it from your point of view, from the basis of your morality, it ain't gonna happen. You won't be able to beat it into them, you won't be able to talk them into it, because you are trying to force your morals and beliefs onto them, while at the same time dismissing their morals and beliefs as irrelevant, and by extension, them.

Know thine enemy, people.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I have to say that I find it ironic that you are going on about morals and having a duty to protect innocent life and you are wanting to pass laws to prevent this from happening.. and yet you are gung ho about the people's right to bear arms, people who you know are going to be killing innocent life. You scream about the mere possibility of your rights being taken away in an effort to protect the innocent, and yet you are all too willing to take away the rights of a woman to decide what her body will or won't do. How do you justify the difference?

Law abiding gun owners DO NOT kill innocent people. The 2nd Amendement IS in the Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution. Firearms are just a tool. They can be used for good or evil. I can use my guns to PROTECT innocent life or provide food. IF I use them to TAKE innocent life I deserve to go to jail or whatever the punishment is. As a moral person that will NOT happen. Roe vs. Wade was based on a right to privicy which is NOT in the Constitution.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Roe vs. Wade was based on a right to privicy which is NOT in the Constitution.
It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but it's in there. The right to privacy is a basic human right, an inalienable right, and is thus protected by the 9th Amendment outright...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

...as the right to privacy is a right retained by the people.

The right to privacy is also inherent, essentially the basis for, many of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, such as Amendment 3 (quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent), Amendment 4 (Search and Seizure), and Amendment 5 (trial and punishment, self-incrimination, due process, compensation for takings).
 

jujubeans

OVM Project Manager
Sorry, Leo. For one, we can read. We don't need the meaning of the Declaration of Independence interpreted to us. We already know what it means. Second, they say all MEN, not babies, and even boy babies aren't men, so trying to put your desperate literal spin on things won't work, either.

Nowhere in there does it say "life begins at creation," and even if it did, it would say "all life is created equal," or "all human life is conceived equal," but it doesn't say that, because neither is true, and neither is certainly self-evident. The framers of the Declaration of Independence did not address whether life begins at conception or not, despite you somehow seeing in there.

Nor does it say that creation and conception are one in the same, because they're not. Conceiving of something and realizing it are two different things. That's why they use two different words for it that have two very different meanings. The Conception (the concept) is the beginning of it, and the Birth (the coming into existence) is the realization of it, and everything in between are the developments of the concept into the realization of the creation.

If you really want to go and gt all literal with it, the Conception is the beginning, and everything from conception up to the point of adult manhood are the steps to get to the point of the creation of a man, because prior to becoming a man, you're not a man, you're something else, be it a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a pre-:censoredsign: or a teenager, but definitely not a man. So, according to the literal version as interpreted by Leo, you don't have the right to life until you become a man, because all men are created equal, and all that.

You can spin it anyway you like, try and justify it anyway you like, redefine and interpret whatever you want any way you want, but the bottom line is still: you are taking your own morals and beliefs, and using them to justify sticking your nose into other people's business, and telling others what to do by forcing your morals and beliefs onto them against their will.

And if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming like a little girl. If you don't believe me, read some of your own posts regarding gun control. They don't come across as being penned by someone who will easily bend to someone else's will. Yet you're trying to get others to bend to yours. What's up with that?


How do you do that? I mean, you articulate what I'm thinking. Well put Turtle!
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Turtle, so what you are saying is that women are nothing and have zero right to life. Women can be aborted at any point in their lifetime since they are equal to boy babies and according to your statement only MEN are meaningful.

Oh, and save the desparate label for someone else. I'm not desparate, just right.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
People say that, until someone else starts minding their business. If I started sticking my nose in your business, and you didn't like what I was telling you to do, you'd tell me to mind my own business. Betcha. :D

Many morality issues are society wide, they are adopted and accepted by society as a whole, and are unambiguous to the masses. They cross all boundaries of a society, be it religious, racial, economic, whatever. These are the morals of society.

There are other morals that are adopted and accepted only within certain segments of society, most notably religion, where the followers of specific religious doctrines will have morals that are based on the beliefs of those doctrines.

You will never get someone who is not an adherent of those doctrines, to adopt and accept morals which are based on those doctrines.

Doesn't matter how much you yell and scream at them, doesn't matter how you try to justify your morals and beliefs, doesn't matter how badly you want them to change their mind, unless you can convince them to believe in the basis of those moral beliefs, they will not be able to believe your morals, and thus will not adopt and accept them as their own.

If you take a step back and look at it, abortion and Islam are exactly the same. If you attack it from your point of view, from the basis of your morality, it ain't gonna happen. You won't be able to beat it into them, you won't be able to talk them into it, because you are trying to force your morals and beliefs onto them, while at the same time dismissing their morals and beliefs as irrelevant, and by extension, them.

Know thine enemy, people.

Oh, I see similarities between abortion and Islam. Millions of innoent lives imperiled by both. Of course, I don't expect any minds to be changed on the abortion issue. No matter how much lipstick abortion advocates put on this issue, it's still a pig. Abortion is not a natural right. It is an artifice of the mid and late 20th century. If it was a natural right, abortion would have been a widespread practice from the dawn of civilization.

Morality and values matter. Alot. Every society has to contend with issues of right vs. wrong. In some parts of the Islamic world, halftime entertainment at soccer games includes stonings and beheadings. Here in America, in the 1600's, women suspected of being witches were burned at the stake. It was a horrendous, barbaric act condoned by the morals and values in that time and place. Much like abortion is condoned today.

Minds cannot be changed on this topic because it's cloaked in emotioalism. There is nothing rational about killing our young.
 
Top