Reaction to Alabama's new abortion law has been varied and frankly I believe it was worded the way it was to provoke court challenges.  I believe Row vs Wade will be reviewed by the Supreme Court at some point in the future I don't think it will be the Alabama law that will be the one chosen to do it by.   Of all the unintended consequences of the Alabama law I don't think the one mentioned in this article will hurt the state too much.  Of the actual people that this article would appeal to and actually that would abide by it I doubt any of them would be coming to Alabama anyway.  Maybe they should instead make a trip to San Fransisco and help them clean up after all the homeless and vagrants that they allow to dedicate and break the law all over the city.  The people that are the type that this article would appeal to are already shoveling all kinds of excrement as it is.  

My opinion is that these people only have themselves to blame for Alabama's ban on abortion.  When Democrat controlled states like New York and Virginia pass and celebrate laws that pretty much legalize infanticide or extremely late term, up to birth, abortions then they shouldn't be surprised when it creates a backlash over it.  The liberals and Democrats stirred the pot and now they are upset at what has risen up from their stirring. 

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

Two humans, man and a woman start a pregnancy it's going to be
a human or a Democrat, either way it's wrong. 
It should've been left at the point if the life of the mother is threatened, 
rape or clone. I don't believe it would've never become a issue like
it is now.
Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

That can never happen because people have their own opinions about it based on differing medical opinions, or religious beliefs, or what they feel in their hearts sans religion. I have my own ideas and I wish we could stop all the "for convenience"..."for B/C abortions" for "spite" etc....but when you have people on the left unwilling to admit the majority of abortions are for those reasons...and have no interest in calling for personal responsibility of both males and females, the sides  will never find common ground.

Please don't get me wrong about this post but I do believe when it comes to severe illness of the pre-born fetus or life threat to the female or very early detection of pregnancy due to incest or rape then that very difficult decision should rest primarily with the birth parents and the doctor.  The woman is the one whose life is at threat or that has to actually carry the child so naturally I believe she should have primary choice.  What I think is wrong though is to, at least it seems that it's being done, totally ignore what the father wants.  What you never hear, or at least I don't, is should the father have any say in the decision process?  

Ultimatly it is the woman who bears the most risk and has to carry the child so surely she is prime but should a father (not rapist or party to incest) have any say in the matter?  I'm against any abortion done, at any time, if the reason is because the child is not wanted.  It can always be put up for adoption but to me abortion is not a form of birth control nor should it be.  

Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

This is a trap argument that we're all being fed.  It's a woman's body, it's her choice.  That's as fair and as just as we can be. That's why Roe vs Wade should be left alone.  The moral, personal responsibility, and socio-economic debates can and should be discussed, because those are causes. Abortion is a symptom.

gbrk posted:

Please don't get me wrong about this post but I do believe when it comes to severe illness of the pre-born fetus or life threat to the female or very early detection of pregnancy due to incest or rape then that very difficult decision should rest primarily with the birth parents and the doctor.  The woman is the one whose life is at threat or that has to actually carry the child so naturally I believe she should have primary choice.  What I think is wrong though is to, at least it seems that it's being done, totally ignore what the father wants.  What you never hear, or at least I don't, is should the father have any say in the decision process?  

Ultimatly it is the woman who bears the most risk and has to carry the child so surely she is prime but should a father (not rapist or party to incest) have any say in the matter?  I'm against any abortion done, at any time, if the reason is because the child is not wanted.  It can always be put up for adoption but to me abortion is not a form of birth control nor should it be.  

Oh absolutely the man has no say...and that is wrong. He should have a chance to say if he wants the child....but no...the pro-death crowd will say that is too much to ask of the woman.  It's not too much to ask if SHE wants it and he doesn't...but it's too much if the father does and he still has to pay. This is why parents of young men need to talk to them about relationships and warn them that irresponsibility could lead to them having to stand by while their child is murdered. Just like the boy below.

 ******************************

An Alabama man is suing a women’s reproductive health center on behalf of an unborn fetus, in what his lawyer claims may be the first U.S. court case to give an aborted fetus legal rights.

Ryan Magers, who says his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes, filed a lawsuit against the Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Madison Country, local CBS affiliate WHNT News 19 reported Tuesday.

Magers claims in court papers that his ex-girlfriend took a pill to end her pregnancy on Feb. 12, 2017 despite his pleas to keep the baby.

More:

http://time.com/5546703/alabam...uit-abortion-clinic/

 

Like I said.  It's a trap argument.

https://whnt.com/2019/03/05/ma...alf-of-unborn-fetus/

Helms also petitioned to represent the estate of Baby Roe.  Helms says with estate, the fetus has the right to sue under probate law in Alabama. Probate Judge Frank Barger signed off on the letter of petition allowing the reported father to represent Baby Roe’s estate.

Helms said Barger’s decision marks the first time in  the U.S. that an aborted fetus is recognized to have legal rights.

But it’s not clear if Barger knew what he was granting.

http://time.com/5546703/alabam...uit-abortion-clinic/

The case comes after Alabama passed an amendment last November that effectively gives unborn fetuses the same rights as someone who has been born. The amendment was hailed as a victory by proponents of the growing “personhood” movement, which calls for Constitutional rights to be granted from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. The same legislation also says that the Alabama constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion—language added in the event of Roe v. Wade getting overturned.

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

This is a trap argument that we're all being fed.  It's a woman's body, it's her choice.  That's as fair and as just as we can be. That's why Roe vs Wade should be left alone.  The moral, personal responsibility, and socio-economic debates can and should be discussed, because those are causes. Abortion is a symptom.

And when an eight month old fetus baby is murdered, it's his/her life and body and human rights that get violated. Again, at some point in our development, we become a human and I doubt that distinction should be made as to which side of the womb a child is on.

Oh yeah, Roe vs. Wade only covers the first trimester as an absolute time when a woman can have an abortion for any reason:

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/...nt/landmark_roe.html

I used a lefty site on purpose.

 

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

This is a trap argument that we're all being fed.  It's a woman's body, it's her choice.  That's as fair and as just as we can be. That's why Roe vs Wade should be left alone.  The moral, personal responsibility, and socio-economic debates can and should be discussed, because those are causes. Abortion is a symptom.

And when an eight month old fetus baby is murdered, it's his/her life and body and human rights that get violated. Again, at some point in our development, we become a human and I doubt that distinction should be made as to which side of the womb a child is on.

Where are the stats that say a large number of women are waiting until the eighth month of their pregnancy to decided they don't want to have their baby, without good reason?

I'll wait....

If the government can take away a woman's decision on what to do with her body, that's going to open a whole can of worms. Have you ever thought about that? Roe vs Wade should be left alone and this discussion should continue outside of the courts.

Stanky posted:

Oh yeah, Roe vs. Wade only covers the first trimester as an absolute time when a woman can have an abortion for any reason:

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/...nt/landmark_roe.html

I used a lefty site on purpose.

 

Thank you, for proving my point that Roe vs Wade should be left alone.

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

Oh yeah, Roe vs. Wade only covers the first trimester as an absolute time when a woman can have an abortion for any reason:

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/...nt/landmark_roe.html

I used a lefty site on purpose.

 

Thank you, for proving my point that Roe vs Wade should be left alone.

It also proves that states can regulate abortion past the first trimester. A trimester is about 3 months or 12 weeks. Right now states can restrict abortions after 12 weeks and outright deny abortions to protect the child after about 24 weeks.

Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

What does this have to do with anything? You're being played.  If not, and you're conscious of what this is all about, you don't care about human rights. You only care about taking control away from people and giving it to the government. Once upon a time republicans were against that sort of thing.

And you didn't answer my question about Roe vs Wade. Don't try to change the subject.

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

What does this have to do with anything? You're being played.  If not, and you're conscious of what this is all about, you don't care about human rights. You only care about taking control away from people and giving it to the government. Once upon a time republicans were against that sort of thing.

And you didn't answer my question about Roe vs Wade. Don't try to change the subject.

You seem to miss the point, in Roe v Wade, a woman only was granted an  unfettered right up to 12 weeks, after that a state can start regulating the process. The problem with Roe v Wade in some state's views is that a fetus should be called a person at half the time of the first trimester. I also should point out that rights are only such intangible things such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which Ben Franklin said you have to catch yourself. I don't think under the right of liberty that murdering a human being whose existence causes a woman some inconvenience would be allowed. A whole bunch of large fetuses would disappear if that were true. I believe that courts will allow abortions after any set time if a mother's right to life is impaired. Again, at some point we all become human and those intangible rights begin for all of us, unborn children as well.

If a state can regulate the process now, why the push to overturn Roe vs Wade?

Until a certain point of time, a fetus is still a part of it's mother.  It's still her body, her choice.  Unless you believe women are just host bodies like this guy: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...-for-pregnant-women/

Women are not host bodies. Women are not baby making machines.  Women have the right to life, libertyand the pursuit of happiness, too.  So again, if the state can regulate the process now, why the push to overturn Roe vs Wade? Why does the right wing have some many different narratives to try to justify giving the government control over a person's life?  This will be a slippery slope of government overreach.  

Jack Hammer posted:
Two humans, man and a woman start a pregnancy it's going to be
a human or a Democrat, either way it's wrong. 
It should've been left at the point if the life of the mother is threatened, 
rape or clone. I don't believe it would've never become a issue like
it is now.

Clones? Now you're bringing clones into this. I've never heard of a human being being cloned except in fiction, but if it should happen, why are you against it?

gbrk posted:

Please don't get me wrong about this post but I do believe when it comes to severe illness of the pre-born fetus or life threat to the female or very early detection of pregnancy due to incest or rape then that very difficult decision should rest primarily with the birth parents and the doctor.  The woman is the one whose life is at threat or that has to actually carry the child so naturally I believe she should have primary choice.  What I think is wrong though is to, at least it seems that it's being done, totally ignore what the father wants.  What you never hear, or at least I don't, is should the father have any say in the decision process?  

Ultimatly it is the woman who bears the most risk and has to carry the child so surely she is prime but should a father (not rapist or party to incest) have any say in the matter?  I'm against any abortion done, at any time, if the reason is because the child is not wanted.  It can always be put up for adoption but to me abortion is not a form of birth control nor should it be.  

Pre-born fetus? First no one born is a fetus; they are former fetuses. Pre-born? That assumes the fetus will be born. Many are flushed from the mother's body naturally; they're never born so they can't be pre-born.

Jutu posted:
gbrk posted:

Please don't get me wrong about this post but I do believe when it comes to severe illness of the pre-born fetus or life threat to the female or very early detection of pregnancy due to incest or rape then that very difficult decision should rest primarily with the birth parents and the doctor.  The woman is the one whose life is at threat or that has to actually carry the child so naturally I believe she should have primary choice.  What I think is wrong though is to, at least it seems that it's being done, totally ignore what the father wants.  What you never hear, or at least I don't, is should the father have any say in the decision process?  

Ultimatly it is the woman who bears the most risk and has to carry the child so surely she is prime but should a father (not rapist or party to incest) have any say in the matter?  I'm against any abortion done, at any time, if the reason is because the child is not wanted.  It can always be put up for adoption but to me abortion is not a form of birth control nor should it be.  

Oh absolutely the man has no say...and that is wrong. He should have a chance to say if he wants the child....but no...the pro-death crowd will say that is too much to ask of the woman.  It's not too much to ask if SHE wants it and he doesn't...but it's too much if the father does and he still has to pay. This is why parents of young men need to talk to them about relationships and warn them that irresponsibility could lead to them having to stand by while their child is murdered. Just like the boy below.

 ******************************

An Alabama man is suing a women’s reproductive health center on behalf of an unborn fetus, in what his lawyer claims may be the first U.S. court case to give an aborted fetus legal rights.

Ryan Magers, who says his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes, filed a lawsuit against the Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Madison Country, local CBS affiliate WHNT News 19 reported Tuesday.

Magers claims in court papers that his ex-girlfriend took a pill to end her pregnancy on Feb. 12, 2017 despite his pleas to keep the baby.

More:

http://time.com/5546703/alabam...uit-abortion-clinic/

 

Okay, you brought this "poor boy" into it. Let's look at him. He took no responsibility when he initiated sex with this young women. Neither did she. Why do you think he's any more responsible now? He didn't go to college to try to better himself. He's left the facebook pics of the young woman up so all can see who she is even if the suit hasn't made her name public. In short, he's a real jerk and not a fit father for a hamster.

This whole issue isn't about abortion. This issue is about overturning Supreme Court Decisions from that time frame. If you can get them to overturn one, you open the door to others. The true goal is Brown v Board of Ed. *read that segregation. The next thing Republicans will attack is 'diversity'. They have an endgame and they're 4 steps ahead of Democrats.

Once they can remove the segregation laws, they can funnel tax dollars straight to their charter schools and leave the 'brown kids' with public education. They have a plan and it's moving along nicely.

Naio posted:

Like I said.  It's a trap argument.

https://whnt.com/2019/03/05/ma...alf-of-unborn-fetus/

Helms also petitioned to represent the estate of Baby Roe.  Helms says with estate, the fetus has the right to sue under probate law in Alabama. Probate Judge Frank Barger signed off on the letter of petition allowing the reported father to represent Baby Roe’s estate.

Helms said Barger’s decision marks the first time in  the U.S. that an aborted fetus is recognized to have legal rights.

But it’s not clear if Barger knew what he was granting.

http://time.com/5546703/alabam...uit-abortion-clinic/

The case comes after Alabama passed an amendment last November that effectively gives unborn fetuses the same rights as someone who has been born. The amendment was hailed as a victory by proponents of the growing “personhood” movement, which calls for Constitutional rights to be granted from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. The same legislation also says that the Alabama constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion—language added in the event of Roe v. Wade getting overturned.

Most people don't consider that the fertilization personhood argument would also do away with "Plan B" since that pill prevents conception, but not fertilization. People who shout rape victims shouldn't become preggers since they can take Plan B would no longer have that argument to fall back on.

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

This is a trap argument that we're all being fed.  It's a woman's body, it's her choice.  That's as fair and as just as we can be. That's why Roe vs Wade should be left alone.  The moral, personal responsibility, and socio-economic debates can and should be discussed, because those are causes. Abortion is a symptom.

And when an eight month old fetus baby is murdered, it's his/her life and body and human rights that get violated. Again, at some point in our development, we become a human and I doubt that distinction should be made as to which side of the womb a child is on.

How can you say an 8 month fetus is the same as an  8 month baby? That's some pretty shaky math. So can I take 9 months off my age now?

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe that all the states pushing anti-abortion laws really want someone to definitively peg a starting point for when a someone is considered a human. At some point killing someone is murder. As it is now, some liberal states might as well build heated alters to Ba'al and let mothers cook baby barbecue.

This is a trap argument that we're all being fed.  It's a woman's body, it's her choice.  That's as fair and as just as we can be. That's why Roe vs Wade should be left alone.  The moral, personal responsibility, and socio-economic debates can and should be discussed, because those are causes. Abortion is a symptom.

And when an eight month old fetus baby is murdered, it's his/her life and body and human rights that get violated. Again, at some point in our development, we become a human and I doubt that distinction should be made as to which side of the womb a child is on.

How can you say an 8 month fetus is the same as an  8 month baby? That's some pretty shaky math. So can I take 9 months off my age now?

If the Supreme court agrees that brain activity means that a fetus is a person, that would be 8 months minus 6 weeks.

L. Cranston posted:

This whole issue isn't about abortion. This issue is about overturning Supreme Court Decisions from that time frame. If you can get them to overturn one, you open the door to others. The true goal is Brown v Board of Ed. *read that segregation. The next thing Republicans will attack is 'diversity'. They have an endgame and they're 4 steps ahead of Democrats.

Once they can remove the segregation laws, they can funnel tax dollars straight to their charter schools and leave the 'brown kids' with public education. They have a plan and it's moving along nicely.

The only thing that conservatives want is to stop what they see as murder. If a woman can have a child killed a second before they pop out a ******, why not a year or two after? After all people have done that in the past and some people still do that in many parts of the world. Children with defects and girls were often thrown out like garbage to die of exposure or to feed the scavengers in the Greco-Roman culture, most primitive tribes bash their heads in, and Japanese practiced "mabiki" in the past, usually smothering unwanted children. 

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

This whole issue isn't about abortion. This issue is about overturning Supreme Court Decisions from that time frame. If you can get them to overturn one, you open the door to others. The true goal is Brown v Board of Ed. *read that segregation. The next thing Republicans will attack is 'diversity'. They have an endgame and they're 4 steps ahead of Democrats.

Once they can remove the segregation laws, they can funnel tax dollars straight to their charter schools and leave the 'brown kids' with public education. They have a plan and it's moving along nicely.

The only thing that conservatives want is to stop what they see as murder. If a woman can have a child killed a second before they pop out a ******, why not a year or two after? After all people have done that in the past and some people still do that in many parts of the world. Children with defects and girls were often thrown out like garbage to die of exposure or to feed the scavengers in the Greco-Roman culture, most primitive tribes bash their heads in, and Japanese practiced "mabiki" in the past, usually smothering unwanted children. 

Babies born to slaves were used as alligator-bait in the United States. We already have laws against murder.  Again, show me the stats you have about women killing children a second before they are born. The conservative arguments against Roe vs Wade are flimsy. If a state can regulate the process now, why the push to overturn Roe vs Wade? Given the history of this country, it's wise to question the motives of some people if they can't give a straight answer and keep changing the narrative.  It's a women's body, it's her choice.

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

This whole issue isn't about abortion. This issue is about overturning Supreme Court Decisions from that time frame. If you can get them to overturn one, you open the door to others. The true goal is Brown v Board of Ed. *read that segregation. The next thing Republicans will attack is 'diversity'. They have an endgame and they're 4 steps ahead of Democrats.

Once they can remove the segregation laws, they can funnel tax dollars straight to their charter schools and leave the 'brown kids' with public education. They have a plan and it's moving along nicely.

The only thing that conservatives want is to stop what they see as murder. If a woman can have a child killed a second before they pop out a ******, why not a year or two after? After all people have done that in the past and some people still do that in many parts of the world. Children with defects and girls were often thrown out like garbage to die of exposure or to feed the scavengers in the Greco-Roman culture, most primitive tribes bash their heads in, and Japanese practiced "mabiki" in the past, usually smothering unwanted children. 

Babies born to slaves were used as alligator-bait in the United States. We already have laws against murder.  Again, show me the stats you have about women killing children a second before they are born. The conservative arguments against Roe vs Wade are flimsy. If a state can regulate the process now, why the push to overturn Roe vs Wade? Given the history of this country, it's wise to question the motives of some people if they can't give a straight answer and keep changing the narrative.  It's a women's body, it's her choice.

You mean Kermit Gosnell or George Tiller didn't perform late term abortions? In Gosnell's case part of the charges were because he performed abortions after Pennsylvania's 24 week limit along with the survivors of abortion that he murdered with scissors.

George Tiller is probably doing an eternity sentence in hell, he was one of the few abortion doctors who would murder children in the third trimester; not all states, even some liberal states, would allow late term abortions but Kansas did. He was given a really late term abortion.

I might note that even with laws and regulations, some people see themselves as above the law and probably above God as well. It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to take the new abortion cases just to set some standards, just like they did with Gay marriages.

Oh by the way, Snopes says that gator bait story is dubious.

 

Even if the alligator bait claim is dubious, it doesn't negate the history of this country.

Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder.

George Tiller: "George Tiller is probably doing an eternity sentence in hell, he was one of the few abortion doctors who would murder children in the third trimester;"  

"I might note that even with laws and regulations, some people see themselves as above the law and probably above God as well. It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to take the new abortion cases just to set some standards, just like they did with Gay marriages."

 Again, you're changing the narrative.  You haven't proved why Roe vs Wade doesn't work as it is now or why it needs to be overturned. It's a woman's body, it's her choice. 

Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

Man how upset the baby killers get when they think someone is going to interfere with their baby killing!

 

Once more John...in the rush to spew your vitriol you pick one part of a post and in true dem and your fashion make it other than it was. So he "outted" her. So what? Isn't she PROUD of her "right" to kill her baby? You're like the ones attacking prolife supporters for daring to show the horrors of abortion. How do you know what the young man's plans are?  Because he wanted his child the pro-death crowd labels him a jerk and not fit to be a father to a hamster. He is a lot more fit than the "mother" that killed it.  He should agree to drop it if she gets sterilized. So you finally admit the left feels they should say who is or isn't "fit" to have babies...and the ones they deem unfit should have abortions. See folks...more of John's and the left's "kindness".

"This is why parents of young men need to talk to them about relationships and warn them that irresponsibility could lead to them having to stand by while their child is murdered".

 

Naio posted:

Even if the alligator bait claim is dubious, it doesn't negate the history of this country.

Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder.

George Tiller: "George Tiller is probably doing an eternity sentence in hell, he was one of the few abortion doctors who would murder children in the third trimester;"  

"I might note that even with laws and regulations, some people see themselves as above the law and probably above God as well. It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to take the new abortion cases just to set some standards, just like they did with Gay marriages."

 Again, you're changing the narrative.  You haven't proved why Roe vs Wade doesn't work as it is now or why it needs to be overturned. It's a woman's body, it's her choice. 

Going back to the gay marriage comparison, the Supreme Court interjected itself into what was formerly a state issue as to how handle marriage in each state with its own national standards. People from other states that allowed gay marriage who moved to states that didn't were upset that their new state didn't acknowledge their marriage. Now to the abortion issue, many states try to restrict abortions after the first trimester and most states essentially ban third trimester abortions. "Mothers" who wanted an abortion that they couldn't get in their own state simply went to another state even though the baby would be considered a person by law in the state she left. Some national standards might be in order.

As to the baby being part of the woman, nope, half of the genes are from someone else. Tapeworms wouldn't be part of a woman either.

Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

YOU are the one who first mentioned brain wave activity as indicative of life. The point is, without using, or even when using, the Bible, no one can say when life begins. That's unless you or others want to say you know as much as God.

Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

YOU are the one who first mentioned brain wave activity as indicative of life. The point is, without using, or even when using, the Bible, no one can say when life begins. That's unless you or others want to say you know as much as God.

If we're going by the Biblical definition, I'd say this was pretty clear...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.        Genesis 2:7

Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

YOU are the one who first mentioned brain wave activity as indicative of life. The point is, without using, or even when using, the Bible, no one can say when life begins. That's unless you or others want to say you know as much as God.

Pardon me, the whole point of the abortion issue is when is a person a human and what standard do we use to determine the starting point. At some point between the zygote stage and the rotting flesh stage we are human beings and politicians are given the job of filling in for God and determining the start and end of it all. The problem is do we use an arbitrary date pulled out of a politician's rectum or a biological stage.

Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

YOU are the one who first mentioned brain wave activity as indicative of life. The point is, without using, or even when using, the Bible, no one can say when life begins. That's unless you or others want to say you know as much as God.

Pardon me, the whole point of the abortion issue is when is a person a human and what standard do we use to determine the starting point. At some point between the zygote stage and the rotting flesh stage we are human beings and politicians are given the job of filling in for God and determining the start and end of it all. The problem is do we use an arbitrary date pulled out of a politician's rectum or a biological stage.

That depends on if Republicans intend to govern by religion or science, doesn't it?

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×