Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

Well put and true

 

Irrelevant comment. The evidence is there for all to see.... violations of the 9th and 10 amendments which you just cast aside lie it is meaning less. Very short sighted on your part. You given the chance would eliminate our republican form of government in which every state large and small should be represented by at least 3 people; 1+ representatives according to population and 2 senators from each state regardless of population. Not an all powerful judiciary being the highest authority in the land. The 3 branches are no more than equal.

 

I have never claimed it was, but the states took that responsibility because it was not authorized by the federal government to do so.

You have it backwards, the states and the people have ALL THE RIGHTS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION. As the 10th specifically says the states/people have all the rights NOT GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION. Numeration relates only to the authority as written in the constitution.

I don't watch video clips! Post the text or forget it.

 

Great article. Proves my contention about Post Abortion Syndrome.
"Mental Problems
In a study of post-abortion patients only eight weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% of patients complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decisions, and 11 % had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. 7

Research further shows that women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortionhttp://wrtl.org/abortion/problems-after-abortion/

These people will promote anything to support their opinions, true or not.

One article is comforting. Especially the last paragraph.

"Several states have sent clear signals that they will outlaw the practice as soon as they are constitutionally free to do so. But pro-life activists in a larger number of states will find it difficult to muster the requisite support for making abortion a crime. Still, whatever the future of Roe or the Supreme Court's stand on abortion in general, it is safe to predict that many states will continue to enact barriers, passing new laws to test the parameters of abortion rights."

The point is: If at once if you don't succeed try again, and again, and eventually there will be a new court which understand their constitutional position.

 

Maybe I should respond Robert. RO, you have no proof it does not. No more than you have proof that God does not exist or that Science has yet to prove either for or against Deism, or that a fertilized egg is not a person at that moment. Person, zygote, fetus, baby et al are all semantics with no proof they are anything but the preferred way to dehumanize the baby. It won't work.

- - - Updated - - -

Which opens the door for a major change since solid residence has not yet been established.

 

Wrong!

 

Simple, as the federal government gets more power it subverts the rights of the states and the people. So far Robert has used no deflections. Not true about the other side of the argument.

Please try and stay on topic.

You are entitled to your opinion but the facts are the facts and no amount of deflections are going to alter them one iota.[/QUOTE]

 

Your explanation how it worked was not the real deal. <Mod Edit>

- - - Updated - - -

<Reply to Deleted>

 

Those are all religious concepts (including the concept that the soul binds to the fertilized egg at conception. That is why you have absolutely no proof, and that is why the government has no right to impose your religious view over any other religious view. Why not push the states to pass laws to enforce your favorite type of baptism on the rest of the public while you are at it?

Science can demonstrate that the brain is incapable of supporting personhood until the last few weeks of gestation (and even then any actual thought is suppressed by the environment of the womb). Can you demonstrate that a zygote has a mind, spirit, or soul?

Pro-life advocates can use religion to bully the weak-minded with slogans like "abortion is murder" but people are starting to realize that even the pro-life zealots like Ted Cruz don't believe it or they would be pushing for the same penalties as any other murder.

 

We all know by now how much you resent religious reasons and causes.

I really believe this argument is not religious at all. Life can be argued to preserve and not once speak of religion.

For some of us, medical rules are not our lexicon. Me for instance. I don't particularly like saying fetus. My wives never talked that way when pregnant.

Both of them really looked forward to the daughters. The moms never told me the baby injured them so that is a bogus argument by some posters. Can you just imagine that those same posters telling their own moms how much they harmed them as a baby in the womb?

That would make for great conversation with ones own mom. Hey Mom, I am sorry I injured you as I was in the womb.

 

I would let the thread die....if the ridiculous circular posts and sappy inane personal stories for 80 pages aren't enough when someone posts "No more than you have proof that God does not exist you know that debate is not really possible.

 

I'll say it again .. the argument is based on the pro-life ideology of personhood from conception, as it stands the unborn are not deemed as full persons under US law and as such there is no need for the self-defence argument because according to the law abortion does not kill a person .. that is the reason Halliford's case failed. IF pro-lifers get the unborn to be deemed as persons from conception then THAT opens the door for the self-defence argument.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an abortion forum ie issues and debates concerning the unborn, not the born, so 100% off topic and irrelevant

- - - Updated - - -

Correct .. however that right does not allow it to impose onto another person without consent, just as you cannot impose onto another person without their consent in order to sustain your life.

 

I accept murder is immoral, abortion is not murder .. <Mod Edit>

Do you exclude war, executions and self-defence killings from being murder?

There was no law created by the Roe decision, yet another misconception of pro-lifers, neither were the 9th and 10th Amendments ignored. The 9th in reality actually protects abortion. The history of the Constitution reveals the purpose of the Ninth and the Founders' intent: to protect what constitutional lawyers call unenumerated rights -- those rights the Founder assumed and felt no need to specify in the Bill of Rights. Unenumerated rights include, for example, the right to privacy. In the America of today, unenumerated rights account for freedoms like a woman's right to abortion. As to the 10th the rights of the individual American citizen as outlined in the Constitution and its amendments trump the state's rights argument. The right has already been determined to be provided by the US Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Incorrect <Mod Edit>

 

Except that they are not, and BTW you have a constitutional democratic republic form of government, which is is a type of government based on the principles of a constitution in which officials elected by the people represent the people in the legislative and governing processes. A constitutional republic is not a direct democracy in that a mere plurality of the voters does not get to control the processes of the government directly.

Wrong.

 

Perhaps you should read Roe and actually understand it.

 

Wrong, the male and/or female have no legal obligation to use contraception, neither does the female have any obligation to allow her body to be used by another person without her consent.

<Mod Edit>

The consent one person gives to another does not give yet another person any right to assume they have consent as well.

 

<Rule 3>

human beings have many designations throughout their life time, baby is not one used during the period of pregnancy,

<Rule 3>

 

Rubbish, evidence that the states can restrict abortions lies in the reality that an elective third trimester abortion cannot be performed any where in the US, add to this waiting periods, parental notification, and now hospital admittance rights, all of those are design to place restrictions onto abortion.

Your morality has no bearing on peoples rights. I find it immoral to promote forcing a female to remain pregnant and give birth against her consent .. yet you seem to believe that it is ok to do that.

 

Cherry picking again I see. "but depression is more common (13&#8211;41%). (part of the PTSD SUFFERED." You need to read this simple description of PTSD (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

http://alothealth.com/conditions/ptsd-symptoms--9847

Plus, psychosis goes a lot further than what you believe. While in graduate school we learned that a simple definition of psychosis.

"Psychosis refers to an abnormal condition of the mind described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". Psychosis is generally the term given to noticeable deficits in normal behavior (negative signs) and more commonly to diverse types of hallucinations or delusional beliefs, particularly with regard to the relation between self and others as in grandiosity and pronoia or paranoia."

<Mod Edit>

 

So you will back up the slaughter of Alzheimer patients because they can't think rationally? <Mod Edit>

 

Twisting my words again. How nice of you.[/quote]

I do care about morality, MY OWN. I don't think other people's morality is any of my business and that the way it should be.[/QUOTE]So other people can steal, cheat, and murder and you are not concerned?

 

More twisting of words. And I vehemently disagree that it is not a baby being murdered in the womb. First recognize there are several types of murder, then recognize that many women suffer from post abortion disorders sufficient to be punishment, probably a much higher % that is reported. Unless the N in a study is everyone, there will be no consensus..

 

I think I already responded to this point, but in any case you obviously don't understand my point. When I say a mind exists I'm not talking about a really sophisticated one by human standards, only that a mind exists at all. People with alzheimer's have minds. An early fetus does not. Really the only vulnerability to this argument is that it would imply that animals should have rights since they clearly have minds in at least a rudimentary sense. And while I'm not a vegetarian, I would concede that I can't make a logical moral argument against animal rights. A person would by definition both have a mind and human dna, but morally I'm not sure if the human dna should make any kind of difference.

 

Murder is the illegal taking of another person's life.

A fetus is not a baby and it is not a person.

People suffer depression for all kinds of reasons...none of which are considered "punishment".

No one should suffer a punishment for having a medical procedure.

 

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

If that is what a state wants then it should leave the Union of the UNITED States.

The federal law defends the Constitution and the states cannot override the Constitution.

If you want to make women slaves you'll have to go to the Supreme Court, the states can't do that