It's obvious Abortion is wrong

You keep adding another quote. I keep telling you that you don't need it. But if you want to look like a stupid stubborn mule then go right ahead. As to your sentence of course I'm pro life as far as the woman is concerned. If the pregnancy immediately indangers the life of the mother then do what is needed to save her life. However a case like that doesn't even make 1% of the reasons people get abortions. Thanks to modern medicine pregnancies are very safe.

I don't believe women should have the right to take away innocent life and as well as men. Just curious but what are your thoughts on gun control?

Good. Then help me stop abortion.

They shouldn't. It takes away innocent life.

 

If it had nothing to do with Mexicans then I'm right according to your logic.

 

The SCOTUS have been wrong and reversed rulings before.

The court ruled "separate but equal". By your logic and your attitude you're saying that what ever the courts rule its right and just.

- - - Updated - - -

No I don't. Do you?

 

So do I have the right to murder someone in my own home? What does having the right to kill an innocent life have anything to do with right to privacy?

 

Scientifically there is no such thing as murder. Murder is a legal term not a scientific one...furthermore the guilt or innocence of the fetus is irrelevant, just because a person has no intent or knowledge that they are injuring you does not mean they have the right to do so, nor does it change the reality that you can defend yourself up to and including deadly force.

I suggest you learn your terms pro-abortin means in favour of abortion
Pro-choice means in favour of allowing the female the choice to have an abortion or not.

Pro-life is the biggest pile of horse crappie, the reality is you are pro-forced pregnancy and birth.

 

I agree but the Democrats aren't arguing for unrestricted abortion that I am aware of.

 

You have the right to defend yourself in your own home, you have the right to defend yourself against any and all non consented injury even if the person injuring you had no intent or knowledge to the injuries they are causing .. the lack of intent or know ledge in no way diminishes your right to defend yourself.

Your lack of understanding of your own laws and constitution is outstanding

Neither have you shown that the unborn are innocent .. which by the way is also a legal term which apparently means nothing to you .... except of course when you think it bolsters your failed argument

 

Clue: """I think I know things no human on Earth today knows. Not only is this true for today, but things I think I know today are far beyond any experience in human history.""


Uh,ya, allrighty then.......

 

Thank you for admitting being unaware of the abortion ANYTIME Democratic Platform.
They do not limit the period women should have the right. This is legal definition of "unrestricted abortion".

----------=============================================================-------------------------------
. . . . Yes, the U.S. Constitution grants this right VERY specifically. The "okay" to remove rights from U.S. citizens due to an opinion is guaranteed explicitly only when not violating individual rights enumerated elsewhere in the U.S.Constitution. When two fundamental, individual rights are considered and exercising one human right requires violating the individual human rights of another; the value of these rights in comparison is, or once was, dependent on a "jury of your peers".

. . . . People have been fighting to repeal RvW since decided and will continue to do so until this gestation regulation becomes honorable in the OPINION of most of your peers. Gestation regulation(s) require weighing the individual human right to control "consent" against the individual human right to life. Neither of these rights are enumerated but are implied by every other enumerated right and common sense.

. . . . 1. Catholics and a few others desire to protect sperm or egg cells, as if these were persons. Sperm or egg cells are not people and this argument is unintelligent and equates oral sex to cannibalism.
, , , , 2. Catholics and many others desire to protect a zygote or the cell resulting from conception.The zygote is not a person and this argument is unintelligent but makes great bumper stickers.
, , , , 3. Catholics and still more others desire to protect an embryo. An embryo is not a person and may often be frozen and stored for later usage or disposal. Protecting an embryo as a person would make IVF illegal and prohibit most of the earlier type stem-cell research.
, , , , 4. Catholics and a super-majority of Arkansas citizens wished to protect the Fetus as a person. The Fetus is the first time since human gestation began that a new person exists and may no longer be frozen without being killed. A frozen Fetus is a dead Fetus just as a frozen citizen is a dead citizen. A Fetus is a complete person with organs differentiated but not yet fully operational. The placenta has replaced the corpus luteum as the producer of progesterone and has begun nourishing the new person for continued growth and sustenance. Umbilical life-support has first begun but until the gestation has reached 19-24 weeks the Fetus may not yet be removed from umbilical life-support. The genes contributed by the sperm controls formation of the placenta (as discovered in 2013) and the two humans who mated have first become a new human entitled to dignity and State protection.

. . . . SCOTUS did not yet fully realize this and the "liberal" position allowing 100% control of gestation has begun to develop within the Democratic Platform as follows from p25:

Abortion of undesired gestation is mentioned ten pages later on p36 as follows though coded as...
reproductive health where reproductive health=artificial abortion of gestation:

Abortion ANYTIME is pushed again on p46

YES; The Constitution requires the fundamental right to continue living be protected from the Democratic Platform and require mental and physical health of Fetuses be balanced with the mental and physical health of the host females.

This is the end of two-party politics in the US.

 

I am challenging your claim to care about humanity. There are thousands of children that will never see the inside of a loving home and will never know what it feels like to be cherished by a loving parent.

Abortion only applies to "unwanted" pregnancy. That leads to unwanted fetuses and eventually unwanted children. You don't want them either. You only care up until you actually have to do something. That is the same as not caring at all.

You can claim to be a highly intelligent person who cares about humanity, but your actions show otherwise.

I will be here to call you out in this thread and the next. You simply don't care.

 

Yes it has.

I'm not saying that at all. I simply corrected your claim that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. I demonstrated you were wrong. Completely wrong.

Again, you just make stuff up. Why?

Well, I have a JD, taught law at the college level and have practiced law for quite some time. I am not a scholar when it comes to Constitutional Law, as that is reserved for those that spend significant time studying, researching, writing (and having those writings published in peer reviewed legal journals) about that subject. I do suspect, however, that I have forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you will ever know.

 

Abortion using this process is unamerican - They should be shot instead.

 

If you want to change the Constitution to suit your theist beliefs there is nothing stopping you from trying to doing so. No point in wasting your time posting here because that won't change anything at all.

Get back to us when you can convince women to give up their constitutional rights, m'kay?

 

If you wake up in your own home and discover an unwanted person in your home filling a bag full of loot you have the right to shoot them (in most jurisdictions) because you have a reasonable fear that they might be armed. You do not know 100% that they are armed, or are willing to shoot you, but if there is the slightest possibility that this unwanted person may be willing to cause harm to get what he wants then you have every right to use lethal force to stop them. That is an actual person you would be killing. The zygote/embryo/fetus is only a potential person.

 

NO where in that whole rant did you show that Democrats want women to have an abortion at anytime in the pregnancy....


Curtis: """Abortion ANYTIME is pushed again on p46

We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world. """"




WHERE is it.........???? WHERE does it say that Democrats want women to have abortions at anytime in their pregnancy?



Now, I do NOT mind if abortion was without any time restrictions

BUT YOU haven't shown anywhere that Democrats are trying to lift time restrictions....




SHOW the EXACT phrase, I don't see it.........all I see is Democrats protecting women's rights from those who wish to make women nothing more than broodstock.

 

Do NOT PM me ever again.



I showed you are "misinformed " on what Democrats want .

You have NO proof of what you claim.....and a sneaky PM won't change that.

 

And the actions must be harmful enough to qualify for deadly force, which pregnancy isn't. Plus I a real self defense situation the courts will look down on you if you say "I shot to kill". You don't shoot to kill you shoot to stop the threat and if the assailant dies then so be it. That's not the point of abortion. The sole objective in 99% of the abortions is to kill the human being.

Then we are talking about the same thing.

Ditto only apply it to abortion.

 

You don't have the to murder someone in your own home and that's what I said originally. Pregnancy is no excuse to kill someone.

Ditto.

Innocent means not committed a crime. Name one felony an unborn child commits.

- - - Updated - - -

Address that in PM.

 

Conveniency isn't a justifiable cause for deadly force.

That's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about whether they should or not.

I never said that. What I said is that you advocate that woman should BE ABLE to get an abortion if they want.

That's what I said only I call it pro abortion.

 

No what you demonstrated was a court ruling.

I don't.

And there's pro lifer with the same credentials.

- - - Updated - - -

Get back to me when killing an innocent life is a constitutional right.

- - - Updated - - -

This false premise assumes a pregnancy is justifiable for self defense. Statistically speaking no one who gets an abortion do so under the pretense of self defense so your point is moot.

 

By that definition God is the biggest abortionist of all - nearly half the eggs fertilized never implant http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/15/health/a-common-link-in-failed-pregnancies.html

In fact 75% of fertilized eggs do not become pregnancies
30% fail in the first 1-2 weeks
10% miscarry first trimester
5% second trimester
1% third trimester
http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm