Abortion is MURDER!!!!
- Thread starter Stoney
- Start date
Can't argue w/ logic. I would only condone this act if a woman is raped and chooses abortion as an out. But, something good can come from the bad situation...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
As long as it keeps the black population under control then Dems are fine with it.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
Yes I believe it is. I won't make that moral judgment for anyone else though. I would never have one if I was a woman except in the case of legitimate medical threat to my life or in case of a rape. I would counsel my daughter against having one. Abortion as birth control is abhorrent. While I will not make the moral judgment for you and try to stop you from having one I refuse to pay for it on moral grounds. So do not involve me via tax funded subsidies to the billion dollar a year abortion mill industry.
Would you not make a moral judgment against the Nazis for killing the Jews? Sorry DBS, I see your point, but I'm sick of the cop-out answers (I wouldn't have one, but it's not for me to tell others not to; I'm a guy, so I really don't have a say; etc). Murder is murder, and it is our responsibility to stop it.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
There is some scientific debate on when a fetus is more than a lump of cell tissue. To say that removal of a cell mass without even brainwaves is the same as murdering millions of people is a specious argument.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
I could argue that many liberals are lacking brainwaves....but we can't go kill 55 million of them.
I see your point, but I just don't buy that line of thinking. As soon as the egg is fertilized, the brain stem and spinal cord immediately begins to form. Life has started at that point. Besides, German "scientists" argued the Jews weren't human, but a sub species, so the comparison still is valid. Even with the rape/incest aspect of abortion, I can't justify it. One murder doesn't make another horrible crime better. Where I believe we fail as a society (besides allowing the slaughter of the babies) is that we need to do a better job of being a support system for girls that are truly victims of rape/incest, they will need not only physical, but psychological help for the rest of their lives.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 113
Well, good for Alabama!
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/protection-for-children-includes-unborn/#rgd8jGzJWFfSl20R.99
Protection for 'children' includes unborn
Court opines, 'Our Creator, not government,' gives natural rights
Published: 2 hours ago
Bob Unruh
A remarkable opinion in a ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama that is bound to be quoted in abortion disputes declares the unborn are protected by rights granted by God to every human being.
“Our Creator, not government, gives to all people ‘unalienable’ natural rights,” the opinion asserts, arguing that state laws protecting children after birth also cover the unborn.
The concurrent opinion by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who once fought the state over the display of the Ten Commandments, says: “As stated by James Wilson, one of the first justices on the United States Supreme Court: ‘Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.’”
Moore noted the “first right listed in the Declaration as among our unalienable rights is the right to ‘Life.’”
“Blackstone wrote that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb,’” he wrote.
The case at hand dealt with a woman, Sarah Janie Hicks, who was charged after her newborn tested positive for drugs. She had pleaded guilty to a count of violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute. Her conviction was affirmed.
“We … hold that the use of the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn, and furthers Alabama’s policy of protecting life from the earliest stages of development,” the majority opinion said.
The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which represents pro-life organizations, submitted a brief in the case.
“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.
Staver said the opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker “are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions.”
“One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards,” he said. ‘Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.”
The 8-1 decision affirmed the position adopted by the court a year ago. In that case, Ankrom v. State, the court ruled the term “child” includes the “unborn child.”
Read about the inside of the abortion industry, in “Unplanned,” see what happens when people learn the truth, in “180.”
Hicks argued “that the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child.”
It’s the argument regularly put forward by activists for abortion.
The court said “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.”
The opinion goes on to argue that “the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”
Moore wrote: “God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons these inherent natural rights.”
“Government, in fact, has no power to abridge or destroy natural rights God directly besets to mankind and indeed no power to contravene what God declares right or wrong.”
Moore said that as “the gift of God, this right to life is not subject to violation by another’s unilateral choice.”
“States have an affirmative duty to protect unborn human life under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.
The statement alluded to the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that created the right to abortion in America.
Blackmun admitted that if a fetus was ever determined to be a human being, the landmark case would collapse.
“If this suggestion of personhood is established,” Blackmun wrote. “[Jane Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the amendment.””
Moore said that because a human life “with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights encompasses the moment of conception.”
“Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family,” he said, “derives ultimately from the laws of nature and nature’s God, who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill.’”
Parker said that in contrast “to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, Alabama’s reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme Court’s violation of the law of noncontradiction.”
“Liberty will continue to find no refuge in abortion jurisprudence until courts refuse to violate the law of noncontradiction and, like Alabama, recognize an unborn child’s inalienable right to life at every point in time and in every respect,” he said.
He blasted the regulations in many states that allow early-term abortions while banning late-term procedures.
“The unborn child cannot logically be a separate and distinct human for the purposes of one abortion procedure but not another. Protecting the unborn child’s right to life at all stages of development would eliminate the contradictory reasoning of the court’s abortion decisions and dispel the shroud of doubt obscuring the unborn child’s right to life.”
He said that because an unborn child “has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but also to life itself at all stages of development.”
“Treating an unborn child as a separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our deepest sense of morality.”
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/protection-for-children-includes-unborn/#rgd8jGzJWFfSl20R.99
Protection for 'children' includes unborn
Court opines, 'Our Creator, not government,' gives natural rights
Published: 2 hours ago
Bob Unruh
A remarkable opinion in a ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama that is bound to be quoted in abortion disputes declares the unborn are protected by rights granted by God to every human being.
“Our Creator, not government, gives to all people ‘unalienable’ natural rights,” the opinion asserts, arguing that state laws protecting children after birth also cover the unborn.
The concurrent opinion by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who once fought the state over the display of the Ten Commandments, says: “As stated by James Wilson, one of the first justices on the United States Supreme Court: ‘Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.’”
Moore noted the “first right listed in the Declaration as among our unalienable rights is the right to ‘Life.’”
“Blackstone wrote that ‘[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb,’” he wrote.
The case at hand dealt with a woman, Sarah Janie Hicks, who was charged after her newborn tested positive for drugs. She had pleaded guilty to a count of violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute. Her conviction was affirmed.
“We … hold that the use of the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn, and furthers Alabama’s policy of protecting life from the earliest stages of development,” the majority opinion said.
The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which represents pro-life organizations, submitted a brief in the case.
“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.
Staver said the opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker “are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions.”
“One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards,” he said. ‘Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child.”
The 8-1 decision affirmed the position adopted by the court a year ago. In that case, Ankrom v. State, the court ruled the term “child” includes the “unborn child.”
Read about the inside of the abortion industry, in “Unplanned,” see what happens when people learn the truth, in “180.”
Hicks argued “that the word ‘child’ in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child.”
It’s the argument regularly put forward by activists for abortion.
The court said “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.”
The opinion goes on to argue that “the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”
Moore wrote: “God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons these inherent natural rights.”
“Government, in fact, has no power to abridge or destroy natural rights God directly besets to mankind and indeed no power to contravene what God declares right or wrong.”
Moore said that as “the gift of God, this right to life is not subject to violation by another’s unilateral choice.”
“States have an affirmative duty to protect unborn human life under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.
The statement alluded to the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that created the right to abortion in America.
Blackmun admitted that if a fetus was ever determined to be a human being, the landmark case would collapse.
“If this suggestion of personhood is established,” Blackmun wrote. “[Jane Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the amendment.””
Moore said that because a human life “with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights encompasses the moment of conception.”
“Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family,” he said, “derives ultimately from the laws of nature and nature’s God, who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill.’”
Parker said that in contrast “to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, Alabama’s reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme Court’s violation of the law of noncontradiction.”
“Liberty will continue to find no refuge in abortion jurisprudence until courts refuse to violate the law of noncontradiction and, like Alabama, recognize an unborn child’s inalienable right to life at every point in time and in every respect,” he said.
He blasted the regulations in many states that allow early-term abortions while banning late-term procedures.
“The unborn child cannot logically be a separate and distinct human for the purposes of one abortion procedure but not another. Protecting the unborn child’s right to life at all stages of development would eliminate the contradictory reasoning of the court’s abortion decisions and dispel the shroud of doubt obscuring the unborn child’s right to life.”
He said that because an unborn child “has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but also to life itself at all stages of development.”
“Treating an unborn child as a separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our deepest sense of morality.”
I
Idioteque
Guest
Immediately after egg fertilization, the embryo has its full set of human chromosomes. Barring an abnormality, that's 23 of Mom's chromosomes, 23 of Dad's. If chromosomes are the map that makes us who we are, then killing a human organism with a full human chromosomal map is a murderous act than cannot be further qualified. The discussion ends there, unless we want to talk about whether it's OK to kill a living human child for the sake of our own convenience and happiness. Sure, we can pick an arbitrary point like the heart or the lungs. But our lungs don't make us who we are any more than our toenails do. Our chromosomes do.
"No one should be punished with a baby." -- Bomma, 2008
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
I still do not understand the argument for abortion. "I was too lazy to swallow a pill or make my BF wrap his Johnson, so I want to kill something that eventually will (or already is) a human being". How can someone say that with a straight face? I kind of get the rape part, but lets face it that is not what this is about. Its about chicks who feel like it is not time to start a family yet and oooops she has one in the oven. Well here is a newsflash for her, life is kind of funny like that. Sometimes **** happens for a reason, and that reason is not some sign that you need to visit a shady Dr. whose office has a back room with 1,000 fetus's stuffed in a trash compactor to have your **** vacuumed out.
Tell us how you really feel. I don't think I got your point.
I used to be for abortion until I got pregnant (out of wedlock, I might add). I had considered getting an abortion almost immediately, but then when I went to the doctor for my first ultrasound and saw the tiniest little bean on the screen, I changed my mind. (I was about 5 weeks along when I went to get the ultrasound due to past medical history, so it wasn't like I was in my 3rd trimester or anything). I now have a 16 year old daughter because I changed my mind.
Tell us how you really feel. I don't think I got your point.
I used to be for abortion until I got pregnant (out of wedlock, I might add). I had considered getting an abortion almost immediately, but then when I went to the doctor for my first ultrasound and saw the tiniest little bean on the screen, I changed my mind. (I was about 5 weeks along when I went to get the ultrasound due to past medical history, so it wasn't like I was in my 3rd trimester or anything). I now have a 16 year old daughter because I changed my mind.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
There is no "scientific debate on when a fetus is more than a lump of cell tissue". When sperm and egg join, a complete genetic code of an individual human being is created. By the time a woman realizes she is pregnant at around 5 weeks, brain, spinal cord and heart have begun to develop. A 7 week fetus has a brain with 5 distinct sections, cranial nerves, a detectable heart beat and a vascular system. Arm and leg buds are visible. Ear and eye structures have begun to form. Hardly "a lump of cell tissue", and certainly not anything there is any scientific debate over. It might ease peoples' conscience to imagine they are doing nothing more than flushing away a clump of cells like a wart or a tumor, unfortunately in the vast majority of abortions that's not factual.
My take is that the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that abortion was legal. One can argue that is was a flawed decision on several levels* but it is what it is. As such, there are two ways to change it. One, get some more pro-life justices on the Supreme Court and reverse Roe v. Wade on another case. Two, Constitutional amendment. We will never get rid of enough Democrats to do either so I don't concern myself too much with it and concentrate on taxes, the economy, and why Bomma sucks.
* Would've been hilarious if the SC struck down BommaCare because of the "right to privacy", citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.
* Would've been hilarious if the SC struck down BommaCare because of the "right to privacy", citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Sadly I agree with you, laws will likely never be changed, we can only hope to restrict the most egregious, barbaric abortion practices, and change hearts and minds.
It depends. Bomma can change BommaCare and immigration laws all he wants to after the fact it seems.
K
khruuton
Guest
Wow! Fantastic points by everyone in this thread. Ron, I'm following OFTB here, too. You're right. It's unfortunately law and it's our duty to change that law.
I hear you khru, but good luck with that.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Tell that to a woman who is gang raped and then forced to carry one of her multiple rapists' babies for 9 months and then give birth to it. I'm against abortion in most cases, but not this one, provided they do it quickly while the baby is still a mass of cells. Nobody should have to be put through that, I don't care what religious standpoint you look at it from. That would be a form of torture IMO.
