|
|
Post by thewholetruth on Sept 13, 2008 9:17:11 GMT -5
If the life "never quite got started", then what is there to kill? The life is started, my friend. Every human life starts at fertilization, and ends at death. That is a biological fact, not a matter of opinion. Perhaps if you were honest with yourself about this - that indeed the child's life had already started, which is why Mom wants to kill him or her - you wouldn't be prokillthebaby. It's not about choice. It's about one choice: killing your baby before they're born. Intellectual dishonesty is what facilitates Liberals' support of killing babies before they're born... I some how doubt that you will see a Constitutional Amendment that bans the practice of abortion. I am personally pro-choice, however, my choice is life. Just because a baby has not fully deveolped yet does not mean that I believe it does not have rights. I just feel that with the number of people seeking to adopt, there are far greater options then just ending a life that never quite qot started. |
|
|
|
Post by thewholetruth on Sept 13, 2008 9:20:13 GMT -5
I echo the kudos for your comments, Len, but I had to tell you that I love your tag, bro. ;D The fact is that the Supreme Court created law when they handed down the Roe decision. And, that, my friend, is a clear contravention of the Constitution. The Consitution was very clear that laws originated in the Legislature, not the Judiciary. That's what the debate is about. In my ignorance of civics I still put forth the idea that the Supremes didn't "create law" so much as used precedence based on decisions from previous court cases. They built the law step by step for 200 years, starting with Marbury v. Madison which kind of says the law is what the judge says it is. At the same time, I don't agree with the folks who deny that there is a "right" to abortion because that right was not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear (again) that it is not an exhaustive list of rights for the individuals, just a list of rights for the government. The Tenth Amendment says: Prepositions have always confused me, like "for the" and "of the". As I understand it, the Constitution is a blueprint for the government to run upon (see? Ending in a preposition STILL makes me not to clear! Rats!). The Constitution does not "touch" the people, except in the Amendments which are TO the Constitution. These Amendments define the relationship between the government (Constitution) and US folks. It's kind of like the Constitution is an internal document telling those rascals "how" the government should run itself, and the reaching out to US from that document are The Amendments, or changes from the internal machinations of the government out to we, the people. The Amendments are mostly a list of DON'TS directed TO the government. So if folks want to have abortions and claim it as a "right" because the government said "No abortions", then the Supremes weigh in (with precedent case law) and agree with the people and not the government laws saying "no abortions", the government cannot stop them. It's wrong and stupid to have an abortion, but then so is voting for Obama. But folks are able to do that. Anyway, maybe this makes sense, but I won't read it again, even after my first cuppa. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Sept 13, 2008 11:07:24 GMT -5
If the life "never quite got started", then what is there to kill? The life is started, my friend. Every human life starts at fertilization, and ends at death. That is a biological fact, not a matter of opinion. Perhaps if you were honest with yourself about this - that indeed the child's life had already started, which is why Mom wants to kill him or her - you wouldn't be prokillthebaby. It's not about choice. It's about one choice: killing your baby before they're born. Intellectual dishonesty is what facilitates Liberals' support of killing babies before they're born... I some how doubt that you will see a Constitutional Amendment that bans the practice of abortion. I am personally pro-choice, however, my choice is life. Just because a baby has not fully deveolped yet does not mean that I believe it does not have rights. I just feel that with the number of people seeking to adopt, there are far greater options then just ending a life that never quite qot started. What I find interesting is that the left is so quick to save the life of whales, trees, and criminals. Interesting set of priorities. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 13, 2008 20:28:17 GMT -5
Surefire, it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body. I don't agree with killing or girls who would use this as an option for birth control, but I do believe in the right to privacy. There is rape, incest, health risk that should be the option of the woman, with support from her doctor & preacher if she needed them to make this decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Sept 13, 2008 20:40:36 GMT -5
Surefire, it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body. I don't agree with killing or girls who would use this as an option for birth control, but I do believe in the right to privacy. There is rape, incest, health risk that should be the option of the woman, with support from her doctor & preacher if she needed them to make this decision. I partially agree. I don't think its an all or nothing issue. There are some cases, such as health risk, etc..... Birth control should never be one of them though. There is always the option of adoption. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 13, 2008 22:12:26 GMT -5
I agree with adoption as an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 13, 2008 22:24:01 GMT -5
Surefire, it's not that the Left is for killing babies no, of course it's not the left who is for killing babies. now you owe me a new keyboard! |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 13, 2008 22:56:42 GMT -5
Mink wrote: "it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body."
"Their body." The problem is that the fetus is NOT part of the womans body. Yes, it is connected, and yes it is growing inside the womans body, but genetically it is a seperate and unique individual. It isn;t like cutting out a cancerous tumor.
And, what about the rights of the father? He contributed half the genetic material, why doesn't he have a say?
As far as the health of the mother, there are very few who would say that abortion is wrong if it is needed to save the life of the mother. Ditto for rape and incest.
And yes, it IS the left that is in favor of killing babies, or old people, or sick people, yet go into fits at the thought of a tree being cut down or someone like Richard Allan Davis or Ramon Salcedo in about to be executed. (a bit of irony here - the left pushes for euthanising elderly and/or termianlly ill people, but wants to ban guns because they are such good tools for suicide)
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Sept 13, 2008 23:07:39 GMT -5
Mink wrote: "it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body." "Their body." The problem is that the fetus is NOT part of the womans body. Yes, it is connected, and yes it is growing inside the womans body, but genetically it is a seperate and unique individual. It isn;t like cutting out a cancerous tumor. And, what about the rights of the father? He contributed half the genetic material, why doesn't he have a say? As far as the health of the mother, there are very few who would say that abortion is wrong if it is needed to save the life of the mother. Ditto for rape and incest. And yes, it IS the left that is in favor of killing babies, or old people, or sick people, yet go into fits at the thought of a tree being cut down or someone like Richard Allan Davis or Ramon Salcedo in about to be executed. (a bit of irony here - the left pushes for euthanising elderly and/or termianlly ill people, but wants to ban guns because they are such good tools for suicide) Remember when Stan "Tookie" Williams was executed? The fanatics were shedding tears at the San Quentin protest like they lost a loving father. What about the victims? I'm personally not in favor of capital punishment, but at the same time I won't be shedding a tear when a predator is removed from death row. It seems like some people on the extreme platform put more value in the life of a criminal than the innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 13, 2008 23:28:00 GMT -5
Surefire, it's not that the Left is for killing babies no, of course it's not the left who is for killing babies. now you owe me a new keyboard! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 13, 2008 23:39:52 GMT -5
Mink wrote: "it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body." "Their body." The problem is that the fetus is NOT part of the womans body. Yes, it is connected, and yes it is growing inside the womans body, but genetically it is a seperate and unique individual. It isn;t like cutting out a cancerous tumor. And, what about the rights of the father? He contributed half the genetic material, why doesn't he have a say? As far as the health of the mother, there are very few who would say that abortion is wrong if it is needed to save the life of the mother. Ditto for rape and incest. And yes, it IS the left that is in favor of killing babies, or old people, or sick people, yet go into fits at the thought of a tree being cut down or someone like Richard Allan Davis or Ramon Salcedo in about to be executed. (a bit of irony here - the left pushes for euthanising elderly and/or termianlly ill people, but wants to ban guns because they are such good tools for suicide) I do believe there are the elderly who ask for "mercy" euthanization for whatever reasons. The left respects those wishes, and this shouldn't be miscontrued as pushing to euthanize the elderly. When people have made clear that they do not want to live off life support, everyone understands and the plug is pulled, yet when the elderly wish to die for their personal reason, it is considered different. Personally, I had a hard time when they pulled my Dad off life support and could never euthanize anyone, but I do understand it. As for Davis & Salcedo, I'm not that understanding and wonder why we waste tax dollars on them. I don't have much of an opinion on guns either, but I think I understand both sides. Abortion should be discussed with both mother/father, and what if he says "yes"? |
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 14, 2008 16:08:48 GMT -5
Mink wrote: "it's not that the Left is for killing babies, yet will save the whales, trees or criminals. It is a matter of the right to privacy and for women, their body." I do believe there are the elderly who ask for "mercy" euthanization for whatever reasons. The left respects those wishes, and this shouldn't be miscontrued as pushing to euthanize the elderly. When people have made clear that they do not want to live off life support, everyone understands and the plug is pulled, yet when the elderly wish to die for their personal reason, it is considered different. As for Davis & Salcedo, I'm not that understanding and wonder why we waste tax dollars on them. Abortion should be discussed with both mother/father, and what if he says "yes"? Mink, you answered so many questions that I am hard pressed to know where to start! Basically your "right to privacy" notion can be considered the crux of the matter. Such language is not in the Constitution, though it's said to have been considered then, but the courts did not define "privacy" until the 1960's when they introduced in a finding "a penumbra of privacy" out of the First Amendment. Oddly enough this moon shadow came out of a Planned Parenthood case (sex, sex, sex...that's ALL you ever think of, buddy). Though poetically put, it did give rise to this "privacy" notion late in the game, and many would like a review of that matter of interpretation...but....we got it. The problem is the justices have to "weigh rights" and this created one may not "outweigh" the right to LIFE. It IS LIFE we are talking about....not if you pick your belly button lint in the privacy of your horse stall! As for the "your body" notion, it may not be "your body", simply the person's "lifestyle choice" at the time of an abortion. Kids are viewed as problematic (in itself a modern notion) and difficult to raise, and we think many folks have a "life-plan" so the disposition under the guise of "my body" of a life is made all to easy but mostly for selfish reasons. It is the "seared conscience" towards life that bothers us. Which gets into the euthanasia matter. What if Obama's health care comes to the fore, would you be for "pushing" or advertising euthanasia? Should we try to convince the elderly this is a "better way", when actually we need the equipment and bed space for useful eaters, and the money? I read that it's already happening in Holland and France! And the notion that the old folks complaining are "crazy" and the authorities with the denial of the matter makes for an interesting mix. The phrase used in England by the medical pros is, "I'm sorry, there is nothing more we may do for you" not that more may be done medically, but the money allocated for that person has run out....then the euthanasia folks step into this gruesome picture...but what the hey! We get 'em coming and going.....all this while losing a chance for real meaning in life..... Oh, and thanks, Mink....now that I am depressed let me tell you that you SHOULD be for not executing death row Salcido and Davis, and the rest of the fellas. It is welfare for lawyers....so when you see it costs $5M per execution, the lion's share is for the legal system....as it only costs the state less than $2.75/day to feed them. And I think THAT is too liberal. |
|
