This should give the...

[Yonivore]

...pro-abortion crowd a boost.


RH0QT_p481o

Getting back to the Planned Parenthood roots, I see.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And for a moment I thought you were going to bring up an actual policy. Silly me.

[Bartleby]

Darrin has been slacking on the YouTube postings lately so Yonni is picking up the slack.

[CuckingFunt]

It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

And my beliefs are based upon more than the dumb shit one person may say.

[ChumpDumper]

I see forty dead fetuses that yoni would hate had they lived.

[AussieFanKurt]

This is the most hypocritical thing you could ever say. You're bringing up one stupid thing some idiot says yet disregard all the ridiculous things religious people say. Fucking typical

[johnsmith]

This is the most hypocritical thing you could ever say. You're bringing up one stupid thing some idiot says yet disregard all the ridiculous things religious people say. Fucking typical

Ummmmm....who ya talking to bro?

[AussieFanKurt]

Ummmmm....who ya talking to bro?

Yoni, loves to selectively post. Everything he doesn't like he will post some obscure instance of something bad happening within that group but refuses to see anything wrong with his beliefs

[johnsmith]

yoni, loves to selectively post. Everything he doesn't like he will post some obscure instance of something bad happening within that group but refuses to see anything wrong with his beliefs

k

[boutons_deux]

Yoni adds another rat turd to his huge forum pile of it

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

And my beliefs are based upon more than the dumb shit one person may say.

that's yoni's M.O.

one person makes a comment and he associates the entire democratic party for it... pretty lazy actually but at least he's consistent. I'm sure jacksommerset is praying for him..

same thing with Islam.. bad guys = be suspicious of all muslims..

[Yonivore]

This is the most hypocritical thing you could ever say. You're bringing up one stupid thing some idiot says yet disregard all the ridiculous things religious people say. Fucking typical
Let me put it in the context of the larger debate.

Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who preached eugenics. Planned Parenthood is one of the largest (if not the largest) abortion mill in the United States.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I don't think Dr. Virmani's statements are that out of the ordinary among the abortion crowd, AussieFanKurt. And, frankly, I don't understand the why anyone would support Planned Parenthood or fight, as hard as has been fought, to keep my taxpayer dollars flowing into that morally bankrupt organization.

It's bigger than "one stupid thing one idiot says."

[AussieFanKurt]

Cool.

I doubt I'd support Planned Parenthood but I'm pro-choice regardless

[George Gervin's Afro]

Let me put it in the context of the larger debate.

Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who preached eugenics. Planned Parenthood is one of the largest (if not the largest) abortion mill in the United States.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I don't think Dr. Virmani's statements are that out of the ordinary among the abortion crowd, AussieFanKurt. And, frankly, I don't understand the why anyone would support Planned Parenthood or fight, as hard as has been fought, to keep my taxpayer dollars flowing into that morally bankrupt organization.

It's bigger than "one stupid thing one idiot says."

sincerely,

the guy who whored an unecessary war... morally bankrupt..lol

[Yonivore]

Yoni, loves to selectively post. Everything he doesn't like he will post some obscure instance of something bad happening within that group but refuses to see anything wrong with his beliefs
I'm not sure how obscure is the instance since the largest abortion mill in the country was founded on the exact same sentiment expressed by Dr. Virmani.

Every now and then, the veil slips and you get a glimpse into the real agenda of a movement. I think Dr. Virmani allowed the veil to slip a bit in that video.

Abortion and Race (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/)


http://www.abort73.com/images/race-graph-2011.gif

Dr. Alvida King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:


[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Cool.

I doubt I'd support Planned Parenthood but I'm pro-choice regardless


While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

She spouted this stuff 80 + yrs ago.. you need to verify yoni.. he's not always intellectually honest.. what I would like to know is what policies did she put in place that still stand today?

[Yonivore]

that's yoni's M.O.

one person makes a comment and he associates the entire democratic party for it... pretty lazy actually but at least he's consistent. I'm sure jacksommerset is praying for him..

same thing with Islam.. bad guys = be suspicious of all muslims..
Find the word Democrat in the OP.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Find the word Democrat in the OP.

ok mr deduction... coming from the guy who routinely associates the fringe of the left athe whole whole now is just posting politically neutral ops.. lol

[Yonivore]

sincerely,

the guy who whored an unecessary war... morally bankrupt..lol
Oh look, a shiny object! :lol George Bush, war, blah blah blah... :lol

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy. Doing in the name of eugenics is worse than that.

[Yonivore]

ok mr deduction... coming from the guy who routinely associates the fringe of the left athe whole whole now is just posting politically neutral ops.. lol
I didn't say Planned Parenthood wasn't a liberal left organization largely supported by Democrats; it is. But, the people who walk through their doors and receive abortions come from all parties.

[AussieFanKurt]

Oh look, a shiny object! :lol George Bush, war, blah blah blah... :lol

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy. Doing in the name of eugenics is worse than that.

What about abortions in instances of rape, incest, not having the mental or economic ability to properly raise a child. Not all abortions are for selfish reasons mate

[Yonivore]

She spouted this stuff 80 + yrs ago.. you need to verify yoni.. he's not always intellectually honest.. what I would like to know is what policies did she put in place that still stand today?
And yet, here we are, 80 years later, with an abortion doctor saying the same.

[Yonivore]

What about abortions in instances of rape, incest,
A minuscule percentage of abortions fall into this category; stop the millions of convenience abortions and I'm willing to have a rational, reasonable discussion on what are the options for people seeking an abortion under duress.


not having the mental or economic ability to properly raise a child.
Don't have sex? Don't make babies? Submit to completely reversible sterilization? Adoption?


Not all abortions are for selfish reasons mate
The vast majority are.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh look, a shiny object! :lol George Bush, war, blah blah blah... :lol

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy. Doing in the name of eugenics is worse than that.

yet again yoni associates one person's comments ss representative of an antire organization... consistency..


I'd like to think sending in ,and fully supporting, our forces to die for nothing as something that is morally bankrupt... but hey that's just me..

[George Gervin's Afro]

And yet, here we are, 80 years later, with an abortion doctor saying the same.


abortion doctor comments = mission of planned parenthood...lol

[Yonivore]

abortion doctor comments = mission of planned parenthood...lol
The left is constantly and persistently trying to associate the right with racist constructs of the Democrat past, from slavery (150 years ago) to Jim Crow (slightly more recent).

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I could understand why such an agenda might be kept on the down low, eh?

[DMC]

All this time I thought eugenics was about naming your kid Eugene and I was against it. Now that I know it's about culling the fuck trophies, I am all for it.

[Yonivore]

I'd like to think sending in ,and fully supporting, our forces to die for nothing as something that is morally bankrupt... but hey that's just me..
Then, the entire federal government and volunteer military are morally bankrupt.

Not once, in the past 12 years, has any member of Congress (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) proposed a serious piece of legislation that would stop either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Democrats had plenty of opportunity to defund either or both wars during the Bush administration.

A pretty hefty percentage of Americans, though bent by the incessant nattering of liberals (without the courage to actually do something about it), still think both wars were warranted and legitimate.

You should start a thread on it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The left is constantly and persistently trying to associate the right with racist constructs of the Democrat past, from slavery (150 years ago) to Jim Crow (slightly more recent).

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I could understand why such an agenda might be kept on the down low, eh?

in 1920 probably..eh?

[Yonivore]

in 1920 probably..eh?
Dr. Virmani is keeping the torch burning.

[ChumpDumper]

Were yoni working to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortions, I'd take him seriously. He isn't, so he just really doesn't give that much of a shit -- especially after black kids are born.

[MannyIsGod]

The shallow level of analysis performed in this thread by Yoni in order to show a desired result is not new by any means but its still disgusting.

[ElNono]

Just another instance where Yoni wants bigger government imposing a set of morals on everyone else.

[Yonivore]

The shallow level of analysis performed in this thread by Yoni in order to show a desired result is not new by any means but its still disgusting.
It doesn't approach the absence of analysis inherent in believing opposition to affirmative action is a desire to return to slavery; that opposing crippling environmental regulations is a desire to return to a polluted world; that opposition to Barack Obama is racist; that standing up for constitutional rights is gay-hating, etc...

Dr. Virmani is an abortion doctor who believes he's doing the world a favor by killing black babies. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on the premise that controlling the black population, through abortion, is a good thing.

It's a pretty direct link, if you ask me.

[Yonivore]

Just another instance where Yoni wants bigger government imposing a set of morals on everyone else.
Killing humans is an area the law addresses in other than moral terms.

[ElNono]

Dr. Virmani is an abortion doctor who believes he's doing the world a favor by killing black babies. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on the premise that controlling the black population, through abortion, is a good thing.

It's a pretty direct link, if you ask me.

Did they abort any babies against the parents' wishes?

[ElNono]

Killing humans is an area the law addresses in other than moral terms.

The SCOTUS (and thus, the law) disagrees on what constitutes a 'human' under your premise. Abortion is legal in this country under a set of circumstances. Are you suggesting they're doing something illegal?

[Yonivore]

Did they abort any babies against the parents' wishes?
I haven't been present at any abortions.

Do they propagandize parents towards abortion and away from other alternatives? Yes.

Do they oppose any measure designed to give pregnant mother, seeking an abortion, some sense of the magnitude of their choice? Yes.

Are there mothers that regret having had an abortion? Yes.

Are their motivations for conducting abortions suspect? Dr. Virmani and Marget Sanger.

Do abortionists commit murder? Yes.

Two abortion clinic employees plead guilty to murder (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-crime-abortion-pennsylvania-idUSTRE79Q7GK20111027)


The grand jury said that a clinic co-worker of Moton's testified that a woman gave birth to a large baby at the clinic, delivering the child into a toilet. The jurors identified the newborn as "Baby D."

The jurors said the co-worker told them that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming.

"Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck," the grand jury said in its report.

West was accused of murder in the death of a 41-year-old patient, Karnamaya Mongar.

Abortion is the only area of the law where the killing of a human being can be medical procedure or murder based only on the position of the mother -- the person in the least objective position to make that distinction.

[ElNono]

:blah

Is that a yes or a no?

[Yonivore]

The SCOTUS (and thus, the law) disagrees on what constitutes a 'human' under your premise. Abortion is legal in this country under a set of circumstances. Are you suggesting they're doing something illegal?
I'm suggesting it should be illegal. Laws are challenged all the time and things that were once legal become illegal. That it is currently legal does not mean I should accept the practice and not oppose it.

[MannyIsGod]

It's a pretty direct link, if you ask me.

Of course it is and I'm not because you're objectivity is non existent. Instead of taking a look at the deep rooted sociological differences and the way minorities lag behind in every catagory as a possible reason for the increased percentage of abortions you attribute it to reasoning you WANT.

Is planned parenthood the reason that blacks lag in every category as well?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm suggesting it should be illegal. Laws are challenged all the time and things that were once legal become illegal. That it is currently legal does not mean I should accept the practice and not oppose it.

One could take your argument and turn it over to the gun control crowd. I guess the argument is valid when it fits your desires.

[ElNono]

I'm suggesting it should be illegal. Laws are challenged all the time and things that were once legal become illegal. That it is currently legal does not mean I should accept the practice and not oppose it.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't have your own view or set of morals. Imposing them on everyone else is where the line is crossed, IMO

[ElNono]

Roe vs Wade leaves the decision with the citizen. yoni would rather have big bad government make that decision for them.

[Yonivore]

Roe vs Wade leaves the decision with the citizen. yoni would rather have big bad government make that decision for them.
SCOTUS is no longer part of the government?

[Yonivore]

Of course it is and I'm not because you're objectivity is non existent. Instead of taking a look at the deep rooted sociological differences and the way minorities lag behind in every catagory as a possible reason for the increased percentage of abortions you attribute it to reasoning you WANT.

Is planned parenthood the reason that blacks lag in every category as well?
No, that's due to liberalism and the bigotry of low expectations. Planned Parenthood just exploits the condition.

[Yonivore]

One could take your argument and turn it over to the gun control crowd. I guess the argument is valid when it fits your desires.
No, they couldn't. Go ahead, make the argument.

[Yonivore]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't have your own view or set of morals. Imposing them on everyone else is where the line is crossed, IMO
The law imposes all sorts of views on a populace. That you continue to call it a moral issue is not any more persuasive than calling armed robbery a moral issue. Are you suggesting armed robbery should be legal because someone can make that moral argument?

[MannyIsGod]

No, they couldn't. Go ahead, make the argument.

You want to take the choice out of people and put it in the hands of the government. Make abortions illegal. They'll still happen. Make guns illegal, criminals will still have them. Its the same stupid lack of logic that doesn't take an indepth view of the situation but instead tries to fix things through legislation.

[MannyIsGod]

No, that's due to liberalism and the bigotry of low expectations. Planned Parenthood just exploits the condition.

:lol

Oh, OK.

[ElNono]

The law imposes all sorts of views on a populace. That you continue to call it a moral issue is not any more persuasive than calling armed robbery a moral issue. Are you suggesting armed robbery should be legal because someone can make that moral argument?

I'm calling it a moral issue because that's what you called it:


Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy.

And it's not a legal issue because the justice system already addressed it and ruled it legal.

[ElNono]

SCOTUS is no longer part of the government?

Did they leave the decision to the citizen?

[MannyIsGod]

federally mandated abortion tbh

[CuckingFunt]

Let me put it in the context of the larger debate.

Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who preached eugenics. Planned Parenthood is one of the largest (if not the largest) abortion mill in the United States.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." --Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I don't think Dr. Virmani's statements are that out of the ordinary among the abortion crowd, AussieFanKurt. And, frankly, I don't understand the why anyone would support Planned Parenthood or fight, as hard as has been fought, to keep my taxpayer dollars flowing into that morally bankrupt organization.

It's bigger than "one stupid thing one idiot says."

Let me put it in the context of the larger debate by presenting truncated quotes taken out of context and using the words of two individuals spoken 80 years apart to damn an entire organization...

[Yonivore]

:lol

Oh, OK.
I'm surprised you find that funny.

[CuckingFunt]

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy.

Until you develop ovaries and a uterus, you're not allowed to dismiss ANY abortion as convenient.

[CuckingFunt]

Dr. Virmani is an abortion doctor who believes he's doing the world a favor by killing black babies. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on the premise that controlling the black population, through abortion, is a good thing.

It's a pretty direct link, if you ask me.

Is Dr. Virmani an "abortion doctor" working for Planned Parenthood?

[Yonivore]

I'm calling it a moral issue because that's what you called it:
And, as I pointed out, there are other moral issues addressed in the law which I don't think you would find fault.


And it's not a legal issue because the justice system already addressed it and ruled it legal.
The justice system is just as free to revisit the issue and change it. Just look at same-sex marriage...back and forth, back and forth.

I wouldn't have taken you for a "the-courts-have-ruled-and-that's-that" kind of person but, I guess when it suits you.

[Spurminator]

The justice system will not revisit it until we are able to replicate a 40-week pregnancy outside the womb. You can pretend to give a shit about it until then if you want, but the only thing this discussion is good for is getting the emotions all riled up (which, admittedly, is good for getting people to the voting booth, which is why we have a national abortion debate every 2 years followed by absolutely no change in policy.)

[ElNono]

And, as I pointed out, there are other moral issues addressed in the law which I don't think you would find fault.

What law? In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.


The justice system is just as free to revisit the issue and change it.

Not without a Constitutional amendment.

[ElNono]

I wouldn't have taken you for a "the-courts-have-ruled-and-that's-that" kind of person but, I guess when it suits you.

I'm not, actually. But I also understand this isn't just a matter of laws, it involves rights granted under the constitution.

[Yonivore]

I'm not, actually. But I also understand this isn't just a matter of laws, it involves rights granted under the constitution.
I agree. The right to life.

[Yonivore]

What law? In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
The law as a body.


Not without a Constitutional amendment.
Not necessarily.

Just which provision of the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion?

[LnGrrrR]

I agree. The right to life.

You know, you should really reword that as "the right to be born". The right to life might make it sound like you're in favor universal health care, extended welfare, etc etc.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I agree. The right to life.

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body

[Yonivore]

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body
The SCOTUS is telling an unborn child it has no such right. I think that is the view that is most likely to be the basis on which Roe vs. Wade and all other laws, permitting abortion, will eventually be overturned.

How is a fetus shot by a robber any different than a fetus killed by an abortionist? Why is a woman allowed to decide what is murder and what is simply a medical procedure?

I simply don't believe the argument is settled.

[ElNono]

I agree. The right to life.

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html


Just which provision of the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion?


In Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

[Yonivore]

the govt getting to tell you what to do with your body
You would agree, I assume, the government should be able to tell you what you cannot do to another person's body.

[Yonivore]

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.
The Court has explicitly done many things that eventually are overturned.

[ElNono]

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

[ElNono]

The Court has explicitly done many things that eventually are overturned.

How many? It's exceedingly rare to see the SCOTUS go against precedent and reasoning from a previous SCOTUS unless there's significant new information.

Off the top of my head I only remember "separate but equal"...

[Yonivore]

How many? It's exceedingly rare to see the SCOTUS go against precedent and reasoning from a previous SCOTUS unless there's significant new information.

Off the top of my head I only remember "separate but equal"...
So, it happens. There's hope.

[Yonivore]

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
Then, why aren't murder charges, filed in cases of prenatal death caused by an assailant, not struck down? Can you murder a non-person?

[ElNono]

good luck with that :lol

[Yonivore]

Why are late-term abortions not constitutionally protected rights to privacy?

[Yonivore]

good luck with that :lol
Thanks.

[CuckingFunt]

Is Dr. Virmani an "abortion doctor" working for Planned Parenthood?

I suppose the fact Yoni has completely dropped the Sanger/Planned Parenthood angle is as close as I'm going to get to an answer.

[Yonivore]

I suppose the fact Yoni has completely dropped the Sanger/Planned Parenthood angle is as close as I'm going to get to an answer.
The conversation was side-tracked by ElNono.

My answer is, I have no clue but, obviously, the eugenics angle among abortionists remains.

[ElNono]

Then, why aren't murder charges, filed in cases of prenatal death caused by an assailant, not struck down? Can you murder a non-person?

Why would they need to be struck down? If the law says murdering a non-person is illegal, then it's illegal.

What a law can't do is override a constitutional right.

[Yonivore]

Why would they need to be struck down? If the law says murdering a non-person is illegal, then it's illegal.
The law doesn't define a fetus as a non-person. At least, not the murder statutes I've read.


What a law can't do is override a constitutional right.
How does law override the "constitutional right to privacy" in the case of late-term abortions?

[jack sommerset]

You're wasting your time with el nono. He absolutely does not believe a fetus growing in a women is human therefore you are not killing anything. It's absurd but it's his opinion. God bless

[ElNono]

The law doesn't define a fetus as a non-person. At least, not the murder statutes I've read.

It doesn't define it as a person either. If anything, it's pretty consistent defining it as an "unborn children (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841)".


How does law override the "constitutional right to privacy" in the case of late-term abortions?

Why cherry pick on late-term?

[ElNono]

You're wasting your time with el nono. He absolutely does not believe a fetus growing in a women is human therefore you are not killing anything. It's absurd but it's his opinion. God bless

What I believe is irrelevant to what we're discussing. ron bless.

[Yonivore]

Why cherry pick on late-term?
Because it defies the logic of your argument that, 1) it's settled and that 2) unborn children don't have a right to life.

Obviously, in certain circumstances, they do indeed have rights that supersede a woman's right to kill them.

If a woman has a constitutional right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, why doesn't that right extend to late-term abortions?

[ElNono]

Because it defies the logic of your argument that, 1) it's settled and that 2) unborn children don't have a right to life.

Obviously, in certain circumstances, they do indeed have rights that supersede a woman's right to kill them.

If a woman has a constitutional right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, why doesn't that right extend to late-term abortions?

The "right to life" argument was never on the table (as pointed out)

What was on the other end of privacy rights was the state's rights to regulate abortions. Under the premise that the older the fetus, the more responsibility for the state, the SCOTUS decided a middle-ground approach: earlier on the pregnancy, the woman's right to privacy trumps the state's regulatory rights. Further down the road, the state's regulatory rights trump the women's privacy rights.

[Yonivore]

The "right to life" argument was never on the table (as pointed out)

What was on the other end of privacy rights was the state's rights to regulate abortions. Under the premise that the older the fetus, the more responsibility for the state, the SCOTUS decided a middle-ground approach: earlier on the pregnancy, the woman's right to privacy trumps the state's regulatory rights. Further down the road, the state's regulatory rights trump the women's privacy rights.
So, it's not settled. The right isn't absolute. The right to an abortion isn't based on prenatal fetuses not being lives deserving protection. Got it.

A State could conceivably develop a regulation, meeting constitutional muster, that prevents abortions, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy - potentially to the moment of conception?

Thanks for finally getting there.

[ElNono]

So, it's not settled. The right isn't absolute. The right to an abortion isn't based on prenatal fetuses not being lives deserving protection.

Actually, it is settled and it's an absolute right as long as the constitution isn't changed to remove that right or a new constitutional right is enacted that would trump it (through a constitutional amendment).


A State could conceivably develop a regulation, meeting constitutional muster, that prevents abortions, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy - potentially to the moment of conception?

No. That would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on women's privacy rights.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, is yoni working on getting a constitutional amendment passed?

If not, he's just paying the lip service all Republicans do to the ending of abortion to keep the base docile.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't define it as a person either. If anything, it's pretty consistent defining it as an "unborn children (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841)".

using the law to make something immoral, palatable, is just being lawful evil.

[ChumpDumper]

using the law to make something immoral, palatable, is just being lawful evil.WC employs the Dungeons and Dragons gambit.

[ElNono]

WC employs the Dungeons and Dragons gambit.

:lol pretty much

[Yonivore]

Actually, it is settled and it's an absolute right as long as the constitution isn't changed to remove that right or a new constitutional right is enacted that would trump it (through a constitutional amendment).
Hold on. If there's a circumstance, under which a woman's absolute right to an abortion is trumped, it's not absolute. Late-term abortions are that circumstance. It's not absolute and it's not settled. It doesn't matter how often you say it.

If a woman has an absolute, irrevocable right to get an abortion, she should be able to walk into Dr. Virmani's clinic, dilated, fully effaced, and in the process of delivery and have the fetus killed -- so long as it's done before meeting the elements of that State's murder statute.

That would be an absolute right to an abortion. That the right doesn't extend that far necessarily means there's a point at which it is determined the right of abortion gives way to the right of the baby not to be killed. That point is completely open to being altered, based on advances in medicine and understanding of the development of a human fetus.


No. That would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on women's privacy rights.
At what point does it cross the line from lawfully regulating abortions that are late-term to violating the woman's constitutional right?

[ElNono]

Hold on. If there's a circumstance, under which a woman's absolute right to an abortion is trumped, it's not absolute.

It's absolute insofar as there's no other constitutional right that trumps it.
As you know, mere laws cannot supersede the constitution, and the constitution cannot change itself.

[Yonivore]

It's absolute insofar as there's no other constitutional right that trumps it.
On what constitutional principle is the State's ability to regulate late-term abortion, and thus supersede a woman's right to abortion, based?


As you know, mere laws cannot supersede the constitution, and the constitution cannot change itself.
Which begs the question of how a State can constitutionally deprive a woman the right in the circumstance of late-term abortions.

[ElNono]

On what constitutional principle is the State's ability to regulate late-term abortion, and thus supersede a woman's right to abortion, based?

The Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health.


Which begs the question of how a State can constitutionally deprive a woman the right in the circumstance of late-term abortions.

State's rights are granted under the 10th amendment. That includes the authority to regulate what's not regulated federally or under the constitution.

Again, this is a constitutional right vis a vis constitutional right.

[Yonivore]

The Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health.
So, the SCOTUS decision is based on relative terms, such as safe and viable. Surely, understanding of those terms could never be altered in the context of the difference between childbirth and abortion and, certainly, the viability of a fetus has remained constant and unarguably at the same point, during pregnancy.


State's rights are granted under the 10th amendment. That includes the authority to regulate what's not regulated federally or under the constitution.

Again, this is a constitutional right vis a vis constitutional right.
So, the State's ability to regulate abortion, found in the 10th amendment, can be construed to supersede a woman's right to an abortion divined out of the 4th.

[LnGrrrR]

The conversation was side-tracked by ElNono.

My answer is, I have no clue but, obviously, the eugenics angle among abortionists remains.

Obviously.

[MannyIsGod]

Whats the population breakdown under the age of 35? That is far more relevant than the entire US population.

[MannyIsGod]

Hispanic women make up 21% of the entire population aged 10-40 so they are actually right where you would expect them as a percentage of all abortions.

The other two groups didn't change all that much.

Just an FYI because its stupid to use the entire population as not even close to the entire population is able to get abortions.

[ElNono]

So, the SCOTUS decision is based on relative terms, such as safe and viable. Surely, understanding of those terms could never be altered in the context of the difference between childbirth and abortion and, certainly, the viability of a fetus has remained constant and unarguably at the same point, during pregnancy.

I doubt the SCOTUS is on the lexical business. More likely they feel a healthcare professional should be able to determine what's safe and what's viable on every given case.


So, the State's ability to regulate abortion, found in the 10th amendment, can be construed to supersede a woman's right to an abortion divined out of the 4th.

Only when the mother's health might be at risk. The protection is for the mother, not the fetus.

[Yonivore]

Given the proper political climate, I think Roe vs. Wade and the imaginary right to abortion could easily be reversed.

The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1080661#.UCL-3PZlTrQ)


Just look at what pro-choice legal scholars say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
And, I don't think those three people and I agree on much else.

[ChumpDumper]

Really, yoni. Make it part of the constitution.

[ElNono]

Given the proper political climate, the anti-abortion crowd could get the constitution amended too.

I don't particularly think such climate anywhere near as feasible, but anyone can dream.

[Yonivore]

Given the proper political climate, the anti-abortion crowd could get the constitution amended too.
Given the quotes, in that article, and there were more at the bottom, it's more likely a case will eventually come before the court that will wreck your absolute and irreversible right to abortion.


I don't particularly think such climate anywhere near as feasible, but anyone can dream.
Hey, those were liberal legal scholars.

[Yonivore]

I think an abortion survivor, bringing the right cause, could probably wreck the whole Roe vs. Wade house of cards.

Film traces real-life story of abortion ‘survivor’ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/film-traces-real-life-story-of-abortion-survivor/2012/03/22/gIQA7xQwTS_story.html)

[ElNono]

Given the quotes, in that article, and there were more at the bottom, it's more likely a case will eventually come before the court that will wreck your absolute and irreversible right to abortion.

The decision has already been challenged at least once (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) and upheld.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions. That doesn't make it any more or less likely that a decision will be overturned.

As a matter of fact, if the vast amounts of challenges mounting in the SCOTUS on that decision are any indicator, the ruling is pretty safe.

[Yonivore]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions. That doesn't make it any more or less likely that a decision will be overturned.
You're right but, with arguably the most liberal Justice on the Court calling it heavy-handed judicial activism, I think it would only take the right case, asking the right question to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.

There are anti-abortion lawyers staying up at night trying to find the combination.

I think it's probably more likely than you; particularly if a conservative is elected in November.


As a matter of fact, if the vast amounts of challenges mounting in the SCOTUS on that decision are any indicator, the ruling is pretty safe.
Or not.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll bet anyone that RvW does not get overturned in the next decade. Any takers?

[Yonivore]

I'll bet anyone that RvW does not get overturned in the next decade. Any takers?
I don't bet with people's lives.

You're a callous, heartless, prick.

If a person survives an abortion, why is it not a person that doesn't?

[ElNono]

You're right but, with arguably the most liberal Justice on the Court calling it heavy-handed judicial activism, I think it would only take the right case, asking the right question to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.

There are anti-abortion lawyers staying up at night trying to find the combination.

Well, considering the ruling dates back to 1973 and that the only failed challenge was 20 years ago, I think the ruling, at the very least, is on fairly solid ground and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Just my opinion.

[ElNono]

I don't bet with people's lives.

You can bet with money. The bet is on the ruling being overturned within the next 10 years, as far as I can tell.

[Yonivore]

Well, considering the ruling dates back to 1973 and that the only failed challenge was 20 years ago, I think the ruling, at the very least, is on fairly solid ground and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Just my opinion.
To which you're entitled.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Manny; if a person can survive an abortion why isn't it considered a person that dies from an abortion?

And, how do you feel about the abortion survivors that are intentionally killed after surviving the abortion?

[ElNono]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Manny; if a person can survive an abortion why isn't it considered a person that dies from an abortion?

Per what I posted earlier, there's no legal concept of a pre-natal "person" (or abortion-survivor for that matter). If you look at my previous link on USC code that deals with "unborn children", they had to specifically state that should somebody kill an "unborn children", then the penalties would be similar to those killing another human. Obviously, if the "unborn children" would be considered a person, then there would be no need to specify that.

I would argue that an approach to overturn under the "right to life" is probably misguided, as the SCOTUS made fairly clear the language on the constitution as currently constructed does open the door to pre-natal persons.

[Yonivore]

Per what I posted earlier, there's no legal concept of a pre-natal "person" (or abortion-survivor for that matter). If you look at my previous link on USC code that deals with "unborn children", they had to specifically state that should somebody kill an "unborn children", then the penalties would be similar to those killing another human. Obviously, if the "unborn children" would be considered a person, then there would be no need to specify that.
Legal concepts aside, aren't you in the least bit bothered by abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?

[AussieFanKurt]

Legal concepts aside, aren't you in the least bit bothered by abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?

How often does this happen?

[Spurminator]

Legal concepts aside, aren't you in the least bit bothered by abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?

I'm absolutely bothered by that. The abortion doctors should do a better job of preventing that from happening when a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy.

[Yonivore]

How often does this happen?
Fairly often but, how often does it have to happen to be an issue for you?

Have you seen the movie October Baby?

It talks about abortion survivors that have grown up with the physical affects of the violence done to them in an attempt to kill them in the womb.

[ElNono]

Legal concepts aside, aren't you in the least bit bothered by abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?

Only if they vote republican





Seriously, I personally think abortions should be reserved for cases of rape or where's danger to the mother's health. That said, I'm not a host to the fetus and I think a women's opinion in this particular matter should weight more than mine.

[Yonivore]

I'm absolutely bothered by that. The abortion doctors should do a better job of preventing that from happening when a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy.
When you're killing them by the millions a year, it's going to happen.

[Spurminator]

Have you seen the movie October Baby?

It talks about abortion survivors that have grown up with the physical affects of the violence done to them in an attempt to kill them in the womb.

Um, you know that movie isn't a documentary right?

[ElNono]

Fairly often but, how often does it have to happen to be an issue for you?

Have you seen the movie October Baby?

It talks about abortion survivors that have grown up with the physical affects of the violence done to them in an attempt to kill them in the womb.

October Baby is a work of fiction, fwiw.

[ElNono]

The film won the Grand Jury Prize as the Best Fiction Feature at the 2011 Red Rock Film Festival. At the festival Rachel Hendrix won the Special Achievement Award for Acting.

[Spurminator]

When you're killing them by the millions a year, it's going to happen.

Then I imagine you're anti-war because of the risk of collateral damage.

[Yonivore]

Then I imagine you're anti-war because of the risk of collateral damage.
Aborted babies aren't collateral damage, they're the target. Don't change the subject.

[Spurminator]

Aborted babies aren't collateral damage, they're the target. Don't change the subject.

The comparison is between collateral damage and failed abortions.

[AussieFanKurt]

I do enjoy how many anti-abortion people are against war. Abortion = murder and so is war.

Apparently

[Yonivore]

Um, you know that movie isn't a documentary right?
Did I call it a documentary?

[Yonivore]

October Baby is a work of fiction, fwiw.
Abortion survivors aren't

[Yonivore]

I do enjoy how many anti-abortion people are against war. Abortion = murder and so is war.
And, not going to war, can be suicide.

[AussieFanKurt]

And, not going to war, can be suicide.

Murder happens in war, go argue against it like you do with abortion.

I don't agree with a late abortion either but abortions before x date like it is in Victoria, Aus is fine as far as I'm concerned

[Spurminator]

Did I call it a documentary?

You referenced it to support your argument, so I could only assume you thought it was real. Using fictional movies to support your argument is something most people stop doing around middle school.

"Republicans are assholes. Haven't you seen The Contender?"

[Yonivore]

Murder happens in war, go argue against it like you do with abortion.
Murder should be prosecuted.


I don't agree with a late abortion either but abortions before x date like it is in Victoria, Aus is fine as far as I'm concerned
What date is "x" date and, if it changes, how do you bring back the babies that were killed before the "x" date changed to one that would have prohibited their abortion?

That's a pretty arbitrary criteria for sanctioning the taking of a human life.

[ElNono]

You referenced it to support your argument, so I could only assume you thought it was real.

Work of fiction funded by anti-abortion and christian groups. :lol

[Yonivore]

You referenced it to support your argument, so I could only assume you thought it was real. Using fictional movies to support your argument is something most people stop doing around middle school.

"Republicans are assholes. Haven't you seen The Contender?"
People such as the principal in that movie exist. If I were aware of a documentary, I would have mentioned it.

I remember an anti-abortion ad once, that starred a firefighter that was an abortion survivor.

[Spurminator]

The comparison is between collateral damage and failed abortions.

I'll try this again.

[AussieFanKurt]

Murder should be prosecuted.


What date is "x" date and, if it changes, how do you bring back the babies that were killed before the "x" date changed to one that would have prohibited their abortion?

That's a pretty arbitrary criteria for sanctioning the taking of a human life.

It's before 24 weeks

[Spurminator]

People such as the principal in that movie exist. If I were aware of a documentary, I would have mentioned it.

I remember an anti-abortion ad once, that starred a firefighter that was an abortion survivor.

It sucks that botched abortions lead to people with health issues. It sucks that botched attacks near innocent civilians leave women and children dead or severely maimed. But in the big picture sometimes bad things happen to innocent people in order to protect freedom.

[Yonivore]

It's before 24 weeks
So, if they move it to 23 weeks, who's going to resurrect those previously aborted between weeks 23 and 24?

Like I said, pretty arbitrary.

[Yonivore]

It sucks that botched abortions lead to people with health issues. It sucks that botched attacks near innocent civilians leave women and children dead or severely maimed. But in the big picture sometimes bad things happen to innocent people in order to protect freedom.
That's a weird comparison.

Abortionists are intentionally trying to kill the person that survives their attempt.

[AussieFanKurt]

Murder should be prosecuted.




The point is murder happens in things you're on favour of. Which is hypocrisy. War has a frightening amount of murder yet that's fine apparently. Yet abortion, which is "murder" of something which hasn't taken a breath is evil. In essence, war is worse surely?

[Yonivore]

The point is murder happens in things you're on favour of. Which is hypocrisy. War has a frightening amount of murder yet that's fine apparently. Yet abortion, which is "murder" of something which hasn't taken a breath is evil. In essence, war is worse surely?
The point is killing is the point of abortion.

War has a completely different objective for which killing could be avoided if the enemy capitulated.

And, the idea that I'm in "favor of war" is ludicrous. Unfortunately, it's sometimes necessary.

[Spurminator]

That's a weird comparison.

Abortionists are intentionally trying to kill the person that survives their attempt.


The comparison is not between the intent of the abortionist vs. the intent of the military.

See, now you're just playing dumb because you know you're in a corner.

[AussieFanKurt]

The point is killing is the point of abortion.

War has a completely different objective for which killing could be avoided if the enemy capitulated.

And, the idea that I'm in "favor of war" is ludicrous. Unfortunately, it's sometimes necessary.

Abortion is sometimes necessary too, your bias just blinds you

[MannyIsGod]

I don't bet with people's lives.


You're attitude on wars says otherwise.




You're a callous, heartless, prick.

If a person survives an abortion, why is it not a person that doesn't?

:lol Oh thats rich coming from you. Hurts about as much as if Hitler himself called me a bad name.

[Yonivore]

Abortion is sometimes necessary too, your bias just blinds you

1.21 million times a year, in the United States alone?

I'd be willing to sit down and discuss the "necessary" abortions if you'd kindly put a stop to the unnecessary slaughter of the rest.

[Yonivore]

You're attitude on wars says otherwise.
No, it doesn't.


:lol Oh thats rich coming from you. Hurts about as much as if Hitler himself called me a bad name.
The insult was tongue-in-cheek but, the question wasn't. Care to answer?

[ElNono]

1.21 million times a year, in the United States alone?

It's legal. How many times is done is irrelevant.

[AussieFanKurt]

1.21 million times a year, in the United States alone?

I'd be willing to sit down and discuss the "necessary" abortions if you'd kindly put a stop to the unnecessary slaughter of the rest.

You're the kind of person who if a woman was having psychological problems you wouldn't care and force them to have the baby anyways

[MannyIsGod]

No, it doesn't.


The insult was tongue-in-cheek but, the question wasn't. Care to answer?

It does actually and everyone else here but you sees it, Yoni. You play loose with life when it suits your party's views and you value it very little when it suits your party's views. I'm not the only one here who will say this. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of posters here will agree with these statements. So either we're all wrong or maybe your views contradict themselves quite a bit merely as a matter of political convenience.

I don't believe abortions should be committed on fetus that are capable of surviving outside of the mothers womb as that is my definition of the starting point of life. Abortion survivors are largely a myth, however.

[Yonivore]

It does actually and everyone else here but you sees it, Yoni. You play loose with life when it suits your party's views and you value it very little when it suits your party's views. I'm not the only one here who will say this. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of posters here will agree with these statements. So either we're all wrong or maybe your views contradict themselves quite a bit merely as a matter of political convenience.
I long ago learned that agreement, in this forum, means little. I fully recognize my view is the minority view in SpursTalk.com and I'm not bothered by that.


I don't believe abortions should be committed on fetus that are capable of surviving outside of the mothers womb as that is my definition of the starting point of life.
So, the point at when it is okay to abort a baby varies from fetus to fetus, with you?


Abortion survivors are largely a myth, however.
Surviving to live a life known to everyone outside the abortion clinic doesn't happen often. Surviving and struggling to breath or having a beating heart happens more frequently than you care to admit.

[Spurminator]

Surviving to live a life known to everyone outside the abortion clinic doesn't happen often. Surviving and struggling to breath or having a beating heart happens more frequently than you care to admit.

You have no idea how often it happens. You've seen a movie and you think you saw a commercial once.

[ElNono]

You have no idea how often it happens. You've seen a movie and you think you saw a commercial once.

But aren't you in the least bit bothered by fictional movies depicting abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?

[Yonivore]

You have no idea how often it happens. You've seen a movie and you think you saw a commercial once.
Only because abortion clinics don't typically report it and we only learn of it through news stories when the offenses get so bad someone turns.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org

British Study of Hospitals Over 20 Years Finds Many Babies Survive Abortion (http://www.lifenews.com/2007/04/20/int-256/)

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/)

[Spurminator]

Only because abortion clinics don't typically report it and we only learn of it through news stories when the offenses get so bad someone turns.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org

British Study of Hospitals Over 20 Years Finds Many Babies Survive Abortion (http://www.lifenews.com/2007/04/20/int-256/)

You cannot expect me to seriously discuss the merits of bornalivetruth.org and lifenews.com.


Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/)

If you read the article you'd see that he was conducting late term abortions at the time of the incidents he was prosecuted for. So this would not qualify as botched legal abortions resulting in defective births.

[Clipper Nation]

War has a frightening amount of murder yet that's fine apparently. Yet abortion, which is "murder" of something which hasn't taken a breath is evil. In essence, war is worse surely?
I'm against both, actually, and I'm also against the death penalty... I differ from a lot of libertarians on this, but I lean towards Ron Paul's philosophy of being pro-life in all areas... you can't be for killing in ways that are convenient and then against it elsewhere....

[Yonivore]

I'm against both, actually, and I'm also against the death penalty... I differ from a lot of libertarians on this, but I lean towards Ron Paul's philosophy of being pro-life in all areas... you can't be for killing in ways that are convenient and then against it elsewhere....
Convenient != Justified

[LnGrrrR]

Convenient != Justified

You do realize he was siding with you, right?

[Yonivore]

You do realize he was siding with you, right?
I'm pro-death penalty and think death is an unfortunate byproduct of legitimately fought wars.

I'm not sure that agrees with Clipper's view.

[AussieFanKurt]

I'm pro-death penalty and think death is an unfortunate byproduct of legitimately fought wars.

I'm not sure that agrees with Clipper's view.

:rollin :lmao :lol

You're pro-death penalty? This is fucking hilarious. I am too but fuck. You go on constantly how abortion is murder? What about those executed who were innocent or whatever.. fucking hell

[Wild Cobra]

WC employs the Dungeons and Dragons gambit.
So?

I find it fitting. How about you?

[Wild Cobra]

:rollin :lmao :lol

You're pro-death penalty? This is fucking hilarious. I am too but fuck. You go on constantly how abortion is murder? What about those executed who were innocent or whatever.. fucking hell
I am also for the death penalty and against abortion. The death penalty is for serious crimes committed. Abortion is like a death penalty, but targeting the innocent.

[AussieFanKurt]

I am also for the death penalty and against abortion. The death penalty is for serious crimes committed. Abortion is like a death penalty, but targeting the innocent.

But I just don't understand. The death penalty has killed innocent people right?

[Yonivore]

But I just don't understand. The death penalty has killed innocent people right?
Possibly but, not intentionally and not at the rate of 1.21 million a year.

[Wild Cobra]

But I just don't understand. The death penalty has killed innocent people right?
No system is perfect. If I was falsely convicted of a crime, I would rather be dead than live my life in jail. But that's me. I'm not afraid of death like most people. Part of me looks forward to the next sage of spirituality. I just don't want some prolonged or agonizing death.

[AussieFanKurt]

No system is perfect. If I was falsely convicted of a crime, I would rather be dead than live my life in jail. But that's me. I'm not afraid of death like most people. Part of me looks forward to the next sage of spirituality. I just don't want some prolonged or agonizing death.

Yeah fuck being in jail all my life. I'd rather death than rape

[Clipper Nation]

Possibly but, not intentionally and not at the rate of 1.21 million a year.
ONE innocent person's death is too many, dumbass....

[AussieFanKurt]

Possibly but, not intentionally and not at the rate of 1.21 million a year.

That's rich...

[Yonivore]

ONE innocent person's death is too many, dumbass....
Then 1.21 million should have you absolutely beside yourself with outrage.

On the point of the death penalty, you're right; one innocent death is too much. I'm in favor of holding police and prosecutors responsible for those deaths. If due to negligence, criminally neglegent homicide; if due to intentionally ignoring exculpatory evidence or misrepresenting evidence in the record, murder; and, if completely fabricated charge to exact some personal vendetta, capital murder. But don't throw out the death penalty.

And, in war; if legitimate, every death is the responsibility of the nation that caused the conflict; if illegitimate, one death is too many.

Now, about abortion, we absolutely know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the victim is innocent. All 1.21 million of them, every.single.year.

[ChumpDumper]

On the point of the death penalty, you're right; one innocent death is too much....But don't throw out the death penalty.So one innocent death is not too much.

[Clipper Nation]

On the point of the death penalty, you're right; one innocent death is too much. I'm in favor of holding police and prosecutors responsible for those deaths.
How about we remove the possibility of innocent deaths altogether and get rid of the unconstitutional death penalty, tbh.... aside from having ZERO margin of error and being prohibitively expensive for taxpayers, it also violates the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishments" clause and the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall be... deprived of life" cause...


And, in war; if legitimate, every death is the responsibility of the nation that caused the conflict; if illegitimate, one death is too many.
In your world, I'm assuming "legitimate" means "started or continued by Republicans" and "illegitimate" means "started or continued by Democrats" tbh.....

[boutons_deux]

This should give LGBT haters a boost:

Man with Bible threatens to rape woman during ‘Gay Day’ in Michigan

Police in Grand Rapids, Michigan say that there was nothing they could do after Bible-preaching protesters threatened to rape and murder pro-LGBT activists at a “Gay Day” event over the weekend.

In a video posted to YouTube, several protesters with Bibles can be seen shouting at a woman celebrating in the inaugural “Gay Day” celebration, an event organized by the human rights group Tolerance, Equality and Awareness Movement (TEAM) to showcase the community’s diversity.

“Back in the day there was no free power, there was no going to the mall,” one protester tells the woman. “There was, ‘sit your ass in this house until I bring my ass home.’”

“And if your ass get to going out there like you said, guess what?” a second protester adds. “You get raped. And that’s what’s going to happen to you. … Keep your pussy clean, that’s all you need to do. Do you understand?”

After one man claims, “the Lord said that,” the woman challenges him to find the corresponding Bible verse.

He responds with Isaiah 13: “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.”

“What does ‘ravished’ mean? It means, we going to rape your ass,” the protester explains. “And I’m going to have fun doing that shit. And you going to like that. I promise you.”

After briefly arguing that he is misinterpreting the Bible, the woman observes, “Anything I say, you say it doesn’t matter.”

“It’s going to matter right now,” the man shoots back. “It’s going to matter when your clothes off and I’m going inside of you repeatedly. That’s when it’s going to matter. Because you going to enjoy yourself.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/09/man-with-bible-threatens-to-rape-woman-during-gay-day-in-michigan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Bible-reading makes you stupid AND a hater.

[TeyshaBlue]

Reading my posts makes you stupid AND a hater.

fify.

[AussieFanKurt]

Then 1.21 million should have you absolutely beside yourself with outrage.

On the point of the death penalty, you're right; one innocent death is too much. I'm in favor of holding police and prosecutors responsible for those deaths. If due to negligence, criminally neglegent homicide; if due to intentionally ignoring exculpatory evidence or misrepresenting evidence in the record, murder; and, if completely fabricated charge to exact some personal vendetta, capital murder. But don't throw out the death penalty.

And, in war; if legitimate, every death is the responsibility of the nation that caused the conflict; if illegitimate, one death is too many.

Now, about abortion, we absolutely know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the victim is innocent. All 1.21 million of them, every.single.year.

Our world was already over populated as it was. It's not like we are struggling to keep the race alive. A significant portion of those 1.21 were post likely the size of a kidney bean.. such is life

[Yonivore]

Our world was already over populated as it was. It's not like we are struggling to keep the race alive. A significant portion of those 1.21 were post likely the size of a kidney bean.. such is life
How cavalier of you.

[AussieFanKurt]

How cavalier of you.

I do see myself that way, thank you

[Yonivore]

How about we remove the possibility of innocent deaths altogether and get rid of the unconstitutional death penalty,...
As someone was reminding me in the abortion thread, SCOTUS has determined it to be constitutional.


tbh.... aside from having ZERO margin of error...
There are ways to reduce the margin of error and the first thing I would start with is holding prosecutors and police responsible for wrongful prosecutions.


...and being prohibitively expensive...for taxpayers,...
Wouldn't have to be.


...it also violates the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishments" clause...
Not according to SCOTUS.


and the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall be... deprived of life" cause...
You forgot "...without due process..."


In your world, I'm assuming "legitimate" means "started or continued by Republicans" and "illegitimate" means "started or continued by Democrats" tbh.....
Nope, in my world -- and most everyone else's -- legitimate means sanctioned and authorized by the United States Congress and not prohibited by the stupid United Nations.

The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are being continued by a Democrat and, yet, I consider them legitimate.

[Yonivore]

I do see myself that way, thank you
"Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive: a cavalier attitude toward the suffering of others."

Yep, I agree.

[AussieFanKurt]

It's more I've just given up arguing with your irrational attitude. Oh it's okay if some innocent people dies, that's fine although they are living, breathing, thinking PEOPLE. But unborn hardly developed foetus's dead. Oh that's another story

[Homeland Security]

Some religious pro-lifers make the argument that one of the aborted fetuses might have cured cancer or something.

Yeah right.

The people who get abortions mostly are:
Blacks
White liberals
Hispanics

Take away black abortion and there are 60 million blacks instead of 40 million, and the extra 20 million are probably all either sucking on the welfare teat or out committing violent crimes. You want to know why violent crime has been on a long term decline? Because we have a successful long-term policy of pre-emptive execution in place.

If these simian welfare mamas want to participate in voluntary genocide, why is that my problem?

As for the white liberals, why is it so bad that kids who would grow up to be Democratic activist offspring of frustrated feminists get killed off early. It's just that many fewer of them to kill when the revolution comes.

[coyotes_geek]

Some religious pro-lifers make the argument that one of the aborted fetuses might have cured cancer or something.

Yeah right.

The people who get abortions mostly are:
Blacks
White liberals
Hispanics

Take away black abortion and there are 60 million blacks instead of 40 million, and the extra 20 million are probably all either sucking on the welfare teat or out committing violent crimes. You want to know why violent crime has been on a long term decline? Because we have a successful long-term policy of pre-emptive execution in place.

If these simian welfare mamas want to participate in voluntary genocide, why is that my problem?

As for the white liberals, why is it so bad that kids who would grow up to be Democratic activist offspring of frustrated feminists get killed off early. It's just that many fewer of them to kill when the revolution comes.

http://www.beginnersflyfishing.com/images/fly-fishing-casting-a-trout.jpg

[Yonivore]

Some religious pro-lifers make the argument that one of the aborted fetuses might have cured cancer or something.

Yeah right.

The people who get abortions mostly are:
Blacks
White liberals
Hispanics

Take away black abortion and there are 60 million blacks instead of 40 million, and the extra 20 million are probably all either sucking on the welfare teat or out committing violent crimes. You want to know why violent crime has been on a long term decline? Because we have a successful long-term policy of pre-emptive execution in place.

If these simian welfare mamas want to participate in voluntary genocide, why is that my problem?

As for the white liberals, why is it so bad that kids who would grow up to be Democratic activist offspring of frustrated feminists get killed off early. It's just that many fewer of them to kill when the revolution comes.
Margaret Sanger is alive and well.

[Agloco]

Convenience abortions are the absolute epitome of moral bankruptcy.

Methinks people who are into convenience abortions don't and won't exactly make good parents either.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.beginnersflyfishing.com/images/fly-fishing-casting-a-trout.jpg


Margaret Sanger is alive and well.

Hook, Line, and Sinker.

[Drachen]

Methinks people who are into convenience abortions don't and won't exactly make good parents either.

I would go one step further and posit that they wouldn't make good corn husks. (i.e. carriers)

[Wild Cobra]

Methinks people who are into convenience abortions don't and won't exactly make good parents either.
I agree with you. However, there is nearly an endless supply of people who want to adopt babies to raise their way. Not young children, but babies.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree with you. However, there is nearly an endless supply of people who want to adopt babies to raise their way. Not young children, but babies.

I feel bad for older children stuck in orphanages.

[Wild Cobra]

I feel bad for older children stuck in orphanages.
So do I.

When are you going to adopt one? I won't. My kids are grown, and I want my freedom. Even if I ever considered adopting, the chances of me adopting such a kid is pretty slim.

[LnGrrrR]

So do I.

When are you going to adopt one? I won't. My kids are grown, and I want my freedom. Even if I ever considered adopting, the chances of me adopting such a kid is pretty slim.

My wife and I actually talked about it, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that it likely won't happen. What happens if the kid doesn't get along with our kids? What happens if he's too bitter from years in an orphanage? Lots of variables. Sometimes life just sucks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My wife and I actually talked about it, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that it likely won't happen. What happens if the kid doesn't get along with our kids? What happens if he's too bitter from years in an orphanage? Lots of variables. Sometimes life just sucks.

You can always go foster care. It's kinda like try before you buy.

[LnGrrrR]

You can always go foster care. It's kinda like try before you buy.

Ugh, that just sounds cynical as hell.

[Wild Cobra]

My wife and I actually talked about it, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that it likely won't happen. What happens if the kid doesn't get along with our kids? What happens if he's too bitter from years in an orphanage? Lots of variables. Sometimes life just sucks.
If you've thought about adopting, I'll bet you would take a newborn in a heartbeat. Am I right? Maybe a child no more than... say... about 18 months?

[LnGrrrR]

If you've thought about adopting, I'll bet you would take a newborn in a heartbeat. Am I right? Maybe a child no more than... say... about 18 months?

If my wife and I couldn't produce a child, that would've been the 2nd option. :)