ABORTION.......

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Then get the WOMEN to control their body before they have CONTROL of another LIFE! It's not the women I'm concerned with, nor do I think any other Pro-Lifers, or whatever you wish to calls us, are. We are concerned with the child. I know, I know. It's just a clump of cells, a zygote, etc.

Until it can definitively be decided when life begins, whether at conception or sometime after or when the child leaves the womb, this issue will never be resolved IMO.

Some women don't have the control they would like about getting pregnant Momma!

Anon

0 Replies

Agreed Anon. Those aren't the ones I thought we were talking about. I thought we were talking basically about the abortion for convenience women.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Abortion is a deadly issue in the United States. Between 1977 and 2000, there have been seven murders, sixteen attempted murders, and forty bombings on abortion providing clinics in that country. Few other nations have seen such violence related to the issue of abortion - which essentially boils down to a tussle between two viewpoints - a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy vs. the belief that life begins at conception, and hence abortion is murder.

Yes abortion is a deadly thing. Over 10,000,000 have been exterminated for the sake of convenience in the time frame you mention.

In addition, abortion greatly enables sexual predators, particularly in cases of incest or sexual intimidation, to be able to cover their tracks more easily. The woman lives with the devastating consequences of the abortion, and the predator walks.

I think it's no coincidence that predatory sexual behavior is at incredibly high levels. For instance, scarcely a week goes by where there is not a story in the news of a school teacher violating young ladies that he is trusted with.

There are laws requiring that professionals such as doctors, counselors, educators, etc must report any discovered sexual violation of underage girls so that the predator can be prosecuted, but abortion clinics routinely flout these laws with impunity and continue to profit from it.

If a young girl under the age of consent inquires about or obtains an abortion, it should automatically trigger an investigation. But this is rare to non-existent. There's simply too much money to be made by covering it up. And that's what the abortion clinics do.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men.

Document this by an unbiased source. (I won't hold my breath.)

dyslexia wrote:

100% of them will never be pregnant.

100% of the people in favor of exterminating the unborn have already been born. Documented.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

It's not about the women to me. It's about the life of the child. So you think they should have the right to control their bodies? So do I. .....

You are absolutely right Momma Angel. Those who sloganeer about the 'woman's control of her body' are conveniently overlooking or trying to make others not notice that it is not the woman's body that is destroyed by abortion. It is the body of a distinctly different individual, the unborn.

The unborn is not a part of the mother's body. The unborn, from the first millisecond, has a distinct DNA pattern that sets him/her apart from the mother. The body of the unborn is a completely distinct one from hers.

The unborn has a heartbeat, (circulating his own blood) and brainwaves at a very early stage.

Any doctor could tell the pro-aborts this, but they are not interested in medical facts. Many, instead, are interested in political power. Abortion is vital to their drive for political power, no matter how many lose their lives as a result.

In addition, many other pro-abortion folks are simply exercising a knee jerk emotional reaction when they defend the killing of the unborn. Many of them have either had an abortion, or helped someone else to do so. So they are not weighing facts objectively. There is no thought, facts or logic to their argument.

Their emotional outbursts are indicative of a personal bias to defend their own behavior. No amount of factual information will likely EVER persuade these folks to even entertain the notion that they are on the wrong side of this issue in their support of this bloody slaughter.

(Thankfully there are exceptions, those who HAVE thought through it and who are now pro-life despite having had an abortion. )

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Frank- Observe any country that is "backward". One of the hallmarks of a backward country is the subjugation of women. Whether we are talking about the former Taliban government in Afghanistan, where women were under virtual "house arrest", or the countries in sub-Saharan Africa where female genital mutilitation is rampant, there is one thing that these countries have in common.

These are areas that have not achieved the western standard in terms of technological and industrial advancement. They are living as their forebears lived centuries ago. And they each have one thing in common, that they treat women as inferior to men, as creatures to use for a man's pleasure, to provide sons, and to control her activities.

And the United States, the shining example of democracy, the radicals, (and not so radical) amongst us are now seeking to emulate the tribal mentality of these areas, by attempting to deprive women the soverenity over their own bodies.

The thing that is so ridiculous, if it weren't so sad, is that there are women in the US who are attempting to curtail their own rights.

And your talking about the superiority of woman that is so supreme over a child that they are given the power to abort them. Yet if a man by assault causes this unborn child to die......he is a what?A Killer? How when it was only an attack on HER BODY as you proclaim.

Oic now it's a death of a sovereign person with rights.

Very illogical. Backward you say?

Don't try to pin the backward, illogical title on our side of this issue...because it is your side that is screwed up.

A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY....PERIOD.

She does not lose those rights just because she is pregnant.

I'm not trying to pin the backward title to anyone. You did.

I just want a logical explanation of how a person could ever be charged with murder against an unborn child since the argument for abortion is "it is her body" and "it is not a human life"!

Can we see a logical forward thinking explanation please?

We shall see who is backward.

I say the unborn child is a human life with rights..........period.

What will you say?

"Well sometimes the unborn are persons with rights and sometimes not.....it depends on the voice of the mother"!

That explanation goes against the very meaning and essence of what it is to be a human being or person with rights now does'nt it ye forward thinking, logical, rational........human beings?

What other persons can sometimes not be a person?

Whose voices do ye depend on to confirm your personhood?

Let me guess .....other 'persons' perhaps? Or how about laws of written documents drafted by none other than......... other 'persons'?

If so, then you do not comprehend freedom in the least. You have confused being free....for being a slave.

This is what the founding fathers knew to be true......and what none of us can deny.

Maybe if you read this

you will see what I'm saying.

These truths are...SELF EVIDENT!

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

It's from the 18th century but.....it is this nation's very foundation.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/life_or_choice/pro_choice.asp

http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/sanger_address.asp

http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/sanger_and_planned_parenthood.asp

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

It's not about the women to me. It's about the life of the child. So you think they should have the right to control their bodies? So do I. .....

You are absolutely right Momma Angel. Those who sloganeer about the 'woman's control of her body' are conveniently overlooking or trying to make others not notice that it is not the woman's body that is destroyed by abortion. It is the body of a distinctly different individual, the unborn.

The unborn is not a part of the mother's body. The unborn, from the first millisecond, has a distinct DNA pattern that sets him/her apart from the mother. The body of the unborn is a completely distinct one from hers.

The unborn has a heartbeat, (circulating his own blood) and brainwaves at a very early stage.

Any doctor could tell the pro-aborts this, but they are not interested in medical facts. Many, instead, are interested in political power. Abortion is vital to their drive for political power, no matter how many lose their lives as a result.

In addition, many other pro-abortion folks are simply exercising a knee jerk emotional reaction when they defend the killing of the unborn. Many of them have either had an abortion, or helped someone else to do so. So they are not weighing facts objectively. There is no thought, facts or logic to their argument.

Their emotional outbursts are indicative of a personal bias to defend their own behavior. No amount of factual information will likely EVER persuade these folks to even entertain the notion that they are on the wrong side of this issue in their support of this bloody slaughter.

(Thankfully there are exceptions, those who HAVE thought through it and who are now pro-life despite having had an abortion. )

Absolute blather by people who want to limit a woman's right to have control over her body.

But...when you have a god like their god...I guess blinding yourself to the truth in order to be sure to suck up to the god is the only way to go.

I just love the blatant nonsense that these people are not trying to limit a woman's right to control her own body with statements that reduce to: "I'm not trying to limit a woman's right to control her own body...and besides, the reason I am is that it is killing another human being."

0 Replies

Ironically, while pro-choice advocates routinely accuse pro-lifers of wishing to "turn back the clock" on abortion, it is the current legal standard of humanity -- the "born-alive rule" -- that finds its origins in English law from the late 1400s.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I'm not trying to pin the backward title to anyone. You did.

No, Bart. You were the one that raised that. Not me.

Quote:

I just want a logical explanation of how a person could ever be charged with murder against an unborn child since the argument for abortion is "it is her body" and "it is not a human life"!

Can we see a logical forward thinking explanation please?

Strange things happen in laws, Bart. At one time there were laws that black human beings were not really human beings at all...but where sub humans who could be owned, bought, and sold.

DID THOSE LAWS MAKE THEM SUBHUMAN, Bart...or where those laws simply a pile of crap?

How about a logical, forward thinking explanation, please!

Quote:

We shall see who is backward.

I think we have. Take a look in a mirror.

Quote:

I say the unborn child is a human life with rights..........period.

What will you say?

I say an egg is not a chicken...and a fetus is not a human being with rights...especially rights that take other rights away from human beings that are not under dispute.

That is what I say.

Wake up, Bart. Get your head out of women's uteruses. Let women decide with they will do with their own bodies.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

I'm not trying to pin the backward title to anyone. You did.

No, Bart. You were the one that raised that. Not me.

Quote:
I just want a logical explanation of how a person could ever be charged with murder against an unborn child since the argument for abortion is "it is her body" and "it is not a human life"!

Can we see a logical forward thinking explanation please?

Strange things happen in laws, Bart. At one time there were laws that black human beings were not really human beings at all...but where sub humans who could be owned, bought, and sold.

DID THOSE LAWS MAKE THEM SUBHUMAN, Bart...or where those laws simply a pile of crap?

How about a logical, forward thinking explanation, please!

Quote:
We shall see who is backward.

I think we have. Take a look in a mirror.

Quote:
I say the unborn child is a human life with rights..........period.

What will you say?

I say an egg is not a chicken...and a fetus is not a human being with rights...especially rights that take other rights away from human beings that are not under dispute.

That is what I say.

Wake up, Bart. Get your head out of women's uteruses. Let women decide with they will do with their own bodies.

What you mean is that you cannot give a rational explanation as to why in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE an unborn child being terminated or killed should ever be considered murder or at least manslaughter without contradicting your own 'facts'? Right Frank?

H-hello......

I could ask you to wake up but, maybe it be better if you sleep on it awhile
and give your head a rest.

The backwardness I eluded to....cannot be perceived in a mirror....Frank!

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

What you mean is that you cannot give a rational explanation as to why in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE an unborn child being terminated or killed should ever be considered murder or at least manslaughter without contradicting your own 'facts'? Right Frank?

No. As a matter of fact, I gave an excellent answer to your question. I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend the response.

You have a closed mind, Bart.

I suspect it is because you are terrified of your monster god and want to kiss its ass no matter what the cost to humanity...although I acknowledge there may be other factors contributing to your close mindedness.

Quote:

H-hello......

Hello!

Quote:

I could ask you to wake up but, maybe it be better if you sleep on it awhile and give your head a rest.

Boy, was that ever lame. If you cannot think of a better rejoiner than that...perhaps you would do better to simply let it drop.

Quote:

The backwardness I eluded to....cannot be perceived in a mirror....Frank!

It can if you dare to open your eyes while looking in the mirror. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I just want a logical explanation of how a person could ever be charged with murder against an unborn child since the argument for abortion is "it is her body" and "it is not a human life"!........

I say the unborn child is a human life with rights..........period.

"Well sometimes the unborn are persons with rights and sometimes not.....it depends on the voice of the mother"!

That explanation goes against the very meaning and essence of what it is to be a human being or person with rights now does'nt it ye forward thinking, logical, rational........human beings?

What other persons can sometimes not be a person?

........If so, then you do not comprehend freedom in the least. You have confused being free....for being a slave.

This is what the founding fathers knew to be true......and what none of us can deny.

Bartikus,

You are correct of course. If the law allows the unborn to be a 'person' or not based on the whim of the mother, then anyone else can have their personhood defined away, as we saw in Dred Scott, etc.

The inherent contradiction is obvious.

There is no right to an abortion in our Constitution, but it was made up on the whim of the Supreme Court. This is why we need judges who follow the law instead of trying to make law from the bench.

There are judges who have mandated raised taxes and taken over administrative functions of elected officials because they felt like they could get away with it. And they did. It is time, IMO , to term limit federal judges and that will require a constitutional amendment. But it will be well worth it.

0 Replies

My mirror only reflects a person's physical characteristics Frank.

Where did you get the mirror you use? Can you get them at the home depot or what?

You make absolutely no sense to me and apparently neither do I to you.

I was'nt pointing anything out to kiss........any ass Frank. I think that by you saying an "ass kissing for God" says a whole lot more about you............than me.

Is that even remotely possible Frank? How open minded are you to that possibility?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

My mirror only reflects a person's physical characteristics Frank.

Where did you get the mirror you use? Can you get them at the home depot or what?

You make absolutely no sense to me and apparently neither do I to you.

I was'nt pointing anything out to kiss........any ass Frank. I think that by you saying an "ass kissing for God" says a whole lot more about you............than me.

Is that even remotely possible Frank? How open minded are you to that possibility?

I am always open to the possibility that I am an asshole, Bart. I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong on things.

You are right ...you make very, very little sense to me.

0 Replies

I think Bartikus asked a very valid question. One I was hoping someone would answer.

If a person can be convicted of murdering a woman carrying a child and that child dies why can the person be charged with murder of the child? What makes it different? Simply the fact that in the cases of abortion the woman makes the choice and in the case of murder she didn't get to use her right to choose? A person's right to choice decides whether it is killing a human being or not?

I don't know how many times many of us have admitted that yes, we realize the woman's right to choice would be taken away if abortion were banned. However, that is NOT the reason we are against abortion. We are against abortion because we believe it kills an innocent human being. We happen to feel that the child has rights also and we stand up for those rights because it seems those that are pro-choice won't even acknowledge the existence of that human life. How many pro-choice people are against the death penalty? Plenty, yet they don't seem to have a problem with someone essentially laying down a death sentence on a human being that has absolutely no way to defend themselves. The death penalty is handed down to those found convicted of crimes. The child in a womb has committed no crime, unless you consider just existing being a crime.

0 Replies

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body; a person, who violates the woman's right to having a baby (against her will, which is unlawful), must be convicted; a child (baby) has rightsnot a fetus.

0 Replies

I understand what you are saying, Jason. But the fact remains there are many that believe that it is not just a clump of cells but a child. Some think a child from conception and others at different points. Me, it's a child from conception. So, IMO, it has rights. The law may not state that, but it doesn't change the way I feel about it.

Like I said, if the woman's choice is taken away, such as in the case of her being murdered, or her child being murdered by someone other than who she chooses (abortion) it's ok? Sorry, just can't accept it. That's just not right. To me that is one human being deciding whether another person should live or die and that's not man's place to make those decisions.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Like I said, if the woman's choice is taken away, such as in the case of her being murdered, or her child being murdered by someone other than who she chooses (abortion) it's ok?

Can't you see the difference between those two, Momma?

0 Replies

Jason,

If I could honestly see the difference, I would tell you that I could. But, no, I see no difference. If a woman chooses abortion IMO she is killing the child.

If someone else causes her child in the womb to die, they are killing the child.

The only difference to me is who makes the choice that the child dies.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Like I said, if the woman's choice is taken away, such as in the case of her being murdered, or her child being murdered by someone other than who she chooses (abortion) it's ok?

Can't you see the difference between those two, Momma?

I can see differences but let's be clear on two points.

If an unborn child is killed by the hands of another man or woman with the intent to kill the unborn (punching a clearly pregnant woman in the stomache) is murder because the unborn child is a HUMAN BEING.

If a mother and doctor decide to abort/kill the unborn child....you may call it legal...you may call it whatever you like.

It remains the killing of a HUMAN BEING.......period.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know