PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     To supporters of Roe v Wade

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
john w k

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade


I have long been amazed at those who defend Roe vs. Wade and their complicity in the subjugation of our Constitutional system!



"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."---Federalist Paper No. 45


Why do these people, the supporters of Roe vs. Wade,  advocate a system of government in which the SCOTUS is free to impose its whims and fancies upon the people of the various states without the people’s consent and approval via an appropriate amendment?  Where have the people agreed to delegate authority to the federal government to regulate the terms and conditions acceptable in terminating a pregnancy within a particular state’s borders?

Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize the case is very similar to the recent Kelo decision in which the SCOTUS likewise used its position of public trust to ignore the limited powers of the federal government, and ignore the meaning of “public use“ as related to eminent domain under the various state constitutions, and that the Court, without the people’s approval, extended  the meaning of “public use” to now mean for “commercial use” which now allows the rich and powerful across our union to steal the property of the less influential?  

Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize their advocacy of Roe vs. Wade supports the same thinking used by the Court in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich which was not about “medical marijuana“ or the use of drugs as portrayed by the establishment media?  The case was once again about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the states, not within.

What these cases all have in common is, the SCOTUS ignoring the intent and beliefs under which We the People adopted the Constitution and can be documented from Madison’s Notes, the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers,  Elliot’s Debates and the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress [documenting the intent and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted].

Roe vs. Wade is in fact just one case in a series of cases in which our folks in Washington, our public servants, have taken it upon themselves to set aside what the people agreed to, and have decided to do for the people what the people have not willing agreed to do for themselves.  They have decided to  impose their personal predilections upon the people without the People’s  consent!

But Hamilton tells us:

.“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.”

Hamilton, Federalist 78


Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute, through taxation, to a gangster government which ignores our most fundamental laws----our state and the united State’s Constitutions!

Only domestic enemies of our constitutional system would support such tyranny, which includes those who would not joyfully overturn Roe vs. Wade!


The incontrovertible truth is, the words of our founding fathers, as found in Madison’s Notes,the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates, [including the Congressional Globe], and which express a consensus  of the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system, and acts to expose the evil nature of our domestic enemies, right wing militants and left wing militants, who claim the Constitution may mean whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK
ACRS


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"---Justice Story
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:43 AM on November 5, 2005 | IP
Rho

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State
...
The case was once again about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the states, not within.


This is excepted, of course, where State law is in contradiction with the Constitution.  One can have more rights than those granted by the Constitution, but you cannot be given less.  The Constitution does indeed limit Congress' power to regulate laws within States, but it does not limit the Supreme Court to this.  Congress cannot create a national ban on abortion for this reason, but the same reason cannot be used to limit SCOTUS in judicial matters.

Roe established that the gov't, under Substantive Due Process, did not have a "compelling need" to restrict a woman's "right to privacy" under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " meaning the gov't has to use sufficiently clear and fair procedures to lawfully take these away. Because a woman has sex is not a sufficient justification to deprive women of their liberty in this matter.

Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Justice Potter Stewart, a judge on the Roe v Wade case said in his concurring opinon: "Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." "

That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Some other aspects can be found in Laurence H. Tribe's book "The Clash of Absolutes" (a very good read):

In Anglo-American law there is no general duty to give of yourself to rescue another. That may come as a surprise to many; it certainly surprises many law students when they first confront the principle


There is only one place in the law where a really significant and intimate sacrifice has been required of anyone in order to save another: the law of abortion. If you woke up with the hypothetical violinist attached to you, the law--and, probably, the views of morality held by most people--would permit you to free yourself of him. When the law prohibits a woman from freeing herself of the fetus inside her, the law appears to work a harsh discrimination against women even if fetuses count as persons


Another aspect to consider as a more philosophical point of governmental role in our lives:
While we might not impose selflessness and virtuous behavior on a man....some may find it less of a contradiction to impose such virtue on a woman because of the traditional view of her nature. But to impose virtue on ANY person demeans that person's individual worth. It is no more acceptable when the person is a woman than a man. There should be no 'woman's exception' to our traditional regard for individualism and autonomy. As long as these values remain at the core of our legal system, there is thus a powerful case for the conclusion that laws prohibiting abortion--even IF the fetus is regarded as a person--deny women the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to all by the 14th amendment. And if this is so, then perhaps the Roe decision, by gratuitously insisting that the fetus cannot be deemed a person, needlessly insulted and alienated those for whom the view that the fetus is a person represents a fundamental article of faith or a bedrock personal committment. Perhaps as Yale Law School Dean Guido Calabresi has suggested, the Roe opinion for no good reason said to a large and politically active group "[y]our metaphysics are not part of our Constitution." The Court could have indeed have said: Even if the fetus is a person, our Constitution forbids compelling a woman to carry it for nine months and become a mother

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 12:12 PM on January 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

I wonder what due process was given to the child before their life was stripped from them...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:39 PM on January 7, 2006 | IP
Rho

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wonder what due process was given to the child before their life was stripped from them...


There are at least two things wrong with what you said here.  One, the State neither provides nor performs the abortion procedure so the State takes nothing away from the fetus.  Two, the fetus has no rights under the Constitution because the fetus is not a citizen.  You must be born to be a citizen of America.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:18 PM on January 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So anyone not a citizen of the United States has no rights?  If I kill some guy from New Zealand (random country) then it's no worse (under the Constitution) than if I kill some woman's unborn child?  If the woman doesn't choose to abort her baby, but I decide to do it anyhow then I'm only guilty of invading her "right to privacy"?   I don't buy it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:58 PM on January 8, 2006 | IP
Rho

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you kill someone in New Zealand you fall under the laws of New Zealand, not our own (as far as I know).  Certainly we do not apply the Constitution to our foreign policy, since we recognize no Constitutional rights of others outside our country.

If you are not a citizen, you have no call to appeal to your Constitutional rights (because you have none).  However, you will fall under State laws which can and do apply to those who are not citizens.  States can provide more rights than the Constitution supplies, but not less.  Abortion would fall under State laws and States could disallow abortion except that this would violate the woman's Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore States cannot restrict it (before viability anyway).

If you abort her fetus without her consent you have assaulted a pregnant woman which is a crime separate than invading her privacy.  Even with her consent, you cannot because you are not a licensed medical person.

(Edited by Rho 1/9/2006 at 12:34 AM).
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 12:32 AM on January 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ask the woman whose fetus is aborted without her consent whether you "killed her child" or "removed a growth".  Funny how its only "not a life" if you'd rather not be bothered with taking care of it.  Of course, you could've just kept your legs closed.  And if it's not a life, why doesn't the father get a say?  It's his sperm.  Maybe he wants it back.  I don't understand how, if a woman wants to keep it, he can be held liable for child support (after all, maybe he didn't want it), but has no rights if she wants to get rid of it.  You can't arbitrarily choose whether he is responsible based on the woman's decision and not on his own decision.  That makes no sense.  I am responsible for my own decisions and not those of another person.  And you can't argue that his decision will affect hers and then not argue it in the other direction as well.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:11 AM on January 10, 2006 | IP
Rho

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The issue is the legality.  I don't have to ask the woman anything of the sort.  

As far as child-support goes, I agree with you.  A man should be able to 'abort' his rights and responsibilities in the same time frame that a woman can physically abort, in my view.  You are indeed responsible for your decisions, the gov't has no place making your decisions for you in this way.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:54 PM on January 11, 2006 | IP
Lucifer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My own thoughts on abortion. Let the woman have her right to choose. She's the one who has to live with her decision. No one else, but her has to carry that burden.

Much better than the coat hanger in the alley theory, as the right to lifers would like to see.

Or perhaps we can take vote. Everyone who is Pro life can simply belly up to the trough and pay for all these unwanted kids. Simple as this, the Bushy's can simply add a check box on your income tax return and if you ar a right to lifer, you can simply check yes and put your money where your mouth is, by donating your tax return to pay for one these unwanted kids. perhaps they can even send you a picture of one that eventually be your, pen pal from some maximum security prison.

If George Bush is so concerned about saving the unborn child by trying to get his supreme court cronies appointed, to try and reverse roe vs wade, then why is he sending our boys (yes the ones that are already here and living) over to these third world countries to die, everyday for a senseless cause?
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:21 AM on February 1, 2006 | IP
Lucifer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Myers,
It's sound like your one of those guys who got his shorts caught in the cookie jar, somewhere along the line. You ever hear of condoms? They do work and their much cheaper than child support.
How could a person possibly concieve the  delusion that they should have any right to tell another person what they should do or not do, with their own body? That's Third Reich mentality.
It is exactly for this reasoning that politics should be clearly seperated from religion. Goverment must severe all ties with religion, period. The fact that organized religion could care less about their clergmen molesting young boys while trying to force their abortion views down everyones throat is simply delusinal. What's with that?

I totally love this "when is a life, a life issue." If it during conception, then why can't it even be way before that? Maybe back to the twinkle in the eye stage of the relastionship. Or even before that. How about this. When a 14 yr old boy blows his load for the first time, does that make him a murderer? The first time his girlfriend give him head, does that make her canibal? One of you "right to lifers" help me out here, I'm in a gray area here and not sure where it stops or does it?
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:53 AM on February 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A) There is no question.  Life begins at conception.  I don't understand your confusion.

B)  I happen to have two children and I wanted them both.

C) Why do people get so upset at the concept of abstinence?  

D) You do realize that condoms don't work 100% of the time.  Counting on condoms to prohibit conception is like playing Russian roulette.  Yes, the odds are in your favor, but you must be PREPARED to accept the consequences of your actions if you get the wrong cylinder.

E) "Organized" religion is a joke.  Most of them are "organized" to separate their apostasies from each other.

F) Keeping your peter in your pants is even cheaper than condoms.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:31 AM on February 1, 2006 | IP
Lucifer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we'll let me back you a few posts. when you were spewing your wisdom acouple of days ago.
you were recently complaining about having to pay child support without having the right to make the other person get an abortion. you should have thought about it with the big head before you acted with the little one. simple as that. condom or no condom, you are accountable for your actions. so pay you must.

I have 4 children and love them all dearly. Would I have had my wife get an abortion in any instant, absolutely not. But, this does not give me the right to govern how another person chooses. I can still respect another individuals right to choose. Maybe all you self righteous people should take a long hard look at yourselves before trying to impose your views on someone you would'nt give the time of day in any other circumstance.

is'nt it just amazing that some people  believe that they just don't have it good enough here on earth, even with everything they already have. they go as far, as to try and inflict their own will on the others who do not share their views. We're not all supposed to agree you know, we would'nt be individuals then. We can share our views and accepts otherd rights. I just can't phathom how a person can truly believe that what is right for them, will be right for someone else. Maybe I should also creat a god in my own image. bet you've got a plastic jesus on your dashboard too. dude, it's only plastic. I don't understand your confusion.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 6:04 PM on February 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would I have any sort of idol on my dashboard?  Having a plastic Jesus (which is usually painted to be some white guy when we all know he was a Jew in the firstplace) is pretty stupid.  I don't have a crucifix or a fish either.  Where do you get these ideas?  Also, you say we can share our views.  Isn't that what we are doing?

As for your accountability comment.... EXACTLY!  If you create a child you are RESPONSIBLE for that child.  If my boss assigns me a project, I am RESPONSIBLE for that project.  I don't just get to throw it in the trash.  I am responsible for making sure that the project reaches fruition.  If I don't want the RESPONSIBILITY, I shouldn't accept a job.  If I don't want to REAR a child, I shouldn't be having sex.  People, accept responsibility for your DECISIONS.  Finally, a voice of reason.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:47 AM on February 2, 2006 | IP
hinata

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I can still respect another individuals right to choose."

To choose whether or not their child can live or not???  Come on!  Abortion isn't just about killing a clump of cells; it's about ending the life of another human being.  Nobody should have the right to kill an innocent human being.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 3:24 PM on February 12, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you believe that a zygote is a human being from the moment of conception, you must also believe that a seed is a tree and an egg is a chicken.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 11:22 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except that there is nothing morally wrong with killing a tree (I have many wooden things in my house) or a chicken (KFC, mmm).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:55 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My post was not addressed to the morality of abortion.  It addressed the claim that a zygote was a human being from the moment of conception.

So, are you saying that you believe a seed is the same thing as a tree, and an egg is the same thing as a chicken?


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 3:20 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are we discussing a chicken egg with an unborn chicken developing inside it?  I'd like to compare apples with apples.  And I don't think seeds need to be "conceived".  Any botanists out there that can back me up on that?



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:11 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Basically, any organism that reproduces sexually, as opposed to asexually, begins the process by a joining of genetic material from one parent with that of another.  In humans, that moment is generally referred to as "conception."  Another term with the same approximate meaning is "fertilization."

Assume I am talking about an egg that has been fertilized and a seed that is ready to be planted in the ground to sprout.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 4:46 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, a fertilized egg is a chicken (I eat both).  I'm unsure of the science (not a botanist) surrounding the tree, but a tree from a sapling, from a seedling, from a seed.  I don't see the problem with it.  Of course, I still don't see anything morally wrong with killing a tree or chicken.  If you wish to argue that killing a tree or a chicken is the same as killing a human then I'll pray for you.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:07 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
reasonn

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers, I love reading your posts: you're straight forward and get to your point.

I've got a different opinion, but I love reading you.

Rho is right on. Ultimately this is a legal issue. We might have strong personal feelings, but without strong evidence to back-up those feelings, our assertions are a matter of faith, not of government. There is not much if any evidence to support the claim that a zygote is a person: it's human, it's living (so are all the rest of the cells in my body), it's got unique DNA (so does a brain dead body on life support), etc. There's no cosistent standard to assert the position of life at conception.

My personal belief is: life begins and ends when the brain turns on and off. At least this belief can be applied consistently throughout life and applies both to the beginning and the end of life.

Rho's post that included the siamese twin scenario  (as sad as it is), was even more to the point in terms of the governemtns responsibility to get involved in this:

If two adults exist as siamese twins, Bob and Tom. Bob is fully formed but Tom's heart does not pump enough blood for him to survive independently of Bob. Bob is suffering under the physical and mental strain of supporting Tom's body and decides he no longer wants to be attatched to Tom. As sad and uncaring as this act might be, doesn't Bob have the right to do this ?

In the case of Bob and Tom, there will be serious disagreement about where Bob's body ends and Tom's body begins, but that is not the case when a pregnant woman has a fetus inside her. Should the government have the authority to force her to donate her body so that the other person can live?

If you are at fault in a car accident that causes a woman to suffer a kiney failure, and you are the only compatible donor availbale to donate a kidney in time to save her life, should the government be able to force you to donate your kidney? You choose to drive your car knowing full well that an accident coud happen.

These are sad and horrible examples. My personal inclination is to help others and even risk my own health to help and sustain the lives of others, but I can't imagine forcing other people to do so.

---





 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 9:13 PM on March 8, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except that there is nothing morally wrong with killing a tree (I have many wooden things in my house)


Ed, if you think there are no repercussions for chopping down a tree then try the following experiment:

1.  Take a chain saw to your townsquare at high noon and buzz down the largest oak tree you can find.  Write down everything that happens to you after you accomplish this task and keep a log of all your fines and legal expenses.

2. On a different day find a  fresh acorn lying on the ground in the same town square and crush it with your shoe. Write down everything that happens to you after you accomplish this task and keep a log of all your fines and legal expenses.

3.  Compare your notes from the first part of the experiment with your notes from the second part of the experiment.  Compare the legal costs.  Can you discern any differences in the way "society" reacts to each  event or part of the experiment?

You know I love you Ed but I'm bored and I feel like rattling your cage.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:43 AM on September 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except you can't compare them.   If I crush an acorn in my yard or cut down a tree in my yard (i.e. my tree, my acorn) then I've done nothing wrong (let's not hypothesize that the tree landed on someone's car or something silly like that).  However, if I kill my full grown child then I am a murderer, but if I poke a hole in my unborn babies head and suck its brains out with a glorified vacuum then I'm a responsible person saving the world from another mouth to feed.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:47 PM on September 8, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with Mr Myers. If you don't look at this link and after see if you still beleave in abortion . Warning this is verry graphic.

http://www.freakhole.com/puke/25770/video/detail.php  


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:41 PM on September 9, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except you can't compare them.   If I crush an acorn in my yard or cut down a tree in my yard (i.e. my tree, my acorn) then I've done nothing wrong (let's not hypothesize that the tree landed on someone's car or something silly like that).

 
Actually it depends on where you live.  Anybody who lives in the DC area knows that Dan Snyder, the Redskins owner, got into hot water with the authorities because he chopped down some mature trees on property that he owned.  

However, if I kill my full grown child then I am a murderer, but if I poke a hole in my unborn babies head and suck its brains out with a glorified vacuum then I'm a responsible person saving the world from another mouth to feed.


It depends...Did you ever see the movie "Rosemary's Baby"?

Let me be clear though, when I use the acorn/oak tree analogy I am speaking of pre-embryotic zygotes and not fully formed fetuses.  I believe that once an embryo reaches the fetal stage in it's development   cycle there is no question that it is a human--at least  from the biological perspective .
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:33 PM on September 11, 2006 | IP
Christian

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abortion 'rights' are not in the US Constitution except in the imagination of some activist judges.

Since it is not in the US Constitution Federal Judges have NO authority in the matter; it is a STATE issue.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:10 PM on July 20, 2007 | IP
Christian

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Roe established that the gov't, under Substantive Due Process, did not have a "compelling need" to restrict a woman's "right to privacy" under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " meaning the gov't has to use sufficiently clear and fair procedures to lawfully take these away. Because a woman has sex is not a sufficient justification to deprive women of their liberty in this matter.

===

Based on this a man can kill his wife as long as he does it 'in private' since the government has no right to 'butt in'.

Abortion is MURDER, done by selfish people who have the morals of alley cats.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:12 PM on July 20, 2007 | IP
richbrmly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A fetus is parasitic in nature. It can not live without cooperation of the host. The host's life is directly affected by the presence of the fetus. There are viable fertilized eggs lost daily. The only malfunction was that the egg did not attach to the uterine wall. They are even flushed down church toilets without the host ever knowing the event occurred. A woman is born with 500, 000 eggs (1/2 Million eggs).  Any individual egg could cost the female her life.  Before birth control, the average life span of a woman was 30.  Now, even the Catholic women are living to a ripe old age.  How do you think this is happening?  Abortion has been in practice even before Moses through out the world in one form or another.  Anyone can perform an abortion, the path is as straight forward as anything can get.  A thin membrane is all there is between a fetus and discontinuation.  In the old days; powerful blows to the stomach or heavy g forces (ruff rides, long drops) where used to terminate a pregnancy.  You can image the effects this would have on the host.  Now we can get back this crap and end legal abortion. One thing we can not end is abortion.  It’s older than reading and writing.


-------
Richard
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 08:16 AM on August 4, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.