Abortionists killing babes after birth? Infanticide okay?

You state accusations that you present as fact because you have some kind of personal knowledge? Or is it that those supposed facts just augment your desired results? We do know that Obama, Clinton and others of your persuasion approach Sainthood and all the evidence against the, is false, right?
All I know is the actions taken by President Trump are in favor of securing the value of life, protecting our sovereign borders, and assuring that other Nations pay their fair share. The U.S.A. will no longer be Nanny to the world.

As to your comment
"As to your whole Founding Fathers argument- the Founding Fathers were not against abortion. Abortion was not illegal in this country until the 1860s."
Slavery too was legal until after the late 1800's. Like abortion, it took decades to implement the Liberty spelled out by the Founders. Would you like a return to slavery as well as the murder of children in the womb? Do you imply that abortion was as common prior to 1860 as it is today? If you do.....I would take issue with that.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
More unanswered questions: ""How do you explain "precious life" torn from their parents and kept in dog kennels?? INNOCENT children, BORN children who can feel and suffer....and you don't seem to mind..."""

LOL! Yup, treating those "precious lives"" Really Badly is OK because Obama did something...another WEAK "Christian " excuse LOL!.....IF this was your Utopian "Christian" nation you claim it is that shouldn't be happening at all.



I see Anti-Choicers screaming about abortion , it punishes the " baby" for something the mother did .......but the babies in the kennels are innocent , too...and RIGHTIES LAUGH at their confinement...and support it..

 

Where in the constitution or in any of our laws is the word Christian or the body of Christ? So what if most of the founding fathers were Christian. They were all men also does that mean women are not Americans? The founding fathers deliberately separated church from State

 

YES, it IS....it is the most important basic human right.

Taking it away from a group of people makes them slaves, that is what slaves are and I see the "Christian" righties trying desperately to bring slavery ack, but just for those SUBHUMANS, WOMEN.

LOL! The Righties idea of "selfishness" : " If righties do it , it isn't selfish, if any woman does something I don't like , it's selfish and a crime and a BiG Sin and she should wear the Scarlet Letter "S" on her chest.""

What has that got to do with anything?????? So what? So some women don't think having kids is necessary ...so WHAT?


That doesn't mean they should have their rights taken away and , LIKE SLAVES, be forced to gestate

WHY DO MEN HAVE BREASTS ?

Oh lordy, I've heard that "natural order of life " crap before....I'm beginning to think you are a reincarnation of another poster since you sure haven't brought up anything new.

WHO determines what this "natural order of life " is ? YOU ????

Is there a LAW you can point out that shows how "going against the natural order of life as determined by you " is illegal ?

NO , women are NOT responsible for fulfilling your wishes or the continuation of the species...that's just a sick, sexist attempt to try to convince women if they don't breed like cattle they are "BAD WOMEN"

Prove it....and then tell me why men have breasts

Ya, so? All sound like responsible , practical reasons.....


WHY did you think women had abortions??

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
probably why this country is in such a mess.....and so many innocent people get hurt....

Well, YOU insist it is , and always has been, a theocracy (Christian nation) ….and that doesn't appear to have helped it any.....we are no better than other countries...

If this is a "Christian nation" why are there so many problems..?

Wait , I bet you blame others and say they aren't Christians and they caused all the trouble...























Isn't it funny how Anti-Choicers want the father to "have a say" but when we ask, what if the father says "abort" ?..... they get real quiet.....

 

Denying women the right to their own body IS slavery.


This is fun, poster doesn't answer so he can't see how wrong he is....guess education isn't big with righties

 

If you knew History, you would know that women were granted more liberty through the arrival of Christ than any other action in human history. Women had a great impact on the Founders. I suppose you are one of those that would demean Betsy Ross though she was quite active in the abolition movement, As has been previously mentioned and you shoose to ignore..... the Church of England had been the Religion of the State and was quite oppressive to various denominations as is the Catholic Church of Rome in Italy. The Quaker influence in America was a refugee from that fact and strong influence to keep the State from sponsoring a denomination or even a different religion. Leftist in America would just as soon Christians keep their precepts and values to themselves while they promote their own.

 

Uh, naturally, in your quest to prove women are nothing more than broodstock, you forgot one of their most important organs, their brain.

See, women can think....you may not agree but they can. And most think they should have the same rights everyone else has...which they should.

They are NOT "subhuman".

Humans are NOT an endangered species, NO one has an obligation to further the species and the fetus and woman situation it that of a parasite and host.

Yes, parasite, the fetus lives off the woman it's in.....and contrary to what you believe is not separate and cannot be taken out to grow /develop on it's own.

 

What quality of life does that poor wee thing have? At 2.5 years old they are happy that he can eat a biscuit with assistance? Mind you I saw some mouthing of the biscuit but no actual chewing. Denial can be so very strong in parents and that is fine but if that child lives to be 10 or 15 he will still be in nappies and then who cares for him? The “walking” was entirely aided and non co-ordinated. I’ll he ever walk without aid? Very very much doubt it. So confined to a wheelchair at best. Constant “seizures” which themselves cause brain damage......

Truth is he is actually not an anencephalic he is a microcephalic. There is enough of the brain stem and what we call the “hind brain” to allow autonomic functions to occur but there is no processing of information.

I have seen cases like this and the mother often puts in superhuman efforts on the child and that is OK for them but it is not something everyone can or should do.

What you are not understanding is that this is about choice and what is ok for one is not for another

Here is a woman who has a severely disabled child


What she does every day for that child is superhuman but it is also obvious that she has given up having another child or children

 

Our first president was a Christian. I think that speaks volumes about where the nation was in terms of faith. Go to new England - you will see a church in nearly every village. And it's usually at the CENTER of every village. Obviously we can make some inferences about where the nation was at in terms of religion around the time of it's inception (late 1700s). This nation was founded by conservative Christians for ALL peoples of all religions. And America has truly become the melting pot of the world because of that. Remember: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness isnt just a phrase. It's a creed to live by. Obviously, the liberals don't obey this simple set of instructions.

 

Iron_MercNewly Registered
Joined:
Oct 10, 2019

↑

Right lets stay on topic here... abortion debate. """""""""""""

 

Uh, NO, it's the righties who don't believe women have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness....THEY are the one trying to take away women's rights.


You : …""" for ALL peoples"



......except women....

 

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Trump has been involved in over 1,000 law suits because he is a dick, not because he is respected. He couldn’t even get a loan to save his casino. His South Florida business partners (Dezer Brothers) are under investigation for money laundering. His lawyer and fixer is in jail. He had to pay out millions to the students of his “university” sham.

He publically cheated on his first wife, and because he is a child, he sent his mistress to tell her. There is nothing honorable about Trump.

 

Its my right to infanticide, and to eat the baby's meat, without hearing all the uproar just because I can't be charged with a crime! Infanticide is ordained in the Bible in numerous places. The Romans assumed the early Christians stole and ate babies. They developed this from the communion "flesh" bread and the "blood" wine. Many Christian marriages are pre-ordained for the blood feast.

Now people hate Stonewall Jackson for ordaining Christian slavery! Ahaha!

 

You dont get it, do you? If the unborn baby is less than a person he or she is by default "subhuman".

Can you see the serious disconnect here? Either the child in the womb is a human, deserving the same rights as all humans have, or he is subhuman, something more like a leech, which does not deserve the respect and ethical treatment that humans do.

Actions speak louder than words. By butchering an unborn child you are treating the unborn child as less than human. Therefore, the aborted or soon to be aborted

Abortion treats the fetus as subhuman, while banning the practice of burning a fetus for fuel treats the fetus as human. Get real. The fetus either deserves ethical human treatment or does not.

So you can continue to treat the fetus as "subhuman" like the (libeal socialist) nazi's did to the Jews or like the liberal democrats did with the slaves (they were subhuman as well).

What do we know of unborn babies? Are they human beings? Sociologist Barbara Rothman recently wrote that pregnancy "takes its meaning from the woman in whose body the pregnancy is unfolding." In other words, if the mother wants the baby, it's human, but if she does not want it, it's nothing but human tissue.

But that solution is unworkable: It amounts to making complex moral decisions on the basis of what every individual wants and that would inevitably lead society into moral anarchy. Everyone would simply do what is right in his or her own eyes.

If the definition of human life is what every person wants it to be, what would prevent us from legalizing infanticide? Joseph Fletcher, of situational ethics fame, has rightly observed that it's illogical to give ethical approval to ending "sub-human" fetal life by abortion but refuse to give that same approval to ending a "sub-human" infant life by positive euthanasia (killing a terminally ill or defective child).

 

Parroting right wing radio rhetoric is so 2000. The last President I identify with was Eisenhower, so again you show that your need to place everyone is some type of liberal box is a fail.

Given Trump’s history of screwing around on his wives, we can almost certainly declare Trump has paid for more than one abortion in his day. He is a dick.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You STILL do NOT get it....A human fetus is always human , NO ONE said it isn't human and NO ONE SAID IT WAS SUBHUMAN.
Why do you persist in making these claims that have nothing to do with reality, that are based on things that were NEVER said??
And the FACT that a fetus is not a legal person until birth is not a "theory of the left".....that's what Americans believe...

NO, YOU don't get it...the fact that every part of a human is human. The heart , the kidney, the fetus...all are "human"...NONE are a person.

A human fetus is always human , NO ONE said it isn't human and NO ONE SAID IT WAS SUBHUMAN....but YOU.

No, it isn't, it is as human as the human heart or human liver....it is NOT a subhuman and it is not a legal person until birth.

It is human (adjective) NOT A human (noun) as in "legal person.

Then WHY do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else ????

Fetuses are not all "he". ...and only YOU are contending it's subhuman....why???

It is scientifically a parasite , it lives off another entity.

Why shouldn't women have the respect and ethical treatment that other legal persons have?

No facts or logic there.

LOL! You make a garbled statement like that and then tell me to "get real" !!?? Too funny!

Oh, here comes de Nazis !

Pretty weak argument especially since the Nazis and slave owners DENIED HUMANS THE RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY EXACTLY LIKE ANTI-CHOICERS WANT TO DO TO WOMEN.

Pure horsepuckey...what a woman wants does NOT change what a fetus is.

That is because "morals" ARE individual to the holder...


YOUR "morals" are NOT everyone's nor should they be.

The basic human right of bodily autonomy.....the very right you want to destroy for women.

Oh, I see he is confused, too.

 

To see whether the Roe decision is an accurate interpretation of constitutional rights, it is important to understand the intentions of the authors of the Constitution. Did they advocate legal abortion protected by the Constitution?

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.

From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

Similarly, St. George Tucker, a Madison judicial appointee and professor of law at the College of William and Mary, explained in his celebrated legal treatise on American law that it is “a great misprision [misdemeanor]” to “kill a child in its mother’s womb.”

Laws in American states criminalized abortion from the beginning. For example, Virginia law outlawed the practice of using “potion” to “unlawfully destroy the child within her [womb].” These laws were crafted by many of the same individuals who framed the Constitution.

It is therefore inconceivable that the framers intended constitutional protections for abortion as a “fundamental right.” Indeed, the framers believed the opposite. From their perspective, the unborn child has a fundamental right to life, a right that would be infringed by an abortion that ends his or her life.

Full source here:
https://www.fpiw.org/blog/2017/07/05/is-abortion-constitutional-lets-ask-the-founders/

 

Yet your own argument relates to fetus AFTER quickening, around the 20th to 24th week. Since only 3% of abortions are performed After the 20th week and usually only for dire medical reasons, it would seem to fall in line the majority view of pro-choice people. Once again your arguments fail.

 

Then it should be able to be taken out of the woman it's in and left to grow on it's own.

IF it is a person then why do you want it to have MORE rights than the PERSON it's in?

Are they less of a person than the fetus?

 

So many unanswered INCONVENIENT questions...seems Anti-Choicers really have no argument

 

If the unborn is not considered a "person" then by default they would be considered as "less" than a person. Person is defined as: human being regarded as an individual. Therefore the unborn child is less than human. Therefore, the fetus is subhuman.

black slaves = not a person
Jewish Holocaust = not a person
Abortion = not a person
Get it?

If a fetus was fully human it would be considered a person.

Sub human is defined as:
of a lower order of being than the human. AND
(of people or their behavior) not worthy of a human being; debased or depraved.

Debased is defined as:
reduced in quality or value. AND
reduce (something) in quality or value; degrade.

The fetus is less than human....it's considered subhuman whether you like it or not.

Warren Hern is one of the most prominent abortionists in the world. He wrote the textbook, Abortion Practice. His central premise is this: unborn children should be viewed not as people, but as a disease. He writes that "the relationship between the [mother] and the [baby] can be understood best as one of host and parasite." Famed astrophysicist Carl Sagan joined this chorus by comparing unborn children to segmented worms, fish, tadpoles, reptiles, and pigs. That is the language of dehumanization. Even the word "fetus" has become a term of derision used by those who want to de-emphasize the humanity of unborn children.

Abortion supporters are infuriated at the notion that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust because they incessantly argue that human embryos and fetuses are not actually people. This is the argument that is always made to justify crimes against humanity. It is the same rationale that drove Hitler's mistreatment of the Jews and America's scandalous three-fifths compromise, which reckoned enslaved African-Americans as 3/5 of a person. David Livingstone Smith, the author of Less Than Human, notes that society is all too willing to "gerrymander the category of humans in ways that suit us.

And just so you know: Crimes against humanity are almost always built on the assertion that certain human beings do not deserve protection under the law. The most notorious example is the Jewish Holocaust, in which six million European Jews were executed for their alleged racial inferiority.

If we can't compare atrocities past to atrocities present, then the term "never again" loses all meaning—and we will continue our sad legacy of dehumanizing and abusing those who get in our way or have something we want.

 

Mother and fetus have the same rights? Why would it be any different for the mother?

Just because one human is reliant on another doesn't change or compromise their individual right to person-hood. For example, a critical care nurse may be necessary in keeping a very sick person alive. You wouldnt call the sick person subhuman, even if his or her life depends on the nurse for their very existence.

 

Slaves and Jews were BORN LEGAL PERSONS.

You are correct, abortion is not a person and neither are the unborn
Get it?

A human fetus is fully human....WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE?

Pretty weak argument especially since the Nazis and slave owners DENIED HUMANS THE RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY EXACTLY LIKE ANTI-CHOICERS WANT TO DO TO WOMEN.

 

I cant sit down and argue every single point. Especially when its 4-5 people verses me. I have limited time during the day to respond here. It's not that Im avoiding questions at all, I just do not have the time to get to each and every point.