. And you think "defense from an aggressor is the only reason countries go to war ??? Laughable... But you haven't called the cops yet...hmmmmm... And you don't believe in the right to self defense either...but I bet you would defend yourself from harm...
It is no secret that the religious right is the political force behind the anti abort movement. Republicanism died in the GOP - and it is the religious right that is responsible for this death -as they have controled the Party platform for many years - and are the downfall of the right. It is no different on the Blue side however, these uber left wing finatics have led to the death of any remnents of classical liberalism on the Blue side.. Full on collectivist authoritarianism = Authoritarianism based on "Utilitarianism" - justification for law on the basis of "What will increase happiness/reduce harm for the collective" While this justification often sounds good on the surface "If it saves one life" - the flaws are numerous 1) completely ignores essential liberty of the individual - and thus an anathama to the founding principle - and the definition of a constitutional republic. 2) Gives near unlimited power to Gov't - by removing the main safeguard 3) often the utilitarian justification given is fallacious .. not even valid utilitarian justification .. and who gets to decide ? one mans poison is another mans pleasure .. but you have a small group deciding For example - "If it saves one life" / "harm reduction" sounds nice - which is what makes it so insidious - but, is horrible justification for law. If the above is good justification - should we not ban skiing ? would we not save one life ? .. what about boating .. that is really dangerous - one could drown .. driving a car? forget it .. in fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as the risk of harm from walking is 400 times greater than the risk of harm from a terrorist attack Yet - on the basis of this scary risk of harm "terrorist attack" - it has become our "Patriotic Duty" to trade liberty for security.
Is the heartbeat standard only for fetuses or does it apply to all human life? Fox example what if someone is brain dead would it be murder for the doctor or family to let them die or should the body be kept alive?
In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to murder the fetus which is infanticide. You should get a dictionary, mate. Ever hear that the unborn baby has those same rights. If not so, it would not be illegal to kill a child that the mother wants. But, if one does something to the mother and the baby dies, the attacker can be charged with homicide and even murder. So, the baby has those same Constitutional and Declaration of Independence rights as well. By the way, there is no phrase in the Constitution "Separation of Church and State." There is a 1st amendment that says the "STATE" shall not infringe upon the rights of individual to exercise their religion. Exercise means speaking up, worshipping, speaking out publicly (freedom of speech) and being political about one's beliefs. The Bill of Rights are to restrict the Government, not the individual. So, we don't have to keep our bible's or any other books of our perceived religious beliefs to ourselves. Any more than your right to use your godless atheist evolutionary books. Thus, you are 100% wrong in believing these Marxist lies.
In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to murder the fetus which is infanticide. You should get a dictionary, mate. Ever hear that the unborn baby has those same rights. If not so, it would not be illegal to kill a child that the mother wants. But, if one does something to the mother and the baby dies, the attacker can be charged with homicide and even murder. So, the baby has those same Constitutional and Declaration of Independence rights as well. By the way, there is no phrase in the Constitution "Separation of Church and State." There is a 1st amendment that says the "STATE" shall not infringe upon the rights of individual to exercise their religion. Exercise means speaking up, worshipping, speaking out publicly (freedom of speech) and being political about one's beliefs. The Bill of Rights are to restrict the Government, not the individual. So, we don't have to keep our bible's or any other books of our perceived religious beliefs to ourselves. Any more than your right to use your godless atheist evolutionary books. Thus, you are 100% wrong in believing these Marxist lies.
In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to murder the fetus which is infanticide. You should get a dictionary, mate. Ever hear that the unborn baby has those same rights. If not so, it would not be illegal to kill a child that the mother wants. But, if one does something to the mother and the baby dies, the attacker can be charged with homicide and even murder. So, the baby has those same Constitutional and Declaration of Independence rights as well. By the way, there is no phrase in the Constitution "Separation of Church and State." There is a 1st amendment that says the "STATE" shall not infringe upon the rights of individual to exercise their religion. Exercise means speaking up, worshipping, speaking out publicly (freedom of speech) and being political about one's beliefs. The Bill of Rights are to restrict the Government, not the individual. So, we don't have to keep our bible's or any other books of our perceived religious beliefs to ourselves. Any more than your right to use your godless atheist evolutionary books. Thus, you are 100% wrong in believing these Marxist lies.
WRONG as usual....the UVVA gives the fetus PROTECTION NOT RIGHTS....it did give harsher penalties for killing pregnant women based on the age of the fetus....
Yep it's completely outdated at this point is science and biology has caught up to reality. Abortion is murder we just have to come to terms with that
This also is different. If the heart can not live without a machine it would sue if natural causes. Not equivalent in my mind.
But the fetus cannot live on its own without the mother either. Even if the fetus was removed. Isn't the mother the machine that is keeping it alive.
FoxHastings said: ↑ WRONG as usual....the UVVA gives the fetus PROTECTION NOT RIGHTS....it did give harsher penalties for killing pregnant women based on the age of the fetus.... UGGADUH, NO, they are NOT the same thing that's DUH why there are two DIFFERENT words for them. An eagle has protection, that doesn't give it RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But now you are changing the heart beat criteria you originally used to having a chance at life. The process gets more and more complicated. How many years of life before heart beat does not matter? If you have a brain dead child from a car accident? A premature baby only hours old that requires an incubator to survive? You are balancing having a heart beat and being able to survive on your own unaided.
No I’m not changing a thing. Circumstances obviously change in every scenario. Even the courts recognize that.
They all matter but our youth deserves an adults care. They deserve a chance at life. Yes I’m referring to them as people because in my mind they are. They are the most vulnerable of people. They’re not just a sack of mush
Sure it does! An eagle has the right to fly without being shot. The eagle is protected by law from being shot. Same thing.
Terminating a fetus is feticide. You can't legitimately claim a fetus is an infant. There are no rights specified for an embryo or fetus. Rights apply to persons. Your comments on the first amendment overlook that government can not establish YOUR religious ideas. If you want to write a law that limits my behavior, you have to have a justification that goes beyond your religious ideas.
That's your opinion. I know that a fetus is a person. Therefore, a fetus has rights as well. I also believe a fetus is an infant. The only difference is the location of its body. If people have to justify their murderous act to eliminate cramping their lifestyle, then there will be people to help them along.
No, none of that was opinion. What's in the constitution isn't my opinion. What's in the dictionary isn't my opinion. And, your claim of fetal rights is pure nonsense. A fetus can't take action against the pregnant woman. BTW, your characterization of women who need abortions is just plain disgusting. And, NO. There is NO evidence that there will be "people to help them along". You need to stick to the truth, Christian.
