In actual reality, I posted a graph about ayear ago that shows the steady increase in the number of abortions since it was made legal, so you simply lying again. People who take stupid risks die all the time. I am not all that interested in saving would be killers at the expense of innocent and defenseless children in utero. I am not saying they deserve to die, you said that.
Proof once again that the "Pro-Life" crowd isn't really interested in "life"....just punishing women for having sex...
Not even close. Women are not punished by having children. It is natural and a good thing. The concept that children are "punishment" is absurd and delusional.
Are you implying that African American women should be encouraged to get more abortions, and white women fewer, so that supply can be matched to demand in the adoption market? One little interesting statistic...
Ya know, I can understand your refusal to comprehend MY posts but you can't seem to comprehend your own! """ Originally Posted by Whaler17 In actual reality, I posted a graph about ayear ago that shows the steady increase in the number of abortions since it was made legal, so you simply lying again. People who take stupid risks die all the time. I am not all that interested in saving would be killers """" That SAYS you don't care if women die because YOU consider them "killers". And YES, for some women having a kid IS punishment...you can call it whatever you like but it is a life changing event and not always a life enhancing event...it is expensive and can be unhealthy for both mother and kid....it can be a real hardship especially when the righties denigrate, attack, and scorn the poor....for some it's a ticket for life long poverty. .....that's PUNISHMENT.....and puinshment by any other name stinks the same and has the same effect.
So not saving women from their own stupidity is instituting punishment in your mind? WOW. I don't consider all women killers, just those who ARE killers. People who take stupd risks do die all the time, just a factual statement. Nothing there says what you claim it does. These mythical poor hating "righties" don't actually exist except in your delusions. "Righties" want them gainfully employed with high self esteem and earned wealth. Not depressed feeding off the govt teat all their lives feeling worthless. Buet hey, as long as they vote Democrat no harm no foul right?
Actually that isn't what your statement said, the first part; which fits your other response of "People who take stupd[sic] risks do die all the time, just a factual statement." However the second part of the statement doesn't fit into your further response ie "So not saving women from their own stupidity is instituting punishment in your mind? WOW. " How can you be "saving" them by not being "interested in saving would be killers" but you have already stated you are "not interested in saving would be killers", so which is it, are you not interested in saving "would be killers" or just those who "ARE" killers (in your opinion).
No, I am saying adoptive parents, all adoptive parents, need to drop their expectations of having a perfect white newborn and consider adopting an older child, maybe even one of another race. It's time for people to get over this crap and stop behaving like there are not enough children to adopt because there are plenty.
Why should they drop their expectations for a perfect child? LOL You pro-aborts think a child in the womb that isn't perfect and might have a hair lip..or downs or something of this nature...should be killed....am I right? And if your for choice...then what business is it of yours to tell anyone WHAT THEY SHOULD ADOPT? You pro-aborts kill me...talk about being hypocritical...wow. You love to tell people how to live and what they can do.
No pro-aborts think having a child is punishment...and killing is the quick easy solution. They think pregnancy is like a cancer sentence.....funny giving birth is as natural as birth and death...and WE ALL DO BOTH. LOL
Rather than seeing their unborn baby for what it really is ‒ a gift from god ‒ pro-aborts see the baby as an unwelcome intruder.
robini123 said, Yes there is no "separation of Church and state in ANY LEGAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENT." BAck when the Constitution was written individual states had their own religions. EAch individual state constitution stated the law regarding church and state. Many states did not even separate the two....in fact many REQUIRED that they be joined. For example North Carolina....its constitution said this...."That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state shall be capable of holding any office, or place of truth or profit, in the civil department within the state." Source...North Carolina Constitution, sec 32,1776. Many states were like this and some just required that the person believe in God. The states established state churches. The Founders were very careful not to step on the toes of the states because they recognized the states right. Proof of this is in the Federal agreement between the states, promising that Congress would never try to usurp their power by establishing ITS OWN NATIONAL RELIGION. They promised that the federal government would NEVER pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So goodbye separation argument. There is a clear...very clear protection of the expression of religion...and its outlined and stated in the Constitution. The only separation is between states and the federal government. Whether this is a good idea or a bad one...state religions....it nevertheless leaves that option open. Butt out federal government!!!!!! So when SCOTUS rules from the bench on religious matters...prayer in schools...taking down religious monuments on public property...etc....they are in direct violation of the Constitution. The one they are sworn in to uphold. Today we are far away from the Founders original intent. May I suggest taking a great online class...put on my Hillsdale College on this. It is free and really interesting. I took it and learned a lot. https://online.hillsdale.edu/register ARE you against abortion being legal or not? yes or no Many people here think abortion is immoral but they want it legal. And how do I misunderstand your position?
Do you see a requirement to "beleve in God," or a law stating "That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testaments..." as RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
So those who attempt murder are somehow not guilty in your mind? Only the ones who succeed are? Quit splitting hairs and just be honest.
According to Thomas Jefferson, who was THERE, the first amendment does mean that church and state will be separate. That is what guarantees citizens the freedom of religion (a phrase which is also not found in the constitution.) While some states did have state churches, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison assured the citizens of Virginia freedom of religion by getting passed the Freedom of Religion Act, which separated church from state. Surely they believed the rest of the country's citizens deserved the same freedom of religion, so...so much for "founders' intent." IAC, thanks to Incorporation Doctrine, every citizen of the country has that freedom of religion which can only exist if church and state remain separate. Over the years there have been many breaches of the church-state separation, and every one of them causes a loss of freedom to someone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Yes, Republicans who want to cut finding to Planned Parenthood, WIC, SNAP, Headstart and other programs for children do exist, Rush, whether you say so or not. """Righties" want them gainfully employed with high self esteem and earned wealth. Not depressed feeding off the govt teat all their lives feeling worthless. """ Could you explain how newborns can be gainfully employed?? When do you think they should start with their first job? Will you let them lay around until they're 6 months, can change theior own diapers, can walk?....when EXACTLY do you think children should support themselves instead of sucking off the government teat ??? A baby sucking at his mother's breast feels worthless? REALLY?!!!
Democrats who want to kill born babies as a means of exerting a woman's right to her own reproductive system are out there, they have posted here actually. So what? Hell Democrats were the party that fought the elimination of legal slavery, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they now want to kill babies at will also. Junior you really must learn to read more carefully. I was not referring to babies. Why do I keep trying?
Well , Littlepoopypants honeybunsnookums, just because you can't understand that the programs that Republicans want to cut funding to are for CHILDREN doesn't mean I'm wrong. YOU stated, as PROVEN above, "Righties" want them gainfully employed with high self esteem and earned wealth. Not depressed feeding off the govt teat all their lives feeling worthless"" Well, if these programs are for children WHO exactly were you referring to??? And, if your only defense(which has nothing to do with the topic) is what "Democrats" did 160 years ago it only shows more ignorance of politics than I thought you had.
Well cupcake, I was obviously referring to the parents of these children you want to slaughter. Democrats promote slavery today as much as they ever did. POlitical slavery by keeping people dependent on the governmanet from generation to generation and pandering to keeping the status quo as long as it serves their political benefit. The biggest change is that the slavery isn't completely race specific anymore.
Pathetic that you can't grasp that these programs are for CHILDREN...YES, they need PARENTS or they wouldn't be CHILDREN. They can't read or fill out forms when they're born so their PARENTS have to do it to get aid for their CHILDREN who the programs are for..... Cutting funding for programs aimed to benefit CHILDREN harms the CHILDREN...those PRECIOUS life forms that Anti-Choicers ALLEGE they fight for.... (until they're born) YOU claim: """Righties" want them gainfully employed with high self esteem and earned wealth. Not depressed feeding off the govt teat all their lives feeling worthless. """ implying you want CHILDREN gainfully employed since the programs are for the benefit of CHILDREN.
In the state constitutions..yes. And the Constitution says that there will be no national religion...that it is up to the states. I just gave you an example from the North Carolina Constitution. Their constitution would eliminate any atheist or agnostic from holding public office. No Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu.. could hold office...ONLY a person from the Protestant religion. It states that they must believe in the Bible..both Old and New Testament. And there were other states like North Carolina. No separation of church and state exists in any document...just in a personal letter to Jefferson..sent by the Danbury Baptists. The tide turned back in 1947 and a SCOTUS ruling back then. Everson v Board of Education. Remember Justice Hugo Black? He said the First Amendment forbids any interaction between church and the government and that Jeffersons wall...must be kept "high and impregnable." He was referencing the letter to the letter Jefferson wrote the Baptists. The religion in Connecticut was Congregationalism...and they had just asked the president for aid in religious disestablishment...which Jefferson had advocated as governor of Virginia. The Baptists were upset when the president did not intervene on the position they were making...that the federal government was absolutely forbidden from interfering in state business. You can't take the coined phrase...separation of C&S in that letter out of context. This is the entire statement. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State." What he was referring to was the STATE...which was Congress...which he called the legislature. Look at the First Amendment. It clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in establishing a national religion....and it is absolutely clearly obvious. The states have the right and have that right ALONE. And if the Founders would have meant a separation across the country they would have stated it this way. "Neither Congress NOR THE STATE LEGISLATURES shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion." THEY DID NOT. If Jefferson believed in a wall...why didn't he help the Danbury Baptists? He did nothing. Why? BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IT WAS A STATE ISSUE. And today we have people who want to strip the country of anything religious. Another thing most people don't know is that Jefferson WAS NOT EVEN A FRAMER OF THE CONSTITUTION. He was in France when it was framed. Today the Constitution has been raped.
