Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,110
Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision. Full Story

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326397 Aug 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is what reason?
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"

But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
<quoted text>
There's a massive distinction.
We're starting to repeat ourselves. Well, you are anyway.
<quoted text>
Correct.
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with the place of a supreme being at all. Humans decide important issues all the time.
Sure they do. Humans exercise their free will and make decisions that violate the human, constitutional, civil, etc rights of other humans all the time. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it moral, nor does it mean we should make it legal. In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326398 Aug 31, 2014
BORN humans have rights, idiot. A fetus does not, and cannot be granted any that subvert the woman's rights to her own body. There is no legal basis for the government to restrict--temporarily or otherwise--a woman's rights just because she happens to get pregnant.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326399 Aug 31, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"
But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
Protection from bodily harm is something all people deserve. Such protection reduces suffering and respects autonomy.
DAVID27 wrote:
In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.
I don't agree. I do not view zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses as people. The principle is hardly more applicable to them than a sperm, or a tree.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#326400 Aug 31, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.
True he didn't specify. Constitutional, human or natural, they are all rights and all would be being violated. Now how do we make them stay pregnant without violating any of those? You can't marginalize women temporarily just because they are pregnant....genius. Rant on.
YTubeNews

Marietta, GA

#326405 Sep 1, 2014
.

--7 YEAR TRIBULATION READY (*News).....TIC TOC

http://youtu.be/0PvRE7eFlZY

.

“Peace be with you”

Since: Sep 09

Good will to all!

#326406 Sep 1, 2014
Here a troll, there a troll, everywhere a troll troll.
Best to ignore.

Abortion is still legal. No one yet has suggested a valid reason why that should not be the case.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326407 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Close down every abortion mill. Outlaw abortion except in the case of a Medical reason in a Hospital under the care of a Physician
Why make an exception?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326408 Sep 1, 2014
Big Sky wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the 'slippery slope,' some people getting to decide 'who' or 'when' any human is a person in a meaningful way.
That's what you do. And you take it a step further, wanting to legislate that a pregnant woman shall remain pregnant because you want her to. No other reason. Just cuz that's what you want. No choice for her. No decision making. You've got it covered.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326409 Sep 1, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's reality, a federal judge just declared polygamy legal in Utah in spite of state and federal law prohibiting it. The slippery slope is underfoot, we're in freefall now.
Would you mind explaining exactly what your issue is with polygamy and same sex marriage?

Neither affects you, so it's odd that's it is some kind of hand-wringing concern for you.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326410 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, is that what you think I was saying?
No the court should protect unborn children against abortion / death.
The court does protect children from unfit parents who are a danger to their child.
Not that complicated, now go pot some pills
Wait a second. You said the court should remove an "unborn" from its unhealthy environment, just like they do with children and unfit parents. Same protection, you said. Remember?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326411 Sep 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.
"It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk"

Pregnancy is a threat/risk to the woman. If she carries to term and delivers a healthy infant, her body is damaged. The pregnancy can kill her. That's a possibility.

Your arguments aren't new. I've heard them all from various posters. What I don't get is how you all can square restricting the woman's privacy, yet not applying the same logic to the zef. If it is a person, like you guys claim, then it would only make sense that if the zef has protections, then the woman should have the same, and if the woman has restrictions then the zef would have the same.

In the end, whose rights really should be honored ? The woman's, of course. She is the only sentient party in the equation.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326412 Sep 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"
But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
<quoted text>
We're starting to repeat ourselves. Well, you are anyway.
<quoted text>
Sure they do. Humans exercise their free will and make decisions that violate the human, constitutional, civil, etc rights of other humans all the time. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it moral, nor does it mean we should make it legal. In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.
"In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection."

Yet, here you are, a human, arguing that pregnant women are not worthy of protecting themselves from body damaging pregnancy that carries the possibility of death.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#326413 Sep 1, 2014
STO wrote:
Would you mind explaining exactly what your issue is with polygamy and same sex marriage?
You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?

Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?

.
STO wrote:
Neither affects you, so it's odd that's it is some kind of hand-wringing concern for you.
We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.

Since: Aug 09

Port Jefferson, NY

#326414 Sep 2, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?
Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?
.
<quoted text>We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.
You know, Brian, some of your earlier posts weren't bad.

This one is utter crap!
Okay, sentence one.
Can you please give evidence of exactly where there has been an increase in governmental spending for, "new entitlements for sex-segregated dependent beneficiaries?(I don't even know that the hell you mean by that!)
Sentence two, increased governmental debt, higher taxes, and "wasteful" spending occur no matter who's in office--it's simply a matter of perception as to where those tax dollars are spent.
Sentence three...okay, we'll leave it at that...
Sentence four, there is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
Are you able to provide a series of examples that have, with out a shadow of a doubt, shown a harmful side-effect(s) of children who're raised in same-sex households as opposed to their counterparts raised in opposite-sex households?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326415 Sep 2, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?
I don't see how same sex marriage could cost a nickle more than traditional marriage.

If what you say is true, then dammit, nobody should get married.

I call bullshit
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?
.
We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.
Discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry is what I'm hearing from you.

You think it's better to stigmatize a family that doesn't meet your moral standard. Better to make sure that kid feels less than his/her peers. Made to feel his/her parents are evil. Somehow I doubt that is a benefit to the child. Not sure what you're aiming at, here. You want little Johnny to suck it up and take the bullying because he has two moms? You don't think the school should step in to explain it's not right to pick on kids because they don't have a mom and dad at home? Just let'em get teased and tormented and give the bigots a pat on the back -- "Good job! That kid's parents are evil incarnate. Better make that kid's life hell on earth. Keep it up! Let's go get this brat an ice cream cone!."

Real Christian of you.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326417 Sep 2, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be drunk as well.
No I said the Court system protects children from unsafe environments and removes children from unsafe situations.
Yes, these situations involve people. The Court is worried about children suffering.
SevenTee wrote:
I said the Court should also protect the unborn from murder by abortionists.
In the vast majority of abortions, no child suffers because until late stages of pregnancy (when abortion is extremely rare, and often illegal), the fetus has no ability to experience anything.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326418 Sep 2, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be drunk as well.
No I said the Court system protects children from unsafe environments and removes children from unsafe situations.
I said the Court should also protect the unborn from murder by abortionists.
Yeah, that's whatcha said.

It's right here:
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
The law protects children from unfit parents. The court system can remove the child from the home.

Why don't you favor the same protection for an unborn child?

Your pro Death obsession is disturbing
The "same protection". And what protection is that? Why, according to you it's removing the child from "unfit parents", "the home". Obviously, the "same protection" is removing the fetus from the woman gestating it. Duh.

You must have tossed back a few. Kinda early to be gettin' shitfaced, doncha think? Lay off the sauce next time you post, dopey.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326420 Sep 2, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
And you embody stupidity, you steaming pit of nothingness.
My, something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. Was it the fact that I pointed out your idiotic statement that if abortion were outlawed women, once pregnant, would have no rights ?
If so I apologize, stupid.

Women have the ESTABLISHED right of making their own medical decisions without government interference. They are not obligated to sustain a fetus against their will.
Everyone knows that. That's what pro lifers seek to change. That's one of the reasons this forum exists.
Damn, you ARE stupid.
If you remove a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, damned right there will be a lot more abandoned newborns.
<quoted text>
Which, as I said, would be perfectly fine with you, stupid, as it would demonstrate that women are exercising their right not to be parents. Just doing it a few seconds later than what you would consider to be perfectly acceptable. God you are disgusting.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326421 Sep 2, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
BORN humans have rights, idiot.
I'm sorry, stupid. Did I say they didn't ?

A fetus does not,
We know, stupid. Are you the self appointed stater of the obvious on this forum ?
and cannot be granted any that subvert the woman's rights to her own body.
They CAN be granted protection and are already granted a level of protection after viability in many states.
There is no legal basis for the government to restrict--temporarily or otherwise--a woman's rights just because she happens to get pregnant.
<quoted text>
Of course there is a legal basis, stupid. RvW permits restricting a pregnant woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy when they allow states to forbid her to choose to legally abort after viability in the absence of a maternal health or life risk.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326422 Sep 2, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Protection from bodily harm is something all people deserve. Such protection reduces suffering and respects autonomy.
<quoted text>
The right to life is a natural right that all human life deserves. Neither you or any man for that matter gets to select a subjective, man-made designation of "people/person" and decide that only a human life at that point is deserving of protection. Natural rights don't work that way.
I don't agree. I do not view zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses as people.
Your agreement is irrelevant to the existence of natural rights. As I said, "people" is a man made subjective term. The entities you mention are human lives in varying stages of development.

The principle is hardly more applicable to them than a sperm, or a tree.
Ridiculous. A sperm or a tree is not an individual, developing human life. And you make your yourself look foolish when you attempt to establish some type of equivalency.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 21 min Brew In 28,493
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Richardfs 233,181
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Yeah 1,156,210
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 3 hr yinefsfgd 3
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 20 hr Earthling-1 2,741
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 22 hr zubedaanur 693
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 Dec 25 ivyawe 1
More from around the web