Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[zef]

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>You cited contradicting principles.
The first was for revolution.
The secod would have called a revolution treason.

No, the second called abortion treason. Is english your second language?
I guess you aren't aware of the fact that the usa was made possible with a revolutionary war. In other words our country was founded on revolution, and revolution is the standard by which we maintain the legitimacy of our government.

[zef]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Still waiting for you idiots to show where women lose any rights once they are pregnant.
<quoted text>

Human rights are inherent. Human rights are impossible to lose. Women have the right to be pregnant.

[cpeter1313]

So what? Neither a woman's pregnancy or her reason to abort are any of yo0ur--or the government's--business.

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
Planned Parenthood publicy protested & opposed a law banning sex-selection abortions in America.
Planned Parenthood publicly stated that it WOULD perform sex-selection abortions.
One Planned Parenthood director said:“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]...From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”
Lastly, yes, sex-selection abortion DOES exist in America. This sting operation video proves so:
http://liveaction.org/blog/sex-selective-abor...

[cpeter1313]

In this country, rights attach at birth or naturalization. Deal with it.

Quoting the DOI is stupid; it's not a ruling document.

So, I guess the PLM is a traitorous plague.

zef wrote:

<quoted text>Laws have nothing to do with what human rights people have or don't have. Human rights exist with or without laws or governments. Naturally endowed means there is no "which time they attach". Naturally endowed means they are a naturally part of what we are, which is human, no matter how old or young we might be. Abortion is justified by many in that until the fetus has reached a certain stage of development, it is not considered a person, and therefore the termination of an unborn child (before a certain stage of development) is not tantamount to murder. Therefore, if we begin to deny personhood to other human beings we can just as equally justify their killing, or even merely their mistreatment. Imagine living in a society which judged that you had lost your status as a person and therefore could be lawfully killed (not murdered) by a doctor without your consent.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[cpeter1313]

So you're against removing life support for the brain-dead?

zef wrote:

<quoted text>Abortion is justified by many in that until the fetus has reached a certain stage of development, it is not considered a person, and therefore the termination of an unborn child (before a certain stage of development) is not tantamount to murder. Therefore, if we begin to deny personhood to other human beings we can just as equally justify their killing, or even merely their mistreatment. Imagine living in a society which judged that you had lost your status as a person and therefore could be lawfully killed (not murdered) by a doctor without your consent.

[HuskerDu]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/facebook-ban...

[cpeter1313]

The second piece said noting at all about abortion, liar.
The constitution determines the legitimacy of the government.

zef wrote:

<quoted text>No, the second called abortion treason. Is english your second language?
I guess you aren't aware of the fact that the usa was made possible with a revolutionary war. In other words our country was founded on revolution, and revolution is the standard by which we maintain the legitimacy of our government.

[zef]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, like the PLM wanting a theocracy in the USA? Using abortion and photo-shopped images of stolen miscarried ZEFs to gain ground by "...appeal[ing] to a baseness that lies deep within [all] hearts" while undermining women's civil rights by working secretly? You mean traitorous like that?

All people have rights, not just women. Besides which, most of the people killed with abortion are women. Because most of the people that choose to kill their babies with abortion choose to kill their daughters. By creating an unnatural abundance of males in the population, and an unnatural shortage of females in the population with gender selective abortion. Women can devalue the men that they subject to their bidding, while increasing their own worth and importance. If demand decreases and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower value. If demand increases and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher value.
By sacrificing themselves with gender selective abortions, women have given themselves an unnaturally higher value, while giving men an unnaturally lower value. Women can and do assure the continuation of their reign of tyranny and terror, and their legion of simple minded sychophants with gender selective abortion. What decrepid old hag doesn't want a horde of young men fauning for her attention?

[cpeter1313]

They also have the right to NOT be pregnant.

zef wrote:

<quoted text>
Human rights are inherent. Human rights are impossible to lose. Women have the right to be pregnant.

[grumpy]

zef wrote:

<quoted text>No, the second called abortion treason. Is english your second language?
I guess you aren't aware of the fact that the usa was made possible with a revolutionary war. In other words our country was founded on revolution, and revolution is the standard by which we maintain the legitimacy of our government.

But wouldn't the second call anti-government treason?

[zef]

cpeter1313 wrote:

In this country, rights attach at birth or naturalization. Deal with it.
Quoting the DOI is stupid; it's not a ruling document.
So, I guess the PLM is a traitorous plague.
<quoted text>

Human rights are inherent, not attatched.
Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence.
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. The nation to which the Declaration gave birth has had an immense impact on human history, and continues to do so. In telling the story of the parchment, it is appropriate to recall the words of poet and Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish. He described the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as "these fragile objects which bear so great a weight of meaning to our people." The story of the Declaration of Independence as a document can only be a part of the larger history, a history still unfolding, a "weight of meaning" constantly, challenged, strengthened, and redefined.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/dec...

The Declaration of Independence established the core principles of our Nation, the United States of America. Our Constitution with the Amendments provide a rule of law for an actual government to accomplish those principles.

[No Relativism]

cpeter1313 wrote:

So what? Neither a woman's pregnancy or her reason to abort are any of yo0ur--or the government's--business.
<quoted text>

Cpeter openly admits his sex-biased views by supporting sex-selection abortion.

Duly noted.

Next..........

[Conservative Democrat]

zef wrote:

<quoted text>Laws have nothing to do with what human rights people have or don't have. Human rights exist with or without laws or governments.

True. But, go ask the people in Cuba whether they have human rights their government recognizes. Point being, without governmental authority to recognize the rights people have, or don't have, the existence of human rights, in and of itself, is nothing more than a fart in strong wind.

zef wrote:

Naturally endowed means there is no "which time they attach". Naturally endowed means they are a naturally part of what we are, which is human, no matter how old or young we might be.

Again, without a mechanism that will recognize those naturally endowed rights, your argument equals to no more than pissing into a strong headwind.

zef wrote:

Abortion is justified by many in that until the fetus has reached a certain stage of development, it is not considered a person, and therefore the termination of an unborn child (before a certain stage of development) is not tantamount to murder.

Agree in part. A fetus is not considered a person at any point in the pregnancy, but for in the jurisdictions that consider it a person for the sole purpose of Fetal Homicide Laws. Even abortion after viability, if just cause is shown, will not amount to murder.

zef wrote:

Therefore, if we begin to deny personhood to other human beings we can just as equally justify their killing, or even merely their mistreatment.

It was done to African Slaves. Women did not have a right to vote until the ratification of the 19th Amendment. However, your implied argument has more holes than Swiss cheese. Denial of personhood implies that personhood exists ab initio. And such is not the case with the unborn. The only way the unborn can be deemed a person, legally, is if it dies by the actions of another, when the mother did not want the fetus to die. Any other argument with regard to personhood on a fetus is purely emotional and carries no authority, whatsoever that would trump the personhood status of the mother.

zef wrote:

Imagine living in a society which judged that you had lost your status as a person and therefore could be lawfully killed (not murdered) by a doctor without your consent.

I don't live in the world of fantasies. You do.

zef wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

There's always a dimwit who thinks the proverbial "f*ck" off letter to King George is some form of legal authority!!!!

How free is a fetus to do anything? How able is a fetus to pursue happiness? How is a fetus to have life if MOMMY isn't alive? Fetus has what it has because MOMMY gives it to him, even if such is alcohol dependency syndrome. No way around that pal.

zef wrote:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[zef]

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>But wouldn't the second call anti-government treason?

You think the declaration of independence, and the constitution. Our nations two most significant and cherished documents. Are "anti-government treason"?

[Katies Granddaughter]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, like the PLM wanting a theocracy in the USA? Using abortion and photo-shopped images of stolen miscarried ZEFs to gain ground by "...appeal[ing] to a baseness that lies deep within [all] hearts" while undermining women's civil rights by working secretly? You mean traitorous like that?

"Why, Grandma? Why did you encourage my Mommy to brutally kill me? Why didn't you love me and stand up for me? Why, Grandma Katie? Why?"

[STO]

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup. That's what I thought too.
What a moron he/she is. Now its a man again. Guess the raped woman persona didn't work too well for it.

Remember when Big Sky outed Lynne for the same shit? Now he's playing the born again Christian. And we're supposed to believe his phony testimony.

:P

[zef]

cpeter1313 wrote:

They also have the right to NOT be pregnant.
<quoted text>

You're in the wrong forum. This is the abortion forum, not the birth control forum. But while we are on the subject, abstinence is the most effective method of preventing pregnancy. Just try to control your wanton lusts, and you shouldn't have any problems.

[elise in burque]

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
Elise: "You can think whatever you like. It has nothing to do with you, no matter what you feel, think or say."
Your abortion had A LOT to do with your daughter. You sure didn't give consideration to her right to life. Did you, dear?
You believe your abortion was all about you.
You forgot someone (your daughter).
Again.

YYSW

[STO]

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
In order for your perspective to be accurate, you'd have to believe creation of mankind was discriminatory. In other words, you'd first have to contend that pregnancy itself is discriminatory (even though it is how human beings were created to procreate).
Of course, creation of mankind was/is not discriminatory.
You're confusion lies in stating "women" are discriminated against. Women and men can smoke. PREGNANT women should not smoke because doing so pollutes another human being's environment (preborn baby in the womb).

"You're confusion lies in stating "women" are discriminated against."

No, I'm saying we cannot pass laws that discriminate against women, even if they are pregnant.

Pregnancy doesn't change their rights as citizens. You are arguing that it should. One result would be you would make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke.

As I understand it, even if a smoker is by him/herself, a 100 yards away from anyone else, smokes, washes his hands, face, brushes his teeth, the toxic smoke is still on his clothes, hair. So, if all things are equal, that person could not approach a pregnant woman or minor without risking a fine. That would be gender equal law - everyone plays by the same rules. Right?

[No Relativism]

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because its NOT a "baby" you dolt. Its an embryo, a zygote or a non-viable fetus.
Its funny how your kind likes to ignore those FACTS.
Did you shit TWO BABIES into that toilet?
Did you fish TWO BABIES out of that toilet with a fish net?
Did your doctor report two BABIES being MURDERED by your pedophile boyfriend?
NO!! to all of the above.

FooManSpew: "Because its NOT a 'baby' you dolt. Its an embryo, a zygote or a non-viable fetus. Its funny how your kind likes to ignore those FACTS. Did you shit TWO BABIES into that toilet?
Did you fish TWO BABIES out of that toilet with a fish net?"

Foo's insensitivity & coldness duly noted.

Even proabort Katie has said she is okay with people calling preborn babies "babies" in the informal context. In laymans terms & colloquially a preborn baby is baby.(e.g., Baby Shower...get over it.)

In the medical context, there was a purpose for applying medical terms (including Latin descriptors) to designate at which stage a human being exists along their human-life spectrum.

You continually try to hijack medical terminology as an excuse to kill innocents. That was never the intent. Dehumanizing human beings is all you've got for a faux argument condoning killing.

Your hyperemotional nature presents itself as passion for the culture of death. You severely lack a functioning emotional system that includes empathy & love. You bounce between hate & apathy for the most innocent human beings among us - those in the womb. You have said so yourself:

FooManSpew: "I dont give two shits about those ZEFS"

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
_______

If you have a problem with a past post from poster LynneD calling her miscarried babies "babies", talk to Katie about it. Even she realizes getting all wee-weed up over a mother calling her babies "babies" demonstrates an insensitivity that only harms your cause.

TIA.