Thread Rating:
12-20-2007, 11:18 AM
How do you give the right for a woman to end this life.:redboxer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_oH9mLMtx0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_oH9mLMtx0
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
12-20-2007, 12:28 PM
sherman14 Wrote:How do you give the right for a woman to end this life.:redboxer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_oH9mLMtx0
Which life? The video presents a full range of infants and fertilized eggs. The overwhelming majority of abortions take place within the first six weeks... I did not see a picture reflecting this. Viability outside the womb is the modus operandi in the Roe v. Wade opinion. If every Hutu ever born had been aborted, the Rwandan genocide may not have taken place. If every Nazi ever born had been aborted, the Holocaust may not have taken place. If Pol Pot had been aborted, the killing fields may not have taken place. If Stalin, if Mao... is this really the way to debate this issue?
12-20-2007, 01:17 PM
sherman14 Wrote:How do you give the right for a woman to end this life.:redboxer:First, it is my belief, and my right to believe that you ain't born, if you hain't been born.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8_oH9mLMtx0
I do not give the right, the constitution does. I support the women's right to choose.
12-20-2007, 02:11 PM
The Guru Wrote:First, it is my belief, and my right to believe that you ain't born, if you hain't been born.
I do not give the right, the constitution does. I support the women's right to choose.
Where in the constitution does it give that right?
12-20-2007, 10:55 PM
The Guru Wrote:A constituion is a form of governance, correct?
So in Roe vs. Wade, didn't that kinda set a constitution to go by?
I'm not for sure what you are trying to say...
12-20-2007, 11:32 PM
The Guru Wrote:A constituion is a form of governance, correct?
So in Roe vs. Wade, didn't that kinda set a constitution to go by?
I just have no clue what you're trying to say... it makes zero sense.
12-21-2007, 09:24 AM
ronald_reagan Wrote:I just have no clue what you're trying to say... it makes zero sense.
In Roe v. Wade a majority of the court found abortion (with limits) to be a Constitutionally protected right (Right of Privacy). And, whether one agrees with the court or not, that aspect makes perfect sense.
12-21-2007, 09:30 AM
:thumpsup:
:thumpsup:
That does. But his post says nothing of that.. or even related. It sounds to me like he's confusing 'constitution' with 'amendment', or maybe precedent? I dunno. It makes zero sense, thats the one thing that I'm sure of.
thecavemaster Wrote:In Roe v. Wade a majority of the court found abortion (with limits) to be a Constitutionally protected right (Right of Privacy). And, whether one agrees with the court or not, that aspect makes perfect sense.
:thumpsup:
That does. But his post says nothing of that.. or even related. It sounds to me like he's confusing 'constitution' with 'amendment', or maybe precedent? I dunno. It makes zero sense, thats the one thing that I'm sure of.
12-22-2007, 09:04 AM
ronald_reagan Wrote::thumpsup:
:thumpsup:
That does. But his post says nothing of that.. or even related. It sounds to me like he's confusing 'constitution' with 'amendment', or maybe precedent? I dunno. It makes zero sense, thats the one thing that I'm sure of.
Ronnie honey......It's time for your medicine. You are confusing yourself again.
12-22-2007, 09:57 AM
LOL
Nancy_Reagan Wrote:Ronnie honey......It's time for your medicine. You are confusing yourself again.
12-24-2007, 05:12 PM
crawdad Wrote:At a time when the Supreme Court was packed with liberals, they simply stretched the constitution to allow infanticide. How can a dirty little secret have more protection under the constitution than another's right to live.
Once again, "infanticide" requires an infant. To equate a first trimester fetus with a viable infant does not compute to exact equivalence.
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)
