You're describing yourself. I never get angry, especially when I'm laughing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
You're describing yourself. I never get angry, especially when I'm laughing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Imitation. The sincerest form of flattery.
And when those fatherless, maybe motherless too, perhaps very ill, dependent babies are born, where will you be?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I won't be casting my vote to have them killed for the crime of being inconvenient. Will you?
I'll be doing what I'm doing now, which is helping those who need help.
Hope you are VERY wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I find it much preferable to just having them killed.
What is your point?
The U.S. NEEDS "a domestic supply of infants"???
As opposed to killing them?
If you had looked up the passage you posted, you would have noted that it was not part of the text of the draft decision. It was simply reference 46 being used to support the portion of the decision found on pages 33 and 34 which was making the point that there is a demand for adoptive babies in our country. Is that some sort of controversy?
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-initial-draft
Adoptive babies in our country are legion!
If you had read your own post, you would have found that over a million women were seeking to adopt, but the number of domestic children available for adoption was virtually non-existent.
At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.
Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.
That's a bunch of hooey!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Uhm...it was your post.
Quote:
At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.
Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.
Yes, it shows the idiocy of anti-abortionists. C.f. my post #172.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Says the lady who did not realize she was posting a notation to a court decision and not part of the decision itself. Even worse, the article came from the CDC. So if there was idiocy, it was idiocy from the CDC which is scarcely pro-life. It would be from (drum roll) the pro-abortion side!!!
Nope, we, the LGBTQ+ community, will not surrender our rights! Jesus said, "Love one another," not bash one another physically, emotionally, and politically.
It's a shame they don't choose to stand up for the rights of unborn children to live.
Knowing full well about rejection, members of the LGBTQ+ community are the ones who adopt them after they're born!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In relatively rare cases that is true, but it's not even close to being a significant number. Married people are far more likely to adopt than singles.
One of the sad results of Roe.
- The percentage of infants given up for adoption has declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/data...db12_Fig_3.png
Yup, they end up in foster care and in institutions.
Kathy Barnett is a Senate hopeful in the PA primaries. She has pulled to within the margin of error of lead candidate Dr Oz .
She very well could be the next Pa Senator .
She was born to a poor mom who was raped when she was 11 years old by a 21 year old scum bag of a man . Kathy Barnett was raised on a pig farm with no running water . By the progressive left narrative her mom was a prime candidate to justifiably snuff out Kathy . Instead Kathy was raised and became the first person in her family to attend college. She earned a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Troy State University and Fontbonne University. She became an adjunct professor of corporate finance. She is now a political commentator . She served in the Armed Forces Reserves for ten years and spent five years on the board of a pregnancy crisis center after working in corporate America for two large financial corporations. She has also written a book,' Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain: Being Black and Conservative in America'. For 6 years she home schooled her own children.
She has as mentioned pulled to within the margin of error even though she is being vastly outspent in the campaign by celeb Dr Oz who is endorsed by Trump ;and by billionaire David McCormick ,the purported favorites in the contest .
So how does the ultra lib progressive compliant press treat her ? Politico calls her the "Ultra-Maga " .
‘Ultra-MAGA’ longshot roars into contention in key Senate race - POLITICO
All I can say is thank God her mother did not decide that she would've been an unnecessary inconvenience.
Name someone who should have been "snuffed" before birth and has become a "necessary inconvenience".
We can point to millions who were "snuffed" before birth because they were inconvenient.
Thus, fertilized eggs waiting in a lab to be put into a woman are also human babies and cannot be destroyed.
There are plenty of testimonials of people who were not aborted ;of mothers who are happy to have decided to not abort and raise their child; of mothers who aborted and regretted . I'm sure there is testimonials of women who were glad they decided to end their pregnancies . The testimonials you won't hear are from the snuffed babies . Norma McCorvey was Roe . She regretted her role in the case and became a lead anti-abortion advocate .
On what basis would you say they are not human?Quote:
Thus, fertilized eggs waiting in a lab to be put into a woman are also human babies and cannot be destroyed.
Exactly correct. And you won't find many liberal dems willing to take up their cause.Quote:
The testimonials you won't hear are from the snuffed babies .
Robert Casey was elected Guv of Pa in 1986 . He ran as a pro-life Dem and won, As Guv he signed a law requiring parental consent for abortions for minors and it would require a 24 hr waiting period before the act of killing a baby could take place. He was the Casey in the 'Planned Parenthood v Casey ' decision that SCOTUS is about to overturn .
Fast forward to today . His son Bob Casey Jr is the Dem pro-life Senator from PA . But the Dems are a monolithic cult that will not allow dissent within their ranks.
So Bob Casey Jr did the politically expedient thing today . Against his own moral convictions ,he voted with the Dem Senators to attempt to codify in law the Roe and Planned Parenthood decisions (aka the Women's Health Protection Act ) The symbolic procedural vote failed to pass by a vote of 49-51 . Kam the Sham presided over the Senate vote.
That won't stop the Dems . They plan on tweaking the bill and doing some arm twisting of Republican who could fold (Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski ). But if it came to an actual vote ,the Congress would not pass it . The Dems are desperate because they know their control of Congress has a short expiration date .
I doubt Congress can pass a bill that is an open violation of a SCOTUS decision.
In this case they can. If SCOTUS reversed Roe and Casey then the state's laws rule because there was no national law. What is needed is a right to life law ;and even better a right to life amendment .
Yes. I’m assuming a reversal of roe.
A con amendment would be great but we would need 33 states and that would be difficult.
I did not say it would be easy . SCOTUS reversing Roe and Casey is just a first step. There is more work to be done. I don't think it would happen with the traditional amendment process of Congress introducing the amendment before it going to the states .
But the framers in their wisdom gave us another way to introduce amendments that bypasses Congress . The resolution to have a convention of the states could pass this year . 19 states have already passed the application (the latest being my state of SC on March 29 of this year ,Texas passed it May 4,2017 ) .
There are 6 more states where it has passed in one of their chambers of their legislatures . There are 22 states considering it .Once 34 states have passed it then a convention can be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments and there would be nothing Congress could do about it .
Now there is risks in this procedure . Guidelines need to be agreed upon so the convention doesn't turn into a radical dismantling of the Constitution .But with so many needed amendments gathering cobwebs in Congress ,I think it is time .
Black woman are far more likely to terminate their baby than white women .....just the way Margaret Sanger envisioned it. Normally racial disparities brings charges of institutional racism. But not in this case .
Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. The impact in years of potential life lost, given abortion’s high incidence and racially skewed distribution, indicates that it is the most demographically consequential occurrence for the minority population. The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it. In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.
Perceiving and Addressing the Pervasive Racial Disparity in Abortion - James Studnicki, John W. Fisher, James L. Sherley, 2020 (sagepub.com)
The authors cited data from the CDC .
Clarence Thomas noted this in 2009 :
“there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”
(Box v Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky)
Root cause ? No not poverty . White poor and Hispanic poor women are less likely to terminate their child than a Black Woman
Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks notes in his book; 'Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone', that : “A single woman with an unplanned pregnancy is about twice as likely as a married woman to abort”...“Black women thus may have so many more abortions than other groups in part because they are so much less likely to be married.”
The irony is that a single Black woman is actually less likely to terminate their child. But there are so many more single Black women ;and that is the cause of the disparity .
From a column today by Stephen J. Lyons:
So far, there are no bills being put forth by [Republicans] to support single mothers; to help lift poor women and their children out of poverty through free college education; or to provide free and safe child care and health care for working mothers. No sirree, not on their watch.
Let us not forget that other part of this pregnancy equation: men. I know most Christians believe in immaculate conception, but in the real world where we all reside, it takes two to conceive a baby. Where are the increased penalties for failure to provide child support? Why do women descend into penury while the “fathers” remain unscathed?
That argument is comparable to a Southerner complaining that the feds had not put forward legislation to help support former slaves and help lift them "out of poverty". No sirree, not on their watch! It's just silly. It's similar to saying that poor women should be allowed to have their born children killed unless the feds are willing to give them, "free college education, or to provide free and safe child care and health care for working mothers."
It completely ignores the fact, of course, that single moms and their children have been receiving support from the feds for decades. Maybe Mr. Lyons needs to get out more?
I would completely agree that the fathers should be held accountable. There is actually a plan that provides for that. It's called "marriage". It worked very well for millennia. At any rate, those are state issues and not federal ones.
Thus, no sex before marriage. Now, find me a male in 2022 who would want to abide by that rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Exactly correct, and another practice which was widespread and very effective for millennia. And no group should be more in favor of such a plan than women who take practically ALL of the risks in premarital sex.
In our culture, of course, it is believed by many that it is much easier to simply have a doctor kill the unborn child.
I'm sure there are many, but your argument is ridiculous. Why should a woman give a blankety blank about what some man wants to abide by? Doesn't she have the right of choice? Isn't it her body and thus her choice. Isn't that the argument you make constantly for having her unborn child killed?Quote:
Now, find me a male in 2022 who would want to abide by that rule.
Have you ever been on a date with a guy who is responsible and respectable, but during kisses after the movie, a switch flips, and he tries to unbutton your blouse while his tongue forces itself between your lips? And he pushes forward from there. Or for your first date, the guy, who promised to take you to a nice restaurant for a late dinner, instead drives into a deserted warehouse zone, and parks in a very dark section, then proceeds to .... I'm sure you can imagine the rest.
That's how women can get pregnant. They're lied to and then attacked by a physically stronger male. What can she do? She isn't always wanting the over-the-top attention she has foisted upon her..
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:24 PM. |