US Judge overturns N. Dakota’s fetal heartbeat abortion ban.

[Texashiker]

Once again, persons get constitutional rights. Persons are born.

People like you need to start using the correct terminology and quit appealing to emotion.

Don't even try to go there. All of your "correct terminology" goes to crap when words are interchanged.

Replacement fetus with black. Is the sentence still acceptable? Probably not.

Replace fetus with intellectually disabled (ref the forced sterilization program).

It is ok to kill a child because it has not been born.

It is ok to kill a black because they are slaves.

It is ok to sterilize an orphan because sociey does not need any more undesirables.

It is ok to kill a native American because they are savages.

At what point do you stop persecuting the weak?

Do you see a common trend in the above statements? "Because" is no reason to kill someone weaker than yourself.

 

[hal2kilo]

Oh cool, yet another mind numbing abortion thread with TH and #256 trying to out stupid each other. Where's Atheus1?

 

[nehalem256]

Once again, persons get constitutional rights. Persons are born.

So, eating a fetus would not be cannibalism?:sneaky:

That's fetus with a beating heart.

Business owners who break the law need to be cited and if necessary sued.

Until the fetus is viable it's not a child.

People like you need to start using the correct terminology and quit appealing to emotion.

So then why did you a few minutes ago have such difficulty in saying whether abortion is moral or not?

If a fetus is not a person what moral issue could there be in disposing of it?

 

[Newell Steamer]

I don't have wealth, therefore I am not entitled to decide how the wealthy should spend their money.

I don't have a vagina, but I am entitled to tell those with a vagina what they can or can't do with their own body.

Yup,... same old MO of conservatards; you can't do what you want, because you can't relate/don't know. But, you have to do what I say, even though I can't relate/don't know.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Pretty sure we all know how you would have stood on slavery as well.

If you do not speak up for the weak and unprotected, who will?

From the linked article in the OP,



In other words, women will keep fighting for the right to murder their children.

And probably enjoying every minute of it too...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Why can't you even say whether you think abortion is morally right or not?



Seems to me like you don't like TH bringing up slavery because based on your own logic you would have supported it just the same as abortion. Since apparently you are a moral coward.

And then you add 3 rubber ducks to 17 puppies and the result is a Honda Civic.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't have a vagina, but I am entitled to tell those with a vagina what they can or can't do with their own body.

My ex-wife does not have a penis, but that does not stop the state from forcing me to pay child support.

The laws of this state ensure that I am held responsible for my actions. If I make a child, I have to provide for it.

All that I ask is women be held to the same level of accountability and responsibility.

It would not be accepteable for me to murder my child to get out of responsibility. But yet women are allowed to.

 

[alzan]

Don't even try to go there. All of your "correct terminology" goes to crap when words are interchanged.

Replacement fetus with black. Is the sentence still acceptable? Probably not.

Replace fetus with intellectually disabled (ref the forced sterilization program).

It is ok to kill a child because it has not been born.

It is ok to kill a black because they are slaves.

It is ok to sterilize an orphan because sociey does not need any more undesirables.

It is ok to kill a native American because they are savages.

At what point do you stop persecuting the weak?

Do you see a common trend in the above statements? "Because" is no reason to kill someone weaker than yourself.

Someone implies a person; persons are born. Did you have in depth conversations with the fetuses that eventually became your children? Did you teach your fetuses how to drive while they were still in utero? Did you wipe your fetuses noses while they were in the womb?

You really do have trouble staying on topic. You can't deal with single topics on their own merit so you bring in different topics.

Like I said before, only when there's honest and open dialogue about sex and contraception and availability and understanding of all contraceptive techniques will there be less abortion.

 

[smackababy]

My ex-wife does not have a penis, but that does not stop the state from forcing me to pay child support.

The laws of this state ensure that I am held responsible for my actions. If I make a child, I have to provide for it.

All that I ask is women be held to the same level of accountability and responsibility.

It would not be accepteable for me to murder my child to get out of responsibility. But yet women are allowed to.

You continue to make these asinine arguments. A fetus, before 27 weeks, is not considered viable, and therefore is not considered a child. It has been decided. Nobody gives a shit what YOU believe. The medical community has come to a determination that the USSC has agreed upon and that is the law. How long ago was it? And you morons are still fighting it.

This has zero to do with slavery. This has zero to do with child support. This has zero to do with responsibility of children. Unless, you have some evidence to bring to light TO THE ENTIRE MEDICAL COMMUNITY concerning the viability of a fetus prior to 27 weeks, please stfu.

 

[Texashiker]

The medical community has come to a determination that the USSC has agreed upon and that is the law.

The same thing was said about forced sterilization.

The Supreme Court and top doctors agreed it was in the best interest of the nation to sterilize orphans and people with low IQs.

Young women who were raped were sometimes sterilized without consent or knowledge. To make sure the family could not reproduce sometimes all of the children, brothers and sisters were sterilized.

Even though forced sterilization was upheld, it is now a crime against humanity.

How long ago was it? And you morons are still fighting it.

Wrong is wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong to kill an unborn child.

To kill an innocent person is a crime against humanity.

 

[alzan]

The same thing was said about forced sterilization.

The Supreme Court and top doctors agreed it was in the best interest of the nation to sterilize orphans and people with low IQs.

Young women who were raped were sometimes sterilized without consent or knowledge. To make sure the family could not reproduce sometimes all of the children, brothers and sisters were sterilized.

Even though forced sterilization was upheld, it is now a crime against humanity.





Wrong is wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong to kill an unborn child.

To kill an innocent person is a crime against humanity.

A fetus is not a person. Which part of that sentence don't you understand?

 

[Texashiker]

A fetus is not a person.

Does it have a heartbeat? Then it is alive.

This is a child we are talking about. Not a dog, not a cat, not a chicken, it is a child with a beating heart.

 

[alzan]

Does it have a heartbeat? Then it is alive.

This is a child we are talking about. Not a dog, not a cat, not a chicken, it is a child with a beating heart.

Nope, it's a fetus.

So, how many fertilized eggs got flushed out of your wives' uteri before they got implanted successfully and were you just as upset about them?

How many prenatal citizen components got flushed away or wrapped in paper towels or Kleenexes from your constant masturbation to girl-on-girl porn?

How many viable eggs from your wives got caught up in tampons?

All those potential fetuses killed. You sir should be locked up as a serial murderer.

 

[trenchfoot]

The discourse in this thread reminds me of Rep. Alvin Holmes' quote: ".....that white people are only pro life until their daughter gets pregnant by a black man."

I don't necessarily agree with his quote but it sure hits a disconcerting chord or two in reference to how the immovable principle can and does clash with the unstoppable reality of things.

 

[shira]

The same thing was said about forced sterilization.

The Supreme Court and top doctors agreed it was in the best interest of the nation to sterilize orphans and people with low IQs.

Young women who were raped were sometimes sterilized without consent or knowledge. To make sure the family could not reproduce sometimes all of the children, brothers and sisters were sterilized.

Even though forced sterilization was upheld, it is now a crime against humanity.

So your argument is that - because the USSC has made really bad decisions in the past that were later changed - ALL USSC decisions are bad?

And if you agree that most USSC decisions are not really bad, how can you possibly argue that any particular current decision - such as Roe v. Wade - is equivalent to a past bad decision?

You see, I can even more cogently argue that MOST of the USSC's past decisions seem at least somewhat reasonable, even if I don't agree with them. These somewhat reasonable (or better) decisions far, far outnumber the really, really bad ones. Therefore, on a simply statistical basis, it's much more likely that Roe v. Wade is a somewhat reasonable decision than a really bad one.

In other words, you can't simply say "That's a USSC decision. The USSC has made really, really bad decisions in the past. Therefore, this is a really, really bad decision." Because if your reasoning is valid, then ALL USSC decisions are "really really bad" by the same logic.

Wrong is wrong.

It is morally and ethically wrong to kill an unborn child.

To kill an innocent person is a crime against humanity.

This is circular reasoning. The burden of evidence is on YOU to establish that a pre-viability fetus is a "child" (= "innocent person"). Without establishing a pre-viability fetus's personhood as a fact, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Making wild claims, without any substantiation, is just stupid.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's utterly pointless arguing with Texashiker about this; he believes that a human fetus becomes a "child" when it has a heartbeat and detectable brainwave patterns and there is literally no argument you or any expert can make that will change his opinion on the matter. And it's not inherently wrong to argue the perspective that all human life is precious and should be protected. I'd argue that it's wrong to say that your own perspective about an issue is the only possible valid perspective and should be codified into law, but when you're coming from the standpoint that abortion is murdering an innocent child, you can't really say "well, it's the mother's decision" can you? So, whatever, Texashiker (and some other people) are anti-abortion, you'll NEVER change their minds, but they don't have the power or the numbers to change the law, so que sera sera. Move on and stop wasting your time arguing the same tired bullshit over and over.

 

[TheSiege]

Does it have a heartbeat? Then it is alive.

This is a child we are talking about. Not a dog, not a cat, not a chicken, it is a child with a beating heart.

So are brain dead people alive? Are they being murdered when their family pulls the plug? They have a heartbeat right?

 

[shira]

Does it have a heartbeat? Then it is alive.

This is a child we are talking about. Not a dog, not a cat, not a chicken, it is a child with a beating heart.

Wait a second. You seem to be implying that dogs, cats, and chickens aren't people. But as you so cleverly argued in an earlier post, claiming that someone isn't a "person" has been used in the past to deprive them - for example, slaves - of their rights. So, clearly, ANY argument that claims that a living thing with a beating heart isn't a person must be invalid.

Thus, it's clear that dogs, cats, and chickens are people.

 

[Deadjester451]

I am curious, by what standard are we considered alive? Are we considered to have have souls apart of this standard or are the lack of us having souls part of this decision?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

Good old Texashiker. Your racism and your religion, by hook or by crook.

 

[Texashiker]

So your argument is that - because the USSC has made really bad decisions in the past that were later changed - ALL USSC decisions are bad?

Any supreme court that allows a person to be harmed through no fault of their own is a bad decision.

The mother through her own conduct became pregnant. The pregnancy was by her own choosing. She decided to have sex, but does not want to face up to the consequences of her actions.

The child is innocent in this matter.

Justice has a duty to protect the innocent.

 

[PingviN]

So, eating a fetus would not be cannibalism?:sneaky:

A human finger isn't a person, but eating a human finger is cannibalism. Neither is your heart, your arms, your legs, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

So are brain dead people alive? Are they being murdered when their family pulls the plug? They have a heartbeat right?

Lets test your theory. Try walking into a hospital and shooting a brain dead person through the heart...

Let us know how that works out for you :sneaky:

 

[Texashiker]

Conservatards gonna 'tard.

Good old Texashiker. Your racism and your religion, by hook or by crook.

Two things,

1 - you do not have children.

2 - you have yet to quote a single post where I reference religion in my stance.

What I have posted about religion has been negative in nature.

 

[michal1980]

Once again, persons get constitutional rights. Persons are born.

That's fetus with a beating heart.

Business owners who break the law need to be cited and if necessary sued.

Until the fetus is viable it's not a child.

People like you need to start using the correct terminology and quit appealing to emotion.

because calling it a fetus is not an appeal to emotion? You are trying to make the baby seem like a growth you can just kill.