abortion

Originally posted by whodey
It's a liberals worst nightmare which is reduced centralized control of the masses.

not really, and surprisingly a majority of states would still have some form of abortion available, even if only for rape, incest, or health of the mother, etc... only a few of the most backward states like Mississippi would outlaw it completely, but its a short drive to the border.

Originally posted by whodey
It's a liberals worst nightmare which is reduced centralized control of the masses.

Amazing. You think the government telling a woman whether she can procreate or not is "reducing centralized control of the masses"????????????????????????????

You'd love China.

Originally posted by Badwater
That's hardly a liberal's worst nightmare. I'm afraid we can't send you out with a copy of our home game.

Sure it is. If not, then why the continued move toward collectivism within the far left? More and more power is being given to the federal government to fix our ills. In recent history, the federal government was given control over such things as our retirement, poverty and welfare issues etc. Soon they will tell us all what medical coverage we can have or whether or not we qualify for a loan.

Edit: I do realize that the Republican party of late has had a hand in this as well. If you ask me, they are working together in this regard now.

Originally posted by duecer
not really, and surprisingly a majority of states would still have some form of abortion available, even if only for rape, incest, or health of the mother, etc... only a few of the most backward states like Mississippi would outlaw it completely, but its a short drive to the border.

Well at least the masses would be better represented. For example, you say that Mississippi is backwards for outlawing it completely as where others might simply say they are conservative and God fearing. Conversely, those in Mississippi would probably look at California who would keep it legal as being morally bankrupt and Godless in comparison. I guess it all depends on ones perspective, no? As it stands now, you have the federal government dictating to all the parties present what they should or should not do, therefore, why not make all parties "happier"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Amazing. You think the government telling a woman whether she can procreate or not is "reducing centralized control of the masses"????????????????????????????

You'd love China.

Amazing. You don't think an unborn child is human and needs protection under our laws.

You'd love China even more!!!

Originally posted by whodey
Amazing. You don't think an unborn child is human and needs protection under our laws.

You'd love China even more!!!

Your religious or philosophical beliefs shouldn't be binding on other people who don't believe the same through threat of the criminal law. Overriding a person's right to self-autonomy through governmental action makes a nation a tyranny. That's what you want this country to be. Shame on you.

Originally posted by whodey
Well at least the masses would be better represented. For example, you say that Mississippi is backwards for outlawing it completely as where others might simply say they are conservative and God fearing. Conversely, those in Mississippi would probably look at California who would keep it legal as being morally bankrupt and Godless in comparison. I guess i ...[text shortened]... ties present what they should or should not do, therefore, why not make all parties "happier"?

Yes, why don't we let the temporary majority in any state trample the rights of minorities any time they feel like it?

Last I checked the federal government didn't dictate to anybody whether they should or shouldn't have an abortion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your religious or philosophical beliefs shouldn't be binding on other people who don't believe the same through threat of the criminal law. Overriding a person's right to self-autonomy through governmental action makes a nation a tyranny. That's what you want this country to be. Shame on you.

Well at one time slaves in the deep south were viewed as livestock, therefore, you could have made the same argument about them at one time. You could have argued that you were infringing upon the rights of the slave owners for arresting them for maltreating or killing their slaves as they pleased.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your religious or philosophical beliefs shouldn't be binding on other people who don't believe the same through threat of the criminal law. Overriding a person's right to self-autonomy through governmental action makes a nation a tyranny. That's what you want this country to be. Shame on you.

To white wash the decision to kill a human being as a self-autonomous "right to choose" is despicable. Shame on you and on your murdering liberal ilk. How many babies have been butchered so the abortion industry's "medical practitioners" can keep paying their bills? Go look at a few pictures of babies in the womb. They have faces, arms, hands, and feet. They react to light and sound, feel pain, and even smile. Then come back and tell us all that they aren't human beings. It doesn't wash.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, why don't we let the temporary majority in any state trample the rights of minorities any time they feel like it?

Last I checked the federal government didn't dictate to anybody whether they should or shouldn't have an abortion.

Of course the real irony here is that Planned Parenthood was set up by Margret Sanger who had eugenical motives to focus on helping poor minority mothers prevent pregnancies. She felt it would be better for the societal gene pool if these "lesser people" did not breed as much.

Originally posted by whodey
Well at one time slaves in the deep south were viewed as livestock, therefore, you could have made the same argument about them at one time. You could have argued that you were infringing upon the rights of the slave owners for arresting them for maltreating or killing their slaves as they pleased.

We've been through this many times and your claim is false and worse, you know it. Slaves were never considered "livestock" or not human beings. By contrast, never have fetuses been considered human beings under the law for any purpose.

Try to remember that THIS TIME.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
To white wash the decision to kill a human being as a self-autonomous "right to choose" is despicable. Shame on you and on your murdering liberal ilk. How many babies have been butchered so the abortion industry's "medical practitioners" can keep paying their bills? Go look at a few pictures of babies in the womb. They have faces, arms, hands, and feet ...[text shortened]... n smile. Then come back and tell us all that they aren't human beings. It doesn't wash.

Soapbox preaching doesn't terribly impress me. If you want to live in a country where the law is based on people's religious beliefs, you should try Iran or Saudi Arabia. But that's not what this country is based on.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course the real irony here is that Planned Parenthood was set up by Margret Sanger who had eugenical motives to focus on helping poor minority mothers prevent pregnancies. She felt it would be better for the societal gene pool if these "lesser people" did not breed as much.

Margaret Sanger's alleged beliefs are irrelevant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Soapbox preaching doesn't terribly impress me. If you want to live in a country where the law is based on people's religious beliefs, you should try Iran or Saudi Arabia. But that's not what this country is based on.

I don't care what impresses you. You are deliberately ducking the point.

Do you believe an unborn child is a human being?

Yes?

No?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I don't care what impresses you. You are deliberately ducking the point.

Do you believe an unborn child is a human being?

Yes?

No?

No. And no law has ever treated it as such (correctly).