Home - List All Discussions

One Day

abortion will end

by: ChristianLott2

Let's assume abortion will end someday. How? When?
Make a prediction how it will happen.
Supreme Court?
Civil War?
State by state or the entire nation at once?
Next year, in five years, twenty?
What will life be like after the laws are changed? What would you WANT it to be like after it's all over?

reply from: faithman

The only way it will end is thru passage of the life at conception act. Of course it will only be out lawed. Selfish people will still kill the womb child. Just not in as great of numbers, and we the people will not be guilty of sanctioning it. "laws" will not have to be changed. The ones governing murder will work just fine, and justice will come down to a jury selected from we the people.

reply from: yoda

Knowing that the slaughter of innocent babies is no longer state approved will be the major change. And for the first time in a long time, I will once again be "proud of my country".

reply from: churchmouse

The way we are going now as a society, it will always be legal. It will get worse. Doctor assisted suicide, euthanasia, cloning, embyonic stem cell, marrige between anyone and everything...........going down.....no morality, whatever feels good.
Won't happen in a war, people are to lazy to care about this issue. I include Christian Protestant pastors here, that dont have the guts to peak up for the unborn.
Until the end times as is scriptural.........abortion will be allowed.
"The securing of the Right to Life for babies, then, is in fact part of the first purpose of government. The government which fails to do this, fails to fulfill one of its primary duties; indeed, the duty which was given primacy of place by the authors of the Declaration."
Author unnknown
...[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... [It is] to secure these rights [that] Governments are instituted among Men.
- The American Declaration of Independence

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion could only end if pregnancy was removed from being a woman's job. If medicine had perfected itself to a state where women no longer became pregnant and grew their babies in tubes, and then ONLY if every single person on the planet lived in this same society, only then would abortion end.
Why? Because even with a wanted pregnancy, complications occur. Sometimes these lead to maternal danger, so even in a world where there were no unwanted pregnancies, abortion would still occur to save women's lives. If you could cure that, too, well then I suppose you might have a case.
I say "no unwanted pregnancies" very specifically because IF there are still unwanted pregnancies, then abortion will happen. No matter how illegal it is, women who do not want to be pregnant will find a way to end their pregnancies.
As it stands, realistically I don't think a war is needed. I think it will be a Supreme Court action, through which fetuses are slowly given rights in cases such as murder trials where the unborn is killed, and eventually someone will carry a case through that grants the unborn rights of personhood. That will overturn Roe V Wade and abortion will thusly become illegal again in most cases. For all of that to happen, our culture needs to change. I see this happening in the next ten to twenty years or so, depending on our presidents and congresses.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The only way it will end is thru passage of the life at conception act. .
I wish I could believe that, but I can not. Neither the House nor the Congress can over ride a SC decision on constitutional questions by legislation...If the Life at Conception Act ever passes (and I'm not sure it is even possible), the best we can hope for is a revisit of Roe by the SCOTUS. Since the SCOTUS has already ruled that the unborn are not "persons" under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, I'm afraid the only way provided for outlawing abortion on constitutional grounds is a new amendment. I realize this will not be a popular statement, but I believe it to be the truth...
I'm not trying to dash any hopes here (I had the same hopes), but after researching the implications, I am forced to accept the reality of the situation. The Life at Conception Act is not the "Holy Grail" many believe it to be.
Of course, this raises many as yet unanswered questions, the most compelling being, "why is it being presented as such?"
REALLY? Hm, I kinda wish I'd known that when I was a pro-choicer, since the most aggravating argument I heard from pro-lifers was that "person" was not a legal term or a scientific term so they could claim the unborn was a person as well as a baby/child etc.
That's all irrelevant now, but it certainly feels vindicating to know I was (sort of) right in saying it isn't a person. By law, it's not. Personally, I feel it is.

reply from: faithman

The only way it will end is thru passage of the life at conception act. .
I wish I could believe that, but I can not. Neither the House nor the Congress can over ride a SC decision on constitutional questions by legislation...If the Life at Conception Act ever passes (and I'm not sure it is even possible), the best we can hope for is a revisit of Roe by the SCOTUS. Since the SCOTUS has already ruled that the unborn are not "persons" under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, I'm afraid the only way provided for outlawing abortion on constitutional grounds is a new amendment. I realize this will not be a popular statement, but I believe it to be the truth...
I'm not trying to dash any hopes here (I had the same hopes), but after researching the implications, I am forced to accept the reality of the situation. The Life at Conception Act is not the "Holy Grail" many believe it to be.
Of course, this raises many as yet unanswered questions, the most compelling being, "why is it being presented as such?"
Once again you show your ignorance of the constitution and how it works. The legislature, along with the executive branch most assuredly have the power to over turn the court. Just check out the 13th thru 15th amendments, which made the Dred Scott discission unconstitutional and void. It is little suprise that the secular humanist highjacked court would say that these very amendments were ambiguous concerning womb children. At that time womb children were not at risk, and most would recognize that the pre-amble secures the blessing of life to pre-born posterity and sets the very spirit of the rest of the document. The very language of Roe itself recognized the authority of the congress to act in section 5 of the 14th amendment. You are simply wrong again, and your ignorance, whether willing, or an apparition of your puffed up ego, is a henderance to a quick constitutional end of the slaughter. Go back to your cage monkey boy, you are simply in error as usual. For one who likes to blow his own intelectual horn, your music is really pretty ignorant and stupid.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Abortion will end after the events of Psalm 2:1-9 take place. This is a quote from the author of the Bible (Jesus the Word) and involves the decreed promise from the Most High Lord God to the Annointed Son Jesus the Messiah.
"Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing. The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed, saying, 'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!' He who is enthroned in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.' I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them as earthenware.'"
This will be the greatest event in human history, in fact, it's the Gospel.

reply from: sheri

abortion will end when the church decides to join the fight.
I believe only a constitutional amendment will work, but we need the church to make it an issue with people.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Abortion will end after the events of Psalm 2:1-9 take place. This is a quote from the author of the Bible (Jesus the Word) and involves the decreed promise from the Most High Lord God to the Annointed Son Jesus the Messiah.
"Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing. The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed, saying, 'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!' He who is enthroned in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.' I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them as earthenware.'"
This will be the greatest event in human history, in fact, it's the Gospel.
God is calling individuals to participate in the Government. Again, we listen to what the Word Jesus says: Revelation 2:26-27"He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also received authority from My Father.
And in Revelation 5:10 the four living creatures and twenty-four elders sang a song, saying: "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they shall reign on the earth."

reply from: faithman

You are wrong about the amendment. All it takes is an act of congress, and a presidents signature. The passager of an amendment takes years, and places the constitution in danger. An act of congress would take only weeks, and is already in the language of the Roe discission, so is "court proof" and well within the constitution as it stands now. No change by amendment is nessisary.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about all of the people who are not Christian or specifically Catholic? Personally, I think the Pope is great an all, and he influences a lot of people, but I know that just because he says "jump" I'm not getting up. He doesn't affect me or my beliefs. He could declare we all have to wear silly hats, but I'm not going to do it. I know catholics who'd do it (not silly hats persay, but you understand my drift) and condemn me for not complying.
So my point is, the Church getting involved won't change anything. They already ARE involved as far as I'm concerned. What, do you want the Pope standing outside a clinic in full regalia or something?

reply from: faithman

What is more apealing, a "whore house", or a work shop of divine activity? The so called women's advocates are the ones who devalue women as nothing more that an apparatus at a sexual sporting event to be used by irresponcible men. Personhood folks honor women as persons, whos womb is a divine work shop where the very image of the Creator is replicated, and the gift of life is breathed into the unique vessel of individual humanity. The death murchants constantly come up with "what if" excusses to devalue the office of motherhood, and exalt the whorish debasment of women as objects of sexual pleasure, and the gift of womb life, as an inconveniant by product of their puriant desire. But it is a common tactic of the godless humanist to vomit their evil, and blame others for it's reprocussions. The pro-death dogs can not help but return to their own puke and vigerously lap it up. They will leave us, for they were never of us.

reply from: churchmouse

There are not enough people in the church obviously that will stand up and say abortion is wrong that it is murder. Lets face it we are NOT a Christian nation anymore.
Thanks for this verse Godslaw.
"Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing. The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed, saying, 'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!' He who is enthroned in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.' I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them as earthenware.'"
Any Chuck Colson fans here? He is awesome. He had this to say in his book, How Shall We Live?
"Just as certain physical actions produce predictable reactions, moral behavior produces predictable consequences. Adultery in Hollywood might be glamorous but what in real life does it produce? Broken families, relationships, anger rage, even violence. Defiance of moral laws may even lead to death."
What will be the consequence of abortion on America long-term? What good has come from abortion, what has it produced?
Those that hold to a God belief know that all issues really hinge on the way society values life. Do we value life in America?
We abort our children even though we know they are living human beings. We now want to allow assisted suicide, euthanasia and cloning. I guess its better to get rid of the dying, the disabled, handicapped, depressed and those who dont contribute to society any longer.....out of the way. They are burdens..........right?
And society has the warped belief that all these will benefit, and make society stronger.
Nope abortion will be around until the end.

reply from: deannat

I already know what it's like to live in a society where abortion on demand is outlawed. I lived in what was known as West Germany during the 1980s just prior to the Wall coming down. At that time, they had the most restrictive abortion laws on the books in all of Europe, with the exception of Ireland. The laws were complicated, but essentially, abortion was prohibited in all but 3 circumstances:
1. Save the live of the mother.
2. Rape or incest.
3. Destitution.
That's right, destitution. At that time adoption was virtually unknown throughout Europe. Families were expected to step in and help out in crisis pregnancy situations. Handing one's child over to a stranger to raise was considered just as heinous as abortion, if not more so. So, if a pregnant woman was destitute, had no family to help her, and the father was either destitute himself, in jail, or dead, she was allowed an abortion.
Abortion was not allowed in cases of fetal deformity. Because medical and care expenses in such cases can skyrocket, the German government offered financial compensation to mothers carrying such pregnancies to term. One of my neighbors was a young married woman who gave birth to a child with spina bifida. All medical expenses relating to the birth and care of the child were paid for by the government. The young family was also paid a monthly stipend by the government so that the mother could quit her job and stay home and care for her child full time.
Artificial birth control was hard to come by. I was able to get my prescription filled, but not for the 3 month supply I was used to getting in the US. I could only get a month's supply at a time and had to have a written prescription from a doctor each and every time. I could not get any refills. So, every time I went home to the US for a visit, I would go to my American doctor and bring back a fist full of BC prescriptions to Germany with me.
If abortion is prohibited for fetal deformity or similar circumstances in the US., there's going to have to be arrangements similar to West Germany's made for the care of the child that are funded by taxpayers. Getting BC prescriptions filled is already getting hard in some parts of the US. Prohibiting abortion for rape or to save the mother's life won't happen.

reply from: ChristianLott2

There are three ways I can see and they've all been mentioned:
1) get the Church involved - Well, the Catholic Chuch could have taken a turn for the better with our new pope but he's just as un-there as the last pope. In my opinion the pope should be angry enough with the state of things to be overturning the money changers tables right now. Instead it's same as before - waving from the pope mobile, writing papers, etc.. He could give us what we need - motivation, by pointing the papal finger at pro abort 'catholics', excommunicating all of these idiots, purging the clergy of pedophiles aggressively, making a show of it. Instead, it's business as usual and if something is done, it's done hush hush. And YES, I do think strong leadership would bring more of the RIGHT people to the Church and chase off the heretics. It would probably also inspire others from the outside as well.
2) state personhood amendments - maybe if we get lucky two or three states will pass this. then we'll wait another twenty years.
3) supreme court - not with the obamanation in there and I predict mccain appointing a sandra day oconner.
I think I'll have to move to Poland if I want to live in an anti abortion country. I have no faith the US will ever pull itself out of this but I hope I'm wrong.
I haven't been following politics close for a few years so if I misstated something please correct me. Thanks.

reply from: sheri

Lotty, you are dead on.
And, yes, I would like to see the Pope out in front of an abortion clinic. He should have took the rest of the Bishops with him when he came on his papel visit.
But at least ,AT LEAST! excommunicate the proabort polititians, if nothing else, GOD, let that happen in my life time.
I dont want to respond to you fboy, in my oppinion "the accuser of our brethren" should be "cast out", but that may be up to the likes of Saint Michel.

reply from: carolemarie

Supreme Court revisiting the law, like when SD passes its ban.
Or a constitutional amendment
Those are the legal ways.
The other way is Jesus can come back and end it himself.

reply from: ChristianLott2

They'd just put Him up on a cross again if they missed aborting Him in the first place.

reply from: faithman

The most expediant, and the most constitutional is passage of the LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT. A constitutional amendment is stupid, and a very dangerous move. For one it takes years to pass, and 2 it opens the door to a constitutional convention which means the constitution could be thrown out, and a neew one put in it's place. Only the willing ignorant would go that path. LACA only takes a matter of weeks, add the very language of Roe makes it "court proof". The legislature, and executive branhes most assuredly have the power to over turn the court. That is why we have a division of power in the first place. The thing is we must quit being dooped with the stupidity represented in the above posts , and remain focused on what will end this. We must get "personhood" legislators elected, not "pro-life" sell outs. We must stop listening to baby killers with hidden agendas, and remain focussed on effectual action, not meaningless compromise.

reply from: nancyu

Legalized abortion will end when society realizes it is ILLEGAL already.
An unborn child is a person.
It is illegal to murder persons.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Abortion will end after the events of Psalm 2:1-9 take place. This is a quote from the author of the Bible (Jesus the Word) and involves the decreed promise from the Most High Lord God to the Annointed Son Jesus the Messiah.
"Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing. The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed, saying, 'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!' He who is enthroned in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.' I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them as earthenware.'"
This will be the greatest event in human history, in fact, it's the Gospel.
God is calling individuals to participate in the Government. Again, we listen to what the Word Jesus says: Revelation 2:26-27"He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also received authority from My Father.
And in Revelation 5:10 the four living creatures and twenty-four elders sang a song, saying: "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they shall reign on the earth."
The only way abortion will end will be when Jesus is installed as Messiah (Christ means Messiah) over all the earth. Jesus will be enthroned in Jerusalem, Israel (between three great land masses; Asia, Europe and Africa). Yes, the nations will take counsel to try to prevent the Lord and His Anointed from taking rulership here on earth. But Christ shall shatter the nations (the saints shall also have the pleasure of shattering the nations).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's a better way to put it. I understand the concept behind when you say "abortion is illegal", but it's just not a fact by law. The law does not recognize the unborn as a person, and so abortion is not murder. Fetal personhood needs to be established.

reply from: nancyu

That's a better way to put it. I understand the concept behind when you say "abortion is illegal", but it's just not a fact by law. The law does not recognize the unborn as a person, and so abortion is not murder. Fetal personhood needs to be established.
Holy Cow! A wad of tissue who can read! You are a rare one.
Yes, many do seem to need that piece of paper to convince them that abortion is illegal. (even though it is, already)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why am I a wad of tissue again? I thought you only considered humans to not be people if they didn't believe in unborn personhood. I do. It's a person from the moment of fertilization; it's a unique being with its own unique DNA and separate body. It is like no other human on Earth.

reply from: faithman

That's a better way to put it. I understand the concept behind when you say "abortion is illegal", but it's just not a fact by law. The law does not recognize the unborn as a person, and so abortion is not murder. Fetal personhood needs to be established.
the quickest, and most constitutionally safe way to gitter done, is the life at conception act. Not a court discission, nor an amendment to the constitution. Even the pro-aborts realize that, and that is why they want Obama so they can pass FOCA. Foca is also an Obama canpain promise to the abortion crowd, as one of the first things he would sign. As long as we have phony neo-lifers promoting themselves as "the voice" of Pro-life, the focus will continue to be stolen from effective action. This issue is really very simple. An act of congress, and a presidents signature would end the slaughter in all 50 states.

reply from: nancyu

And yet, you believe it is legal to murder them, and you believe it should remain legal for a while longer --until people can adjust to the idea -- so as to avoid a backlash from your tissue clump friends. It may be true that you believe the unborn are persons, but you sure aren't treating them like they are.

reply from: ChristianLott2

http://www.prolifealliance.com/life%20at%20conception%20act.htm

reply from: faithman

Thank you. Now maybe the neo-lifers will get up off of their stupid arrogance, and actually advocate effective, and swift actions. Many real Plers are waking up to the sorry bill of goods they have been sold all these years by those with a monied interest on both sides, to see abortion on demand continue. We are seeing a grass roots movement spontaneously erupting into a demand for established personhood. Colorado is leading they way in showing how to get it on the ballot by referendum. Every PL group, in every state should be focusssed on doing the same, as well as sending national personhood legislators to Washington. This could all end very quickly. But we must stop being lied to by neo-lifers with personal aggendas. This ends when personhood is estabished. The quickest way is the LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT!!!! That must be our litmus test for those who want our vote.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And yet, you believe it is legal to murder them, and you believe it should remain legal for a while longer --until people can adjust to the idea -- so as to avoid a backlash from your tissue clump friends. It may be true that you believe the unborn are persons, but you sure aren't treating them like they are.
Now now, don't add on rules. Stick to your guns. Abortion is legal. It is legalized murder. And it's not so much that I don't want it to change right now, as it is that I know it can't. You cannot force someone to believe the same way you do; you have to show them and guide them. In the end, they have to make their own decision. One of the biggest factors that pro-lifers consistently leave out is the human element. Our variety of thoughts, religions and beliefs. Our multitudes of experiences and ethics. You can't change them all at once, and humanity will continue to amaze us with its tenacity.
You have to change a nation, not a law.
Changing a law does not mean people will follow it. Changing a nation means people will CREATE a law they believe in. Freeing the slaves didn't end discrimination. Laws were created right after that in fact increased the discrimination. Only when the PEOPLE changed did equality become a possibility - and we are still fighting for it today. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop people from drinking it; in fact, it made things worse. Alcohol is now firmly entrenched in our society and is farther from being made illegal than it was at the turn of the twentieth century.
Yes, I am very worried that what happened during prohibition could happen again with abortion. I don't want to set back the pro-life movement a hundred years or more.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Let's work towards this, and follow th advice of the site. Work WITH the government, not against it.

reply from: faithman

That is the whole point of the LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT. It uses the instruments of our government already in place. That is what I have been saying all along. No court discission nor amendment nessisary. Bot "pro-life" and prochoice have been lying to the american people.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Pro-life has been lying to the american people? How? I agree the resources are right at our fingertips. It's just a matter of properly using them and getting people to pay attention without angering or alienating them.

reply from: Banned Member

Planned Parenthood needs to be turned upside down and inside out much the way that the tobacco industry was years ago. Every Planned Parenthood abuse needs to be exposed and see the light of day.
What did public officials know and when? How has their support enabled Planned Parenthood to continue in their abuses and dodging of the law? Who contributes money to Planned Parenthood and why?
How much money does Planned Parenthood contribute to those running for office? Why? What favors if any are promised and exchanged?
The records of abortion doctors need to be sifted through and exposed; improper abortions, the falsification of records concerning maternal deaths, the failures to report rapes and sex abuse.
ABORTION WILL FALL LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS!

reply from: 4given

I can't help but to think of this song...
How lovely is
Your dwelling place
Oh Lord Almighty,
For my soul longs
And even faints
For You
Oh, here my heart
Is satisfied
Within Your presence
I sing beneath
The shadow of
Your wings
Better is one day in Your courts
Better is one day in Your house
Better is one day in Your courts
Than thousands elsewhere
One thing I ask,
And I would seek,
To see Your beauty
To find You in
The place Your glory dwells
One thing I ask
And I would seek,
To see Your beauty
To find You in
The place Your glory dwells
My heart and flesh cry out
For You, the Living God
Your Spirit's water for my soul
I've tasted, and I've seen
Come once again to me
I will draw near to You
I will draw near to You
To You
Better is one day

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Did you see the YouTube video of a beautiful sky, and in the wind is a small child's voice that says "Can you see love now?"

reply from: 4given

No.. Can you post a link?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'll try to find it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=phHvoX_rQwQ

Here's a link. Turn up the volume around 30 seconds in, the voice is around 40-50 seconds in. It's like a child whispering.

reply from: yoda

I'm afraid you're still confused. There is no one "superior" usage for any word. Many words have varied usages for varied contexts, such as a vernacular usage and a legal usage, as in the case of the word "person".
"Person" means BOTH the body of a human being (traditional vernacular usage) AND a born human being (legal usage).
No, legal terms do NOT "over rule" vernacular terms. They each have their proper context.

reply from: yoda

That's what Mark Crutcher has been saying for a long time. There are far too many churches who either support abortion, or are indifferent to it.

reply from: yoda

The constitution gives congress the power to eliminate any area of law from the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. All they have to do is pass a statue saying that the SCOTUS can no longer rule on any particular issue. But of course, they first have to grow some testicles.

reply from: faithman

It had to be "established" by the State of Texas during the hearing. The SCOTUS examined a big pile of "evidence" in determining that "person," as used in the 14th Amendment, was never intended to include the unborn. Do I agree with their decision? Certainly not, but that doesn't invalidate it. Blackmun's statement simply meant that the issue boiled down to whether the court could be convinced that the 14th Amendment protected the unborn. It was not an open invitation for an act of Congress to simply make a declaration deciding the issue, and certainly was not an invalidation clause, as many seem to think...Roe's case was decided by the highest court in our land, and can not be reversed by legislation. All legislation must pass constitutional muster, and whether or not it is constitutional is subject to the interpretation of the SCOTUS. Surely you understand this.
Here's an example that might clarify this issue for those who have two brain cells to rub together.....Can Congress declare that any class of human being is not a "person" simply so that certain rights can be denied them? They could, technically, but they would not bother, since they would be aware that such legislation would not pass constitutional muster...In other words, such legislation would never make it to the floor for a vote, since it would be obvious that it would be voided by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has the last word on constitutionality. That's their job, it's what they do....
I believe this is why the Life at Conception Act died in committee in the House, but I can not access the committee minutes in order to verify it. I spent about two weeks of sleepless nights researching this issue because I want to know the truth, rather than simply believing whatever is most appealing to me. I was very excited when I first learned of this, but less excited about the reintroduction of the bill in the Congress. I believe the issue is being used for political leverage. I believe most of our representatives know the bill will never pass, but also realize that doesn't matter to the millions of deluded but well intentioned souls who are convinced it is the "Holy Grail" of the prolife movement....
Just as I, a sincere prolifer, am condemned for accepting reality, our representatives know that they must, in many cases, at least give an appearance of support for this bill in order to avoid being similarly condemned and keep their jobs. What do you expect? The only thing that has changed with the introduction of this bill in the Congress is that more of our Congressmen have supported the bill. It will still never make it out of committee, but all these people can say they did what their constituents asked of them....When millions of people write to say "support this bill, or risk losing your jobs," what do you expect them to do?
I will take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" after much resources are wasted and this bill once more dies in committee....
Your puffed up ass is simply wrong again. The legislature, and executive branch most assuredly can over turn Roe. Blackmon most assuredly left it open for the congress to act. You are not a sincere pro-lifer and have proven that on more than one occassion. The LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT would end abortion on demand in all 50 states. Section 5 of the 14th constitutionally gives congress all the power it needs and forty words into the pre-amble, the word posterity sets the spirit of the rest of the document. The court is not the dictator of america. WE THE PEOPLE have the final word, not the court.

reply from: faithman

That is the whole point. The amendment has already been passed and section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the constitutional authority to include womb children as persons. No new amendment is nessisary. An amendment takes years, an act of congress weeks. I would be careful who you call an idiot, when he bests you at every turn. You are simply wrong, and would endanger the constitution with what you advocate.

reply from: yoda

I've never seen anyone more ill-informed about constitutional matters than you, spinny. Have you never read it?

reply from: faithman

I actually did. You are just too stupid to accept them.

reply from: yoda

Article III, Section 2: (paragraph 2): "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".
Congress, quite simply, has the power to both regulate and define the jurisdiction of the supreme Court. Should they choose to do so, Congress has the power to take jurisdiction away from the supreme Court on any issue.

reply from: faithman

In all cases in which a state shall be party (such as Roe, and all other constitutional challenges against state laws), " the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." In all other cases before mentioned..........with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Gee, Yoda, this doesn't seem to apply to state laws, where the SCOTUS is declared to have original jurisdiction, with no provision for legislative interference...
your own post proves you wrong, and agrees with what I have been saying and Roe agrees with"...........with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress can"Act" with out an amendment. The section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to act, and the language of Roe agrees. Thanks for proving me right again.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: faithman

Sorry little monkey boy. But I am right and you are not evolved enough to realize it. ....and even the languagfe is roe recognizes the authority of congress to "ACT". Section 5 of the 14th amendment also gives congress the authority to act. Just because you wish to ignore these facts does not make them any less so.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's a very *****ing (pardon my french) good question. It's like "by the way, we've decided that these people who have existed since humanity began are indeed actually people."
Who the heck is our little government to determine personhood? A bit arrogant of us, eh?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've never seen anyone who posts so much and says so little.... Once more, any intelligent responses?
Heh. Sorry; I like seeing yoda get his just desserts.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Shh, you'll make his brain explode.

reply from: faithman

Shh, you'll make his brain explode.
Snicker snicker... Good one!!!http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1840/fetuscopysz9.jpg

reply from: faithman

I am for a life at conception act. An amendment is unnessisary.

reply from: faithman

I didn't ask if it was necessary.
Do you, or do you not oppose a constitutional amendment?
I have stated several times what I support and why. If you just want to play pissy little games and ignore it, it is on you. Most can see what a fool you are. A life at conception act ids all that is required. An amendment is unnessisary and potentially dangerous to the constitution. It does not take an amendment to end abortion on demand.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I didn't ask if it was necessary.
Do you, or do you not oppose a constitutional amendment?
I have stated several times what I support and why. If you just want to play pissy little games and ignore it, it is on you. Most can see what a fool you are. A life at conception act ids all that is required. An amendment is unnessisary and potentially dangerous to the constitution. It does not take an amendment to end abortion on demand.
And he refuses to answer WHY he thinks abortion is a danger to the constitution. Assuring black people are equals didn't hurt the constitution.

reply from: faithman

I didn't ask if it was necessary.
Do you, or do you not oppose a constitutional amendment?
I have stated several times what I support and why. If you just want to play pissy little games and ignore it, it is on you. Most can see what a fool you are. A life at conception act ids all that is required. An amendment is unnessisary and potentially dangerous to the constitution. It does not take an amendment to end abortion on demand.
And he refuses to answer WHY he thinks abortion is a danger to the constitution. Assuring black people are equals didn't hurt the constitution.
You mis spoke. I did not say abortion was a danger to the constitution. Amending the constitution is, and is unnessisary to bring an end to abortion on demand. An act of congress is all that it takes, both by section 5 of the 14th amendment, and by the very language of Roe itself. Please do not mis quote me. That is very dishonest.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why is amending the constitution dangerous?

reply from: faithman

Simply do a study on it. It would bring us close to a constitutional convention, which means the whole constitution could be thrown out, and a new one brought in. This would end all our rights. It is totally unnessisary to end abortion on demand by amendment. And constitutional scholars say so, not some convict monkey boy who is in love with himself. American Life Leage has alot of good info on it.

reply from: sheri

Fboy, would you oppose an amendment that would end abortion, YES or NO?

reply from: faithman

I am for a Life at conception act. An amendment is unnessisary. You can try to bend and twist my stance all you want. I have made it quite simply for anyone who wants to to understand. Very simple. Establish personhood for the womb child thru an act of congress, and a presidents signature. No waist of time, and no endangerment of destroying the very instrument that gives we the people the power to resolve this issue. SSSSSSOOOOOO why do you dumb asses want to waist time and millions more dead by advocating for an unnessisary amendment when congress already has the authority to act? Why do you ask stupid questions then don't accept the answere because you don't like it? And I don't have to be careful for anything, particularly a threat from a monkey boy convict punk. You got something to do gitter done. But I don't fear masked threats for little boyz playing grown up.

reply from: sheri

I knew fboy was not a real prolifer, no prolifer would treat an aborted woman like he does, but I had no idea he was such a hypocrit!
Run down CM because she wanted a Birthcontrol provision and then put the constitution above thousands of babies lives!
You know if taking the constitution out back and burning it on the manure pile would save one baby i wouldnt hesitate. I find it strange that you would have a problem with that, yet defend someone who would have an abortionist put down in order to save a baby.

reply from: yoda

Carole, why don't you just post under your own name?

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOOO you would destroy the very instrument that would actually save a womb child, and throw it on a manure pile? Protecting the constitution, and defending womb life are not exclusive issuess. One is dependant on the other. Only a fool would throw away the tools they need to do a job. Only an idiot would advocate an unnessiary action that would waist time and resources, when a more direct aproach would end the slaughter in a more timely manner. SSSSSSSSOOOOOOO why do you advocate years of unnessisary action, when a more viable and timely action is available? Why do you ignore an action that would save millions right now, insted of years of dead womb children, and risk destroying the very instrument that we the people could use to stop the slaughter?

reply from: faithman

Then get your nose away from your own behind. You are projecting again the very things wrong with an amendment onto an act of congress. The reason Hunter is running into problems is because of stupid word twisting jerks like you, and pro-abort enemies who will not let it get out of commity. The amendmet would meet even more resistance, take years longer, and endanger the constitution. Abortion on demand would be history ion a matter of weeks with the right congress and the right president. Even if you could get an amendment passed it would take years. Years that womb children will be dieing. You why should it suprise us that a secular humanist jail house wife would stand in the way of effective action to actually end abortion on demand in all 50 states? You would stand in the way of anything you didn't think of, and particularly when some one has shown what a fool you are which hurt your little monkey boy feelings. An amendment is unnessisary, a waist of time, and a danger to the republic.

reply from: cracrat

How many years until you have the right president/congress? Isn't G-Dubya supposed to have been the most pro-life president since RvW? The Republicans, the pro-life party, controlled congress until a couple of years ago. Just exactly what are the 'right' conditions to get an amendment or bill passed?

reply from: sheri

fboy, why dont you answer the question YES or NO. Prove to the prolifers here that you belong.

reply from: faithman

I don't answere loaded questions yes or no. I answered your question several time. You just don't like my answere.

reply from: sheri

I dont think we have a shot at winning this politicaly at all, at this point, like Cracky said what better conditions could we have? We need to wake the church up, but that will take an act of God.
Fboy YES or NO?

reply from: sheri

fboy, there is plenty i dont like about you, i havent received an answer to this question though so how do you know if i dont like it?

reply from: sheri

I dont care what avenue you prefer, this is a specific question designed to expose your hypocrisy, in that you prefer "saving" the constitution to saving babies.
Now answer YES or NO.

reply from: carolemarie

He won't answer because he knows that Concerned Parent is right.

reply from: sheri

Now hes gone all catatonic again and we'll never get an answer out of him, I blame you CP i thought you were being a little rough with the poor little thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You don't have to answer, just help me keep this up front so everybody can see what you're really about...
b^_^d

reply from: carolemarie

Faithman is fighting tooth and nail answering a question that exposes his faux-life position.
Man up and answer Fboy!

reply from: carolemarie

Let me see if I have this right.
If we pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion, abortion will end. Faithman opposes this because it will take to long. And he believes that if we have a constitutional convention evil forces will strip the bill of rights away from us.
He also opposed the ban on abortion S. Dakota has coming up because if it goes to the supreme court and they rule and overturn Roe, then abortion will be illegal in many states. But he opposes this because it has exceptions.
He supports personhood that has failed repeatedly, couldn't even get on the ballot in Montana and will lose (again ) in Colorado. Because he is prolife.
Can anyone say faux-prolife?

reply from: faithman

You have posted several times that you would oppose an end because your special interest group would not get a free walk. I am 10 time the man your punk friend will ever be, and I have answere your question over and over again. You have exposed nothing except that you are a baby killer, and a freind to baby killers now, and into the future. You have latched onto a fellow phony, and now try and stand in the way of effective action by presenting false information and stealing the focus away from what needs to be done. Niether one of you cares about the womb child, and constantly put your self interest above them. Any one can see who is real, and who is false. So blather on phony.

reply from: faithman

The SD bill has a "health of the mother " loop whole that makes it worthless and will not save one baby for your friends at the abortion clinic. You can post all the lies you like, but I hope you learn how to do the back stoke on fire. They could get it on the ballot in Montana because they started to late. Colorado is already doing very well. Why do you oppose real action that will really stop it? Oh thats right, you are a baby killer and the friend to baby killers, and don't really care about womb children at all.

reply from: carolemarie

You have posted several times that you would oppose an end because your special interest group would not get a free walk. I am 10 time the man your punk friend will ever be, and I have answere your question over and over again. You have exposed nothing except that you are a baby killer, and a freind to baby killers now, and into the future. You have latched onto a fellow phony, and now try and stand in the way of effective action by presenting false information and stealing the focus away from what needs to be done. Niether one of you cares about the womb child, and constantly put your self interest above them. Any one can see who is real, and who is false. So blather on phony.
Are you unaware that if personhood passes (somewhere, sometime) that it will be a direct challenge to Roe and be ruled on by the Supreme Court as to it's constitutionality?
Wouldn't it be simpler to let a ban go forward and let Supreme Court rule on its' constitutionality?

reply from: faithman

wHY DO YOU INSIST UPON TELLING THAT LIE? THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID THE CONGRESS TO PASS IT OR THE PRO-ABORT MEDIA WOULD BE ALL OVER IT SHOUTING FROM THE ROOF TOPS. tHE EXACT OPPISITE IS TRUE. THEY ARE OPPRESSING THE EFFORT BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WOULD END IT. iT WOULD NOT BE OVER RIDING BUT MERELY DOING WHAT THE RULING SAID THEY COULD AND SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT ALREADY GIVES THEM AUTHORITY TO DO. bUT YOU CAN KEEP POSTIN YOUR LIES AND MIS INFORMATION IF YOU WISH.

reply from: carolemarie

You have posted several times that you would oppose an end because your special interest group would not get a free walk. I am 10 time the man your punk friend will ever be, and I have answere your question over and over again. You have exposed nothing except that you are a baby killer, and a freind to baby killers now, and into the future. You have latched onto a fellow phony, and now try and stand in the way of effective action by presenting false information and stealing the focus away from what needs to be done. Niether one of you cares about the womb child, and constantly put your self interest above them. Any one can see who is real, and who is false. So blather on phony.
I support a ban like S. Dakota's and I would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
I would even support personhood with exceptions.
And jail for those who shoot abortion providers.
You support killing born abortion providers, or rather hiding behind the statement that you support the actions of those who kill them, and oppose direct action to ban abortion (constitutitonal amendment) because you are afraid that something you value more than those babies may be changed.
That is faux-prolife.

reply from: faithman

You have posted several times that you would oppose an end because your special interest group would not get a free walk. I am 10 time the man your punk friend will ever be, and I have answere your question over and over again. You have exposed nothing except that you are a baby killer, and a freind to baby killers now, and into the future. You have latched onto a fellow phony, and now try and stand in the way of effective action by presenting false information and stealing the focus away from what needs to be done. Niether one of you cares about the womb child, and constantly put your self interest above them. Any one can see who is real, and who is false. So blather on phony.
I support a ban like S. Dakota's and I would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
I would even support personhood with exceptions.
And jail for those who shoot abortion providers.
You support killing born abortion providers, or rather hiding behind the statement that you support the actions of those who kill them, and oppose direct action to ban abortion (constitutitonal amendment) because you are afraid that something you value more than those babies may be changed.
That is faux-prolife.
Once again you lie. I suport the most direct and constitutionaly safe way to end it. An amendment would take years and 2/3rds of the congress, and 3/4ers of the states to pass. While an act of congress only takes a majority vote. I suport full personhood while you want killers like yourself to go free. You are the phony baby killer with a personal aggenda in direct conflick with the womb child. Anybody can see you are the phony. Why would you want to delay for years with an amendment, what would only take weeks for an act of congress? Why do you hate womb childern so much that you killed 3, and are trying to stand in The way of stopping more from being murdered by your fellow killers?

reply from: carolemarie

I don't know if it works exactly the way CP says, but I do know that the Supreme Court would rule on if it is constitutional, and you can bet your life the abortion lobby would be in the court seeking an injunction till the bill is ruled on. Either way you are wrong on 3 weeks....its law of the land.

reply from: faithman

It is obviuos that you have never read Roe or the constitution. Roe has already acknowlaged that congress has the power to act. the 5th section of the 14th amendment already gives congress the authority to act. The court can not injoin an act they have already ruled constitutional. I am not wrong on 3 weeks. that is not an unreasonable time frame for a fast track bill.

reply from: faithman

And they have already ruled that the congress has the authority to act> The court regognized that the 14th amendments gives congress power. So your presiuos scotus already agrees with me. Try to cherry pick all you like, but as you always do you prove me right. So what do you advocate unnessisary action that would prolong abortion on demand for years, when everything you have posted so far agrees with what I am saying to be corect? Why do you hate womb children so much?

reply from: faithman

Man, your comprehension is sorely lacking. Or maybe you are just in denial...Like I said, let me know when abortion is prohibited by any personhood bill....It might take 20 years, but eventually you'll figure this out. Once more, I will certainly derive no pleasure from saying "I told you so."
It is you who does not comprehend. Your very posts verify what I have been saying. Scotus is not the dictator of the united states. The court was only suposed to rule on law already passed by the legislature. The court had no business hearing the case in the first place, because there was no law at the federal level for them to rule on. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, and there was no federal law for the court to rule on. To over throw a state law that was not in violation of the constitution or federal law is unconstitutional. Besides the fact that the ruling itself regognized the legislature authority to act. And a legislature passed, and state aproved 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to act.

reply from: faithman

Oh, I guess the little monkey boy got tired of getting beat and ran off from the forum. To bad.

reply from: faithman

You have not shown a thing except how incredibly stupid you are. I know congress is bound by the constitution, and I have shown what the constitution empowers the congress to do. You just don't like it because it has disproven what you have said, and you continue to lie because your gigantic ego has a hard time admitting you have been beaten at everyturn. the abortion laws in texas were not in violation of the constitution nor federal law, because there was not law for the court to rule on. The 5th section of the 14th amendment says the congress has the authority to make law about persons. Article 3 section 2 of the constitution says that the congress can make an exception of abortion, and regulate the court not to rule on it. The court is not the dictator of the US. they can only rule on law passed by the legislature. The court was usurping the authority of the congress, and congress has the power to take exception and regulate them back into it's place. An act of congress is all that we need to remidy abortion on demand. Anamendment is unnessisary, much harder to pass, and a delay while children die. My claims are most assuredly not baseless as I have proven over and over again. You just keep trying to ask loaded questions, and I keep blasting you out of the water. If you intend to keep posting stupid, then I will post the actual smart and most constitutionally swift way to end the killing. Why do you want to delay the end while million more die? That is a more honest question than anything you have asked.
http://You have not shown a thing except how incredibly stupid you are. I know congress is bound by the constitution, and I have shown what the constitution empowers the congress to do. You just don
-------------------------
http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html

reply from: faithman

You have not shown a thing except how incredibly stupid you are. I know congress is bound by the constitution, and I have shown what the constitution empowers the congress to do. You just don't like it because it has disproven what you have said, and you continue to lie because your gigantic ego has a hard time admitting you have been beaten at everyturn. the abortion laws in texas were not in violation of the constitution nor federal law, because there was not law for the court to rule on. The 5th section of the 14th amendment says the congress has the authority to make law about persons. Article 3 section 2 of the constitution says that the congress can make an exception of abortion, and regulate the court not to rule on it. The court is not the dictator of the US. they can only rule on law passed by the legislature. The court was usurping the authority of the congress, and congress has the power to take exception and regulate them back into it's place. An act of congress is all that we need to remidy abortion on demand. Anamendment is unnessisary, much harder to pass, and a delay while children die. My claims are most assuredly not baseless as I have proven over and over again. You just keep trying to ask loaded questions, and I keep blasting you out of the water. If you intend to keep posting stupid, then I will post the actual smart and most constitutionally swift way to end the killing. Why do you want to delay the end while million more die? That is a more honest question than anything you have asked.

reply from: sheri

fboy, If we had a chance at passing an amendment that would end abortion you would NOT be for that? Do I have that right?

reply from: yoda

Wow..... someone is willfully blind to the actual words of the constitution, in Article III, section 2, which gives Congress the power to define and/or limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court...... amazing!

reply from: yoda

The SCOTUS cannot rule on the constitutionality of an amendment. That is out of their jurisdiction. And Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS any time they come up with the guts to do it. Congress holds the ultimate power in our government, and if they could just get themselves together long enough to use that power, they'd be in control.

reply from: carolemarie

I am glad you laid all that out.
It sounds like some people are merely parrorting what they have been told rather than investigating the source for themselves.....and I know sometimes we all get lazy, I have been guilty of it myself.
I have heard all kinds of specultaion, some being that the President can just write an executive order banning abortion and it is banned. I don't believe that either.
If anyone disagrees with this, they need to go and get the cites and backup and post it, not just repeat their opinion.....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's what I've been thinking this entire discussion XD

reply from: carolemarie

What part are you unsure of? The judicial committee determines whether a proposed bill will pass constitutional muster, based on interpretations by the SCOTUS. A bill that defies that interpretation dies in committee, since the congress is not empowered to pass unconstitutional legislation. That doesn't prevent such bills from being proposed, of course, but judicial committee review is merely a formality when previously rejected bills are reintroduced. Generally, changes can be made in committee in order to polish a bill, but in cases like this, any change that would make the bill passable would also defeat the intent, therefore it would be pointless.
I believe you , since state legislation goes through a similar process, making sure the bill isn't in conflict with current laws.
It would only make since then that the federal government would have a similar process, since not all members are lawyers.
Why then did Henry Hyde reintroduce the life at conception act over and over? He should have know this

reply from: nancyu

By his own standards, he is a "pro-abort," willing to sell out the "womb child" for the sake of keeping a Constitution that has been ruled to deny them protection intact....
But it is the ruling that is flawed -- NOT the Constitution.
It's not a fair statement to say that we are pro abort for being opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.

reply from: carolemarie

By his own standards, he is a "pro-abort," willing to sell out the "womb child" for the sake of keeping a Constitution that has been ruled to deny them protection intact....
But it is the ruling that is flawed -- NOT the Constitution.
It's not a fair statement to say that we are pro abort for being opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.
Neither is it a fair statement to call me a proabort because I don't support a Personhood bill but support a abortion ban instead. You are being judged by the standard you used. Just as the bible said you would be.

reply from: sander

So, Cm...are you going to answer my question? Did you write that post on the other forum that Augustine belongs to?

reply from: carolemarie

I did answer it on the other thread. I was just busy at the time eating brownies and thinking about the Supreme Court.

reply from: faithman

Glad you joined us, Sander. Don't you also consider those who make exceptions to prohibition of abortion to be "pro-aborts?" Why are you not condemning Nancy and Fboy for declaring that they would oppose a constitutional amendment to end abortion on demand? Do you share their view? Do you also oppose such an amendment?
Because that is not an exception. That is the acknowlagement that an amendment is not constitutionally nessisary. the 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the language of Roe itself, says that congress can ACT to pass the life at conception act. exceptions mean [like cm has advocated] that we want all murderers prosicuted except those who pay to have their womb children killed. I do not nessisarily oppose an amendment, it is just simply unsessisary, and a waist of valuable time, when an act of congress will do. Now twist words all you like, but more and more people are seeing you for the fool you are with every post. The words of the contitution contradict your error filled opinion in your very posts. The congress has the authority to make exceptions that the court can not rule from the bench on abortion, and can regulate personhood to preborn posterity by passing the life at conception act. The better question here is why do you 2 phonies oppose the constitutional solution, even though it stares you in the face by the words in your own posts?

reply from: carolemarie

I support it. In the meantime, I will support an ban on abortion.

reply from: faithman

Glad you joined us, Sander. Don't you also consider those who make exceptions to prohibition of abortion to be "pro-aborts?" Why are you not condemning Nancy and Fboy for declaring that they would oppose a constitutional amendment to end abortion on demand? Do you share their view? Do you also oppose such an amendment?
Because that is not an exception. That is the acknowlagement that an amendment is not constitutionally nessisary. the 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the language of Roe itself, says that congress can ACT to pass the life at conception act. exceptions mean [like cm has advocated] that we want all murderers prosicuted except those who pay to have their womb children killed. I do not nessisarily oppose an amendment, it is just simply unsessisary, and a waist of valuable time, when an act of congress will do. Now twist words all you like, but more and more people are seeing you for the fool you are with every post. The words of the contitution contradict your error filled opinion in your very posts. The congress has the authority to make exceptions that the court can not rule from the bench on abortion, and can regulate personhood to preborn posterity by passing the life at conception act. The better question here is why do you 2 phonies oppose the constitutional solution, even though it stares you in the face by the words in your own posts?
Fboy says his exception is not an exception, since, if it is, that would make him a hypocrite. He can't deny the one without denying the other.... I wouldn't trust that idiot as far as I can spit.
So you are going to ignore the 1st article of the constitution that says all legistation authority is given to congress? You are going to ignore that only the constitution, and congressionally passed law is what the court is allowed to rule on, and section 2 of the third article most assuredly can regulate and forbid the court to rule by exception? You are going to ignore the fact that if there is no article, section, amendment, or congressional act violated, the 10th amendment secures the right of the state to pass and prosicute state law? you are going to ignore that the 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the language of Roe itself, gives congress the contitutional authority to pass the life at conception act out lawing abortion in all 50 states? These are all facts brought into evidence. You can continue to ignore them, but it doesnt make them any less real, just like your willing ignorance makes you any less a fool for all to see.

reply from: nancyu

By his own standards, he is a "pro-abort," willing to sell out the "womb child" for the sake of keeping a Constitution that has been ruled to deny them protection intact....
But it is the ruling that is flawed -- NOT the Constitution.
It's not a fair statement to say that we are pro abort for being opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.
Neither is it a fair statement to call me a proabort because I don't support a Personhood bill but support a abortion ban instead. You are being judged by the standard you used. Just as the bible said you would be.
I call you a pro abort because you deny personhood to the unborn child. That is totally different.
Let me illustrate the difference:
Me: "You are pro abort because you won't support legislation that will completely outlaw abortion."
You and CP: "You are pro abort because you won't jump off a building to prove otherwise."

reply from: sander

Excellent summary, Nancy. ^^^
The beauty of it is in it's simplicity and being oh so true. It will bring fire out of their noses...but, hey who says fireworks should only be seen on the 4th?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.maylin.net/Fireworks.html

reply from: nancyu

I call you a pro abort because you deny personhood to the unborn child. That is totally different.
Let me illustrate the difference:
Me: "You are pro abort because you won't support legislation that will completely outlaw abortion."
You and CP: "You are pro abort because you won't jump off a building to prove otherwise."

reply from: nancyu

...and when did I say I would "refuse to support" an amendment. I certainly didn't say I would "fight it tooth and nail" now did I.

reply from: nancyu

You don't have to say it. You voiced your opposition, therefore it is quite obvious that you refuse to support it. You can not logically both support and oppose a measure. You can't squirm your way out of this on a technicality, and it proves your dishonesty that you would try...
blah, blah, blah...
Save your breath CP, I'll translate into your language for you: lahb, halb, habl...

reply from: nancyu

I try to give as good as I get.

reply from: nancyu

Supporting an amendment to end abortion = "jumping off a building?"
No, your position is that Carole is a "pro-abort" because she seems to feel some prices are too high to end abortion. Now, we discover that you feel the same way, being unwilling to end abortion at any cost. She opposes the Life at Conception Act unless it contains exceptions she deems necessary, and you feel altering the Constitution is too high a price to pay to end abortion. In condemning Carole, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
I have many reasons for considering Carole pro abort. First and foremost is that she denies the personhood of the unborn child. Not personhood legislation, per Se but PERSONHOOD of the unborn child. If SHE -- personally-- recognized the unborn as persons, she would realize that abortion is illegal already. I have plenty more reasons for doubting her sincerity. I could make a list for you. (I believe I have made a list come to think of it http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3939 it is.)
Saying that a Constitutional amendment is not the best solution to the problem is not the same as opposing an amendment. It's not fighting it tooth and nail, by any means.
It seems logical to me that personhood legislation is a better way of going about outlawing abortion than an amendment. But to please you CP, show me the amendment you are talking about, and I will see if it's something I would support. If it's good, I'll even sign the petition to help make it happen. (Hey, if you think jumping off a building will end abortion I would support you doing that, too.)

reply from: nancyu

FYI: if you think the life at conception act is tough to get passed:

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
I propose this amendment to the US Constitution:
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON.

reply from: Faramir

What do you think the women who she is trying to stop from aborting consider Carole to be?
Do you think when she is standing on the sidewalk trying to persuade women not to abort, and sometimes succeeding, that she is acting as someone who is "pro abort"? (Note that I use quotes for "pro abort" because it is not a real word).
Do you think that saving babies from the fate of abortion is "pro abort"?
If it is, it's really a strange way to fight for abortion rights.
Your reasons for considering her to be "pro abort" are not based in logic, but in hatefulness.

reply from: carolemarie

Faithman said tooth and nail, not me. I wouldn't phrase something that way.
I said I would fight any bill that jailed women and banned birth control.
I might even go as far as to say fight with my last breath or with every ounce and fiber of my being I would oppose such legislation in a more grandiose statement but never tooth and nail.
The correct expression is tooth and toenail.

reply from: faithman

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
I propose this amendment to the US Constitution:
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON.
Amendment is legally possible, other forms of legislation intended to end abortion are not. I do not oppose any means of ending legal abortion on demand other than killing to prevent killing, which I deem hypocritical.
I am pleased that you have decided to no longer argue against an amendment. You are still a hypocrite for not condemning those who oppose such an amendment, however, based on your condemnation of others for opposing abortion conditionally.
EDIT: I am not arguing that the Life at Conception Act is "tough to get passed." I assert that it is a legal impossibility, based on our Constitution and how our SC has interpreted it...
You are simply wrong. The language of Roe it self, and the 5th section of the 14th amendment already gives congress the costitutional authority to act. The 2nd section of the 3rd article gives congres the authority to forbid the court to even rule on it. That is the way it works. The court is not the dictator of the US. I ahve shown how you are simply wrong in your opinion based on the constitution itself. All you present is your puffed up ego and opinion.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Abortion will end when pigs fly or Jesus comes back to rule; whichever happens first.
Men are selfish homicidal killers driven by their lusts; so how can you say abortion is going to end? Not on man's watch!

reply from: faithman

You are right. Abortion will continue even if it is unlawful. But at least we the people will not be guilty of allowing it legally.

reply from: 4given

Look up! Redemption draweth nigh! My children and their generation will put an end to abortion. They have been bred into a spirit of rebellion. They have chosen to rebuke the evils of abortion, sexual immorality and divorce. My hope is in God and the youth of today to reject the evils sold to them by the abortion industry, the media and the weak. They will stand up. They are educated about the evils of abortion and educate those around them.
Are you a proud father again GodsLaw? Did your wife birth your precious baby yet?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Look up! Redemption draweth nigh! My children and their generation will put an end to abortion. They have been bred into a spirit of rebellion. They have chosen to rebuke the evils of abortion, sexual immorality and divorce. My hope is in God and the youth of today to reject the evils sold to them by the abortion industry, the media and the weak. They will stand up. They are educated about the evils of abortion and educate those around them.
Are you a proud father again GodsLaw? Did your wife birth your precious baby yet?
My wife's due date is July 19. She hasn't given birth yet. Thanks for remembering that she has pregnant.
Today's society will fall into a comforable belief that the abortion, homosexuality and things they see on TV are the normal way things should be. It will be difficult to have them see the depravity for what it is; killing kids and wrecking your body.
Did you know members of the San Francisco Board voted against commiting any resources to fighting prostitution? The San Francisco Board also passed a resolution condemning the Catholic Pope and told a group of Christian youth to get out of town; those kind of ideas simply will not be tolerated in a city like San Fran that is an open sexually active community. Acceptance must be found for the street worker (prostitute) acoording to one San Francisian; society must be more accepting and not harrass, arrest and destroy lives.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Homosexuality IS natural, and that's one thing I'll never change my mind on. Absolutely never. I have no heard a single convincing line from the bible (which you all know I don't revere as a perfect, sacred text anyway) that declares homosexuality as evil. Leviticus doesn't count, and Romans is so vague it's silly. Plus, I view the bible as a guide, not a lawbook. Everyone picks and chooses.
Do you think homosexuals are less than you, and that they are going to hell just because they're gay? You're wrong. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. A humble homosexual has a higher chance of getting into heaven than a proud priest.

reply from: sander

Everyone doesn't pick and choose, Liberal. Can you at least try and be intellectually honest?
YOU pick and choose and some other mis-guided souls, BUT NOT EVERYBODY! And certainly NOT BIBLE believing Christians.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

DO you follow Leviticus? No. Thus, you pick and choose. End of story.

reply from: cracrat

So why are we bothering then?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

As a man of Jewish descent, I can tell you things from the history of Moses that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, and certainly cause you to question whether his claims of divine inspiration were valid. Of course, in the Hebrew tradition, the phrase "the Word of God" was not always meant literally in the sense that most understand it today....
Lol! And I think that's my point afterall... I don't think most modern Christians (or Jews!) follow the holy books exactly as is written. The Amish and Menonites are far closer than we are!
I'm not sure how to spell this so forgive me if I butcher it... Hassidic Jews are very traditional. I knew a couple. Since a woman is not supposed to show her hair, she wears a shawl at home. But because one should also try to blend into local cultures, she compromises by wearing a wig in public! She's still showing "hair" but not her real hair. She will not touch other men, only her husband. They are very specific about Kosher law of course. I believe they said something about the fact that their baby's clothing couldn't have predatory animals on it, like lions or bears! The religion is focused on pacifism, and that's what Kosher law is about too. Very interesting family.
So there are some people who do follow the old and new testament fairly closely (though I bet even my rabbi friend has exceptions!!!!!).
Sander... is not one of them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

As a man of Jewish descent, I can tell you things from the history of Moses that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, and certainly cause you to question whether his claims of divine inspiration were valid. Of course, in the Hebrew tradition, the phrase "the Word of God" was not always meant literally in the sense that most understand it today....
Lol! And I think that's my point afterall... I don't think most modern Christians (or Jews!) follow the holy books exactly as is written. The Amish and Menonites are far closer than we are!
I'm agreeing with you. And, for the record, I am a "Jew" only in that I am descended from Jews by maternal lineage. I reject Judaism.
I know you are; I was just providing more information. Any reason you rejected Judaism?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not big into believing conspiracies about anyone or anything or any event that has taken place.

reply from: yoda

Will you ever attempt to shorten your posts?

reply from: sander

You wish it was the end of the story.
It's impossible to debate this subject with someone who cannot be intellecutally honest.
You haven't even read the Bible thru, so YOUR take on anything concerning Biblical truth is utterly without merit.

reply from: faithman

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
I propose this amendment to the US Constitution:
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON.
I am all for amendments at the state level. they are much easier to get on the ballot, and are a direct assault on Roe. My point about an amendment to the federal constitution, is that it is unnessisary, and much more difficult to pass than an act of congress. It is a fact, as I have stated over and over again, that article one of the constitution already gives congress the authority to do it. Article 3 section 2 says that congress can make exceptions, and regulate the court. Section 5 of the 14th amendment , coupled with the language of Roe, gives congress all the constitutional fire power it needs to act. The court could not rule against it, because they are bound by their own dicission in roe, the first article, article 3 section 2, to uphold what congress regulates them to uphold. The court would have no authority rhyme or reason to over turn the life at conception act. This would end abortion in all 50 states. The thing is to vote personhood, not "pro-life". As you can see by this thred, there are way to many deadly enemies of the womb child that call themselves "pro-life".

reply from: faithman

Simply not true. This kind of legislation strikes at the very heart of Roe. Roe itself says that if personhood is established Roe goes away. I think based on that, there is a very good chance the court would throw it out.

reply from: faithman

Here's what the SCOTUS actually said:
This is not a legal provision for the decision to be overturned by a declaration of fetal personhood by any state legislation or act of Congress... Blackmun basically stated that if the court could be convinced that the 14th Amendment applied to the unborn, any further argument would be redundant. He didn't say that any legislation could void the decision of the court.
I really can't make it any clearer than that.
Nor does it deny it, and the fact that all legislative authority is given to congress in article 1, and article 3 section 2 says that congress can make exceptions and regulat the court, and based on the words ofd roe [thanks for posting them] coupled with section 5 of the 14th amendment, clearly gives congress all the constitutional fire power it need to pass the life at conception act that the court would then be regulated to uphold as law. Thanks again for proving my point.

reply from: faithman

I know you believe in secular humanist fairy tales like santa and evolution, but I believe in the words of the constitution itself. I could care less about secular humanist dictators in black robes, our constitution very clearly states that the congress can make exceptions and regulate the court on what they can rule on. If you want to believe in santa, you have the right to. But I choose to believe in the hard facts in evidence, not what a renigade court pulls out of thin air.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
I propose this amendment to the US Constitution:
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON.
I am all for amendments at the state level. they are much easier to get on the ballot, and are a direct assault on Roe. My point about an amendment to the federal constitution, is that it is unnessisary, and much more difficult to pass than an act of congress. It is a fact, as I have stated over and over again, that article one of the constitution already gives congress the authority to do it. Article 3 section 2 says that congress can make exceptions, and regulate the court. Section 5 of the 14th amendment , coupled with the language of Roe, gives congress all the constitutional fire power it needs to act. The court could not rule against it, because they are bound by their own dicission in roe, the first article, article 3 section 2, to uphold what congress regulates them to uphold. The court would have no authority rhyme or reason to over turn the life at conception act. This would end abortion in all 50 states. The thing is to vote personhood, not "pro-life". As you can see by this thred, there are way to many deadly enemies of the womb child that call themselves "pro-life".
An amendment also takes an act of Congress.

reply from: nancyu

If you don't believe in prayer, you should at least try some positive thinking. It won't happen with an attitude like yours.

reply from: faithman

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
I propose this amendment to the US Constitution:
AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON.
I am all for amendments at the state level. they are much easier to get on the ballot, and are a direct assault on Roe. My point about an amendment to the federal constitution, is that it is unnessisary, and much more difficult to pass than an act of congress. It is a fact, as I have stated over and over again, that article one of the constitution already gives congress the authority to do it. Article 3 section 2 says that congress can make exceptions, and regulate the court. Section 5 of the 14th amendment , coupled with the language of Roe, gives congress all the constitutional fire power it needs to act. The court could not rule against it, because they are bound by their own dicission in roe, the first article, article 3 section 2, to uphold what congress regulates them to uphold. The court would have no authority rhyme or reason to over turn the life at conception act. This would end abortion in all 50 states. The thing is to vote personhood, not "pro-life". As you can see by this thred, there are way to many deadly enemies of the womb child that call themselves "pro-life".
An amendment also takes an act of Congress.
That is correct, but unlike an act whick takes a majority vote, an amendment takes a 2/3rds passage of congress, then a 3/4 radification of the states. If they were to tag on a constitutional convention, then the whole constitution could be wiped out, and a new secular humanist globalist one ushered in. It is romored to already exist. But the very good point you make is, if an amendment is an ack of congress the court would have to obey, then a simple act of congress based on what is already there would carry the same wieght. Congress has the authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. That is their job. It was set up that way to keep the court from becomming too powerful. Congres has fallen down on the job. Our "pro-life" legislators have done nothing. That is why we must elect personhood legislators, with a promise to get life at conception out of commitee and voted on. If at a later date, and with the assurance that a constitutional convention is off the table, I would consider suport for a life amendment. But at present, it would set personhood back many years, when a simple act of congress would take only one secession.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You wish it was the end of the story.
It's impossible to debate this subject with someone who cannot be intellecutally honest.
You haven't even read the Bible thru, so YOUR take on anything concerning Biblical truth is utterly without merit.
So ah, where do you kick your wife out to when she's menstruating?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Because I refuse to believe what I can not know, and will not falsely state that I believe what I do not. I find there to be an element of truth in every religion I have studied. I reject the notion of organized religion, and the elitism that often accompanies it. I believe spirituality is a personal thing, not to be confused with "religion."
I believe a lot of those same things. I view christianity as only one of many possible ways to view God. Not everyone needs a religion, but I do think most of us need some kind of spirituality. I just happen to be familiar with Christianity as my way of experiencing spirituality.

reply from: sander

You wish it was the end of the story.
It's impossible to debate this subject with someone who cannot be intellecutally honest.
You haven't even read the Bible thru, so YOUR take on anything concerning Biblical truth is utterly without merit.
So ah, where do you kick your wife out to when she's menstruating?
IF you would actually read the bible and study it you would know you are making NO sense whatsoever.
Ceremonial law is no longer needed, why? Because Jesus paid the price for our sins, we're not under those laws, that's why we don't sacrifice animals either.
So, IF I had a wife who menstruated, I would not kick her out....but, since I'm a woman I can tell you my husband did not kick me out. Because we are not under the ceremonial law.
However, God was very clear in the Old and New Testament that homosexual behavior was and is an abomination in His sight. (which has nothing to do with ceremonial law)
You don't have to believe it, or like it, and I couldn't care less if you did or didn't.
But, I won't let you fool anyone else into thinking YOU are right.
You need to come with a warning label : This woman has NOT read nor studied the entire Bible, please disregard posts on Biblical subjects.

reply from: carolemarie

I know you believe in secular humanist fairy tales like santa and evolution, but I believe in the words of the constitution itself. I could care less about secular humanist dictators in black robes, our constitution very clearly states that the congress can make exceptions and regulate the court on what they can rule on. If you want to believe in santa, you have the right to. But I choose to believe in the hard facts in evidence, not what a renigade court pulls out of thin air.
The constitution is a secular document. It isn't ordained by God. To outlaw abortion and end the fight, you simple ban abortion with a constitutional amendment.
If Roe is simply over turned, we go back to proabortion states and prochoice states. That isn't helpful and every year we will have to battle this in the state legislature.

reply from: sander

I don't advocate imposing any religious beliefs on anyone. How could I possibly forbid anyone from doing anything in the first place? But, if I could dream for a minute and had that kind of power, I'd use it on halting abortion on demand.
I'd like nothing better than to see all the people conceived have the chance at making their own choices.

reply from: nancyu

I know you believe in secular humanist fairy tales like santa and evolution, but I believe in the words of the constitution itself. I could care less about secular humanist dictators in black robes, our constitution very clearly states that the congress can make exceptions and regulate the court on what they can rule on. If you want to believe in santa, you have the right to. But I choose to believe in the hard facts in evidence, not what a renigade court pulls out of thin air.
The constitution is a secular document. It isn't ordained by God. To outlaw abortion and end the fight, you simple ban abortion with a constitutional amendment.
If Roe is simply over turned, we go back to proabortion states and prochoice states. That isn't helpful and every year we will have to battle this in the state legislature.
It depends on what the amendment says. What does the amendment SAY carole?
Whether or not it is turned back to the States depends on HOW Roe is overturned. If it is overturned by establishing that the unborn are persons, (whether amendment or personhood legislation) then it will be completely outlawed every where in the US of A.
Sending it back to the states won't stop the fight for personhood. Once established regardless of how it's established, abortion will be outlawed. In my opinion, it already is outlawed.
If you believe an unborn child is a person, you had better believe it is illegal to murder them.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I don't advocate imposing any religious beliefs on anyone. How could I possibly forbid anyone from doing anything in the first place? But, if I could dream for a minute and had that kind of power, I'd use it on halting abortion on demand.
I'd like nothing better than to see all the people conceived have the chance at making their own choices.
So, do you agree that it is pointless to lecture non-believers about "sin?" Wouldn't it make more sense to try to get them to accept the basics of the gospel first (milk, not meat)? If I were a Christian, I would think it would be best to first just convince people to believe in God and Jesus, then build on that once it is accomplished. Until they believe that, the rest is kind of pointless, so all the condemnation would seem to me to be based on malice....
It is written that many would claim to "know the Lord". But the Bible responds that whomever says he knows Him but does not keep His commandments is a liar. The words God and Jesus are merely names; they transmit little knowledge. To truly know and understand God and Jesus' nature you must first obey their law. To stop sinning is the beginning of wisdom; it is the starting point.

reply from: sander

What's your point in all this? Have I lectured a non-believer about sin?

reply from: sander

I think it would be pointless to engage you on this subject. I don't see where we even disagree on the premise and I really don't have any interest in your views of homosexuality.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This might explain a lot, eh? The self righteous types do not seem to "fear" God. They believe they are "saved" and have nothing to fear...
Yeah... yesterday's sermon (my first attendance to church in probably a decade I think, maybe less) was about how humility is better than achievements and how we're all equal in heaven, and should work towards than on earth. There wasn't any talk of fearing God, but being humble to him instead.

reply from: nancyu

Now this shows a very good understanding. (Although I would add that the only way "personhood legislation" can establish personhood is if it gets Roe revisited and the SCOTUS reverses itself...)
This, not so much... "Legal" means "permitted by law." Is abortion permitted by law?
It's permitted by Roe Vs Wade. Is Roe Vs Wade a law?

reply from: faithman

Now this shows a very good understanding. (Although I would add that the only way "personhood legislation" can establish personhood is if it gets Roe revisited and the SCOTUS reverses itself...)
This, not so much... "Legal" means "permitted by law." Is abortion permitted by law?
It's permitted by Roe Vs Wade. Is Roe Vs Wade a law?
CP is simply wrong again. We don't have to have the court reverse it self. Article one of the constitution gives ALL legislative authority to congress. The court can only rule on what congress pass into law. The 13th thru 15th amendments overturned the Dred Scot dicission. The court was not asked, they were regulated by congress. That is how it works reguardless if baboon brains can't comprehind that. The court is regulated by congress, not the other way around. The court can only rule on law and fact, not make it up as they go along. The 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the language of Roe already gives congress enough constitutional authority to pass the Life at conception Act. This would regulate the court to rule all pre-borns as persons, and they would be constitutionally bound to make sure all laws in the US line up with the jurisdiction congress set.

reply from: nancyu

Excerpt from "What Roe V. Wade Should Have Said" by Jack M. Balkin
Michael Stokes Paulson
"...It follows from this brief description of the power, obligation, and duty of this Court, and from the sound logic of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) applying these provisions, that any act, order, decree, or judgment by a judge not warranted by and consistent with the language of the Constitution, is ultra vires---beyond the judge's legitmate power and void. Id. at 177 (deducing proposition that " "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constutition, is void"). Simply put, there is no legitimate constitutional power for a federal court to enter a judgment or decree, in the name of the Constitution, that is not in fact justified by the document itself. Courts cannot---or at least cannot properly--"interpret" the Constutuion so as to create powers or rights that are not there..."
Roe V Wade is NOT a LAW. It is an interpretation of what the Constitution says. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to abortion.
I am right. Faithman is right. If you believe abortion is legal, you are wrong.

reply from: carolemarie

Michael Stokes Paulson has a right to his opinon. But it isn't law.
THE SCOTUS opinions have the force of law

reply from: nancyu

This is simply an opinion. This man believes the decision was wrong, so do I. That does not change the reality of the situation. It was not my decision to make, nor was it Paulson's. Only the opinion of the court carries any real weight. We don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it is what it is...
No kidding, it's an opinion. Is that the best you've got? Yes it is my opinion. And it's a valid opinion.
An unborn child is a person. (That is a fact). It is illegal to murder persons. (That is a fact). Abortion kills a person. (That is a fact). Roe V Wade is an opinion, it is not a law. (That is a fact).
Abortion is illegal. (That's my opinion). My opinion is based on facts, and I'm telling the truth.
If you think the court's opinion carries more weight than mine, that's your opinion and might be correct. But I'm thinking I'm not the only one with this opinion, and mine combined with the others, might have more weight than you think.

reply from: Faramir

I know a fellow who thinks he's Napoleon.
I have no doubt that he could be convinced that abortion is illegal and would join your cause, and the two of you could be the beginning of a new movement.

reply from: nancyu

The opinion of the SCOTUS is law, at least according to our Constitution...That is a fact. Abortion is legal. That is a fact. You are in denial. That is also a fact.
NOT if the opinion goes against the Constitution itself. It's an illegal law. If I'm in denial, I will stay right here in it, until people stop murdering their own children, because of people like you, who keep telling them it's okay to do so.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

CP isn't telling anyone abortion is ok. Legality and morality do not go hand in hand.

reply from: Faramir

The opinion of the SCOTUS is law, at least according to our Constitution...That is a fact. Abortion is legal. That is a fact. You are in denial. That is also a fact.
NOT if the opinion goes against the Constitution itself. It's an illegal law. If I'm in denial, I will stay right here in it, until people stop murdering their own children, because of people like you, who keep telling them it's okay to do so.
He doens't tell people it's ok.
He simply stated a sad fact--that abortion is legal.
I wish one of those in your clique would gently inform you that you are an embarrassment.

reply from: nancyu

How many people, do you think, believe abortion must be "ok" because it is "legal"?

reply from: Faramir

How many people, do you think, believe abortion must be "ok" because it is "legal"?

reply from: carolemarie

How many people, do you think, believe abortion must be "ok" because it is "legal"?
Lots of people feel that way.
That doesn't change the fact abortion is legal.
Calling it ilegal doesn't magically make abortion against the law.
Abortion is legal in all 50 states

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How many people, do you think, believe abortion must be "ok" because it is "legal"?
I don't honestly know. I know I don't automatically assume something is "ok" just because it's legal. I don't automatically assume something is "bad" because it's illegal, either. I've made my own decisions about murder, stealing, marijuana, drinking, all sorts of things. And abortion. Twice, actually. First I tried to justify it. Now I don't.

reply from: nancyu

Faithman said tooth and nail, not me. I wouldn't phrase something that way.
I said I would fight any bill that jailed women and banned birth control.
I might even go as far as to say fight with my last breath or with every ounce and fiber of my being I would oppose such legislation in a more grandiose statement but never tooth and nail.
The correct expression is tooth and toenail.

reply from: nancyu

This is simply an opinion. This man believes the decision was wrong, so do I. That does not change the reality of the situation. It was not my decision to make, nor was it Paulson's. Only the opinion of the court carries any real weight. We don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it is what it is...
No kidding, it's an opinion. Is that the best you've got? Yes it is my opinion. And it's a valid opinion.
An unborn child is a person. (That is a fact). It is illegal to murder persons. (That is a fact). Abortion kills a person. (That is a fact). Roe V Wade is an opinion, it is not a law. (That is a fact).
Abortion is illegal. (That's my opinion). My opinion is based on facts, and I'm telling the truth.
If you think the court's opinion carries more weight than mine, that's your opinion and might be correct. But I'm thinking I'm not the only one with this opinion, and mine combined with the others, might have more weight than you think.

reply from: nancyu

You have posted several times that you would oppose an end because your special interest group would not get a free walk. I am 10 time the man your punk friend will ever be, and I have answere your question over and over again. You have exposed nothing except that you are a baby killer, and a freind to baby killers now, and into the future. You have latched onto a fellow phony, and now try and stand in the way of effective action by presenting false information and stealing the focus away from what needs to be done. Niether one of you cares about the womb child, and constantly put your self interest above them. Any one can see who is real, and who is false. So blather on phony.
I support a ban like S. Dakota's and I would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
I would even support personhood with exceptions.
And jail for those who shoot abortion providers.
You support killing born abortion providers, or rather hiding behind the statement that you support the actions of those who kill them, and oppose direct action to ban abortion (constitutitonal amendment) because you are afraid that something you value more than those babies may be changed.
That is faux-prolife.
Anyone ever heard of personhood with exceptions? Logic. Try it sometime.

reply from: Banned Member

When hell freezes over?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics