Home - List All Discussions

Abortion Is NOT Legal!

by: nancyu

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=438
Abortion Is NOT Legal!
The following article by Herbert W. Titus, JD, and Christine Ross first appeared in the May/June '99 issue of "Life Advocate" magazine.
The mainstream media tell us that the Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The media also tell us that there is nothing we can do about it because Roe v. Wade is the "law of the land."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is not legal in America! Recognition of this fact is the first step for the pro-life movement in its campaign to turn back the murderous scourge on innocent babies. Indeed, heart disease (738,781 deaths per year) is not the number one cause of death in the United States - abortion is, at well over a million deaths per year.
Article VI of our nation's founding document declares that "[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States.. .made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...made...under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land."
What is clearly missing from this Constitutional list of supreme laws is a court opinion. This was not an oversight. Our Constitution's writers knew that a court opinion could never be law; much less the supreme law of the land. This is especially true if that court opinion contradicted the Constitution itself.
As can be plainly seen from the Constitutional text, a statute enacted by Congress is the supreme law of the land only if made "pursuant to" (in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute passed by the people's representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, then how can a court opinion decided by unelected judges be given a higher status?
When Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review-the right of the court to review a statute to see if it conformed to the Constitution-he said that the written Constitution was just as binding on the courts as it was on Congress. Marshall, then, did not establish the supremacy of judges over the Constitution-but the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress, the President and the courts.
Our Founding Fathers resoundingly rejected the idea of judicial supremacy. They did not empower judges to usurp a power, rightfully belonging to the people and thereby become a law unto themselves. That is why they put the Constitution in writing-so that the original founding laws and principles would not be mistaken or forgotten. In this way they believed that the Constitution would become the fixed law of the land.
Just a little more than 100 years ago, the American people knew that Supreme Court opinions did not become the law for the whole country, but bound only the parties to the case. That is why Abraham Lincoln rejected the Supreme Court's decision in the infamous Dred Scott case. Lincoln knew that even though the Court declared-in the name of the Constitution that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect, that ruling was not the law of the land.
What has happened to America since the days of Lincoln?
Things began to change when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ascended to the Supreme Court. He introduced the idea that law changed with changing times, and that it was the business of judges to make the necessary changes.
Holmes's evolutionary philosophy of law soon transformed the Constitution from a document of fixed rules and principles to one reflecting the latest court pronouncements. In this way, the judges became the nation's supreme lawmakers, displacing the Congress and legislatures on matters ranging from abortion to pornography.
But judges have no right to make law. Their job is to discover the law, state it and apply it. Their role is like that of an engineer who designs a bridge according to the
discovered laws of the natural world, not according to "laws" that he has made up.
If an engineer should design a bridge contrary to natural law, there is no question that the government officials who employed that engineer would reject his design. So it should be with a court opinion. If it is contrary to the Constitution, then the president, the Congress and the fifty states' governors and legislators should reject that opinion.
This is what their oath of office demands. The president takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," not Supreme Court opinions. Further, Article II, Section 3 states that the president is duty-bound to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Any court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution is, by definition, not law. Therefore, the president must not enforce it.
That was what President Lincoln did with the Dred Scott decision. He refused to enforce it as the law of the land.
That is what presidents today should do about Roe v. Wade. Pursuant to his Constitutional oath, the president should issue a proclamation declaring Roe v. Wade to be illegal, and declaring that the human fetus is a person entitled to the full protection of the right to life by the states.
At the state and local level, the people should insist that the laws that are still on the books be enforced against abortionists. In Virginia, for example, abortion is still a Class 4 felony. While other Virginia statutes have incorporated the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, those statutes are unconstitutional. They violate Article 1, Section 1 of the Virginia Bill of Rights which denies to the state legislature or any other civil authority any power to deprive the state's "posterity" (the yet-to-be-born) of their "inherent" rights to "life, liberty, and property."
In Virginia, then, pro-lifers do not have to change the state law to protect innocent life. They don't have to look to the president or Congress for action. They don't have to elect a pro-life governor or state attorney general. They can act now, petitioning their local Commonwealth's Attorney to prosecute abortionists under the state law and defend the right to life of the preborn under the state Constitution. And if the Commonwealth's Attorney chooses not to prosecute, then the people can vote him out of office and elect another who will do his prosecutorial duty consistent with his Constitutional oath.
A petition drive has already begun in Virginia. The governor and the attorney general have been petitioned to speak out, urging the Commonwealths' Attorneys to prosecute the abortionists. While neither office has the authority to command such prosecutions, such a statement would have a profound moral impact. Some local prosecutors have also been petitioned to take action now.
As concerned citizens, it is our duty to petition the Commonwealth's Attorneys to make decisions according to what the Constitution demands, and not according to what the Supreme Court decides. And it is our further duty to continue to seek justice until we receive it.

reply from: nancyu

Spinwiddy --The mudslinging tick. I predict one of two things happening: 1.) she will suck all life out of this forum; or 2.) She will explode.
Either way, it won't be pretty.

reply from: Yuuki

More likely you, darling, since you're always the one to foam at the mouth when Spinny say anything.

reply from: Yuuki

tsk tsk...
Tsk tsk, Nancyu is such a human.

reply from: yoda

tsk tsk...
Isn't it lovely to see such "togetherness"?

reply from: nancyu

tsk tsk...
Isn't it lovely to see such "togetherness"?
Yup. Like peas in a pod.

reply from: Yuuki

tsk tsk...
Isn't it lovely to see such "togetherness"?
It's true though, you and her are the first to jump on anything Spinny posts and declare it "slime".

reply from: Shenanigans

You know who's not human?
http://images.coolchaser.com/themes/t/308614-i289.photobucket.com-albums-ll209-maccarronii-thBanana-6.gif

reply from: Yuuki

You know who's not human?
http://images.coolchaser.com/themes/t/308614-i289.photobucket.com-albums-ll209-maccarronii-thBanana-6.gif
hehe I like that thing.

reply from: Faramir

Any time we make a reasonable response to this posters unreasonable babble, we give her credibility.
I make a motion we no longer feed the troll.
Anyone second it?

reply from: nancyu

I second it. Please, all of you go away, and I'll have nothing more to say.

reply from: yoda

And YOUR goal is always to defend her everytime she slimes someone.....

reply from: yoda

We should be so lucky.......

reply from: Yuuki

And YOUR goal is always to defend her everytime she slimes someone.....
Only because she often slimes the person YOU are using to slime others.

reply from: yoda

Whatever..... you're just down with all that sliming, right? And you're down with spinny. Two little peas in a pod......

reply from: Yuuki

Slimming? Getting thin?
And no, you KNOW I'm not "down with all that sliming". I hate it in fact; but yes, I'm going to defend someone who is just defending themselves. You make accusations and she refutes them. That's how debate works. You do plenty of "sliming" on your own every time you use the term proabort or any other name calling. She "slimes" your sources (who are almost always really untrustworthy people from the dirt she digs up) because you slime the entire pro-choice movement. I think it's even-stevens.

reply from: yoda

No, I don't know that... the evidence says otherwise.
THAT is what you call "debate"? No wonder you're confused......
I see.... so using legitimate terms that are in the dictionary is "sliming" to you? No wonder you're confused....
"Untrustworthy"? And you accept HER sources without question?
You're not prolife. You're not proabort. You're a FAKE prolifer who doesn't really care, one way or the other.

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yukki and I disagree STRIDENTLY on two or three different subjects, yet we could go drinking and have a fabulous time because she's cool.
You, Yoda, are a shrieking, hysterical, one-issue blowhard who is barely tolerable on this board - you must be totally intolerable in real life.
No Margaritas for YOU...
lol! I've never had a margarita actually, not a REAL one in a big glass with salt on the rim. Then we can discuss all sorts of things, maybe even abortion or religion or politics, because in person, I'm very respectful of other's opinions. I try to do that on here... but anonymity gives me the free reign to say things I'd never say to a person's face.

reply from: yoda

To you, yes I would be "intolerable". My prolife friends, however, tolerate me quite well.
And thanks for the "reverse compliments"...... when you start to kiss up to me like you do with Yuuki, I'll really be worried.

reply from: nancyu

Re: Abortion Is NOT Legal
and Has Not Been Since 1789! By Al Grayson
The Covenant News ~ December 28, 2005
Abortion, the artificial termination of pregnancy with intent to kill the unborn child, has been unlawful in the United States since 1789.
That the English and American common law was indeterminate concerning abortion is irrelevant. The US constitution is the supreme law of the land. It repealed and amended all law up until its ratification to the degree necessary to obtain compliance with the constitution.
The US constitution in Article I, Section 9, forbids congress to pass any bill of attainder. Please don't skip over this vitally important provision of the constitution just because the word "attainder" is unfamiliar.
Attainder is a sentence of death. In English law, attaint not only sentenced the offender to death, it confiscated his estate, leaving his heirs destitute and his creditors holding an empty bag.
In America, the penalty beyond death, called "corruption of blood," was abolished by the constitution. Further, the power formerly asserted by the British crown and Parliament to put certain persons or classes of persons outside the protection of the law without judicial conviction (due process of law; law of the land) was abolished and forbidden.
The statutes purporting to put the unborn child outside the protection of the [criminal homicide] law are declared unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 10 forbids the States from the same thing.
When the first abortion laws were enacted in the US, about 1820, they did not forbid abortion, which was already forbidden. They exempted medical practitioners who performed pregnancy terminations in which the child's life could not be preserved, such terminations being performed to save the life of the mother (defense of other), from fear of prosecution and the necessity of defending their actions in court.
Later laws follow a general pattern of regulating abortion. Permitting abortion without criminal responsibility of both the abortionist and the mother(or person with decision-making power over her) was in conflict with the general text of the criminal homicide (murder/manslaughter) laws, so wording was inserted into the criminal homicide laws to make an exception for abortion.
Typical is the definition of "person" within the purview of the law, in which "person" is defined as "a human being who is alive AND HAS BEEN BORN." These four words, or their equivalent in other states' laws, constitute the bill of attainder. They exclude "a human being who is alive and has NOT been born," an easily identifiable class of humans, from the protection of the criminal homicide law.
There is no statute of limitations for MURDER. If the government ever returns to upholding the law in this matter, all who have committed abortion, and all who have solicited abortion (like mothers), will be in danger of the law.
That prosecution of perpetrators of abortions committed before a return to upholding the law is unlikely does not mean that as a matter of law they are not at risk of the penalty of the law. Prosecutors have historically been reluctant to go after abortionists.
In Roe, it is pointed out that mothers have never been held accountable for obtaining abortions. Further, even in cases of illegal abortion, the abortionist and his accomplices have been punished with lesser penalties than the same act committed upon one who is already born. (Text at Note 49, Note 54)[1] These facts are part of the excuse that the Roe court used to justify expanding its denial of protection of the law to the unborn, which protection was already minimal.
"Privacy" and "emanations of penumbras" are merely smokescreens.
Until a State legislature eliminates distinctions made between human beings based on their place of dwelling (in or out of the womb) in its criminal homicide laws, the courts will almost certainly continue to declare that unborn humans unwanted by their mothers (or by those having decisionmaking power over mothers) have no rights that the born are bound to respect. Also see Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (Howard), 1856 [2]
Footnotes:
[1] Roe v. Wade is readily available at FindLaw.com Supreme Court Opinions. The citation search is down just a little. Findlaw even has given you the case ref. of Roe (410 U.S. 113)
Do "FIND" enter "49" to go to the text at Note 49. Click 4 times and if your browser is like mine you are at the text at Note 49.
Text at Note 49: "...in many States, including Texas, [49] by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another."
Scroll down into the Footnotes to Footnote 54.
Note 54 in part: "If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty [death] for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?"
[2] "Dred Scott: "[Negroes] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had NO RIGHTS WHICH THE WHITE MAN WAS BOUND TO RESPECT [my emphasis]; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was BOUGHT and SOLD [my emphasis] as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion."
Commentary Index
Back to The Covenant News
Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics
http://www.covenantnews.com/titus051217.htm

reply from: nancyu

Joseph Farah Why abortion is still illegal
Posted: May 18, 2001
1:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
NEW YORK -- The average American has been programmed to believe that abortion, under most circumstances, is legal in America.
I've got news for you. It's not.
No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 or in subsequent rulings, abortion is illegal and unconstitutional, and I will prove it to you in this column.
Before I begin, however, let me explain that I got to thinking about this life-and-death issue after viewing a new video documentary called "Baby Parts for Sale," now available through WorldNetDaily's online store. I highly recommend it -- if you have a strong stomach.
I don't believe any person with a conscience could watch this video and think about abortion in the same way again. It's that powerful. It tells the gruesome story of how abortion has become a major industry in this country and how trafficking in baby parts is a worldwide big business
as a result.
But I digress. Let's get back to my main point. Abortion is still illegal.
To understand why, you must begin by doing something few Americans bother with anymore -- reading the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," it says.
Important words all. But I want you to focus right now on those to whom this document applies. Who are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Constitution, as stated clearly in the preamble?
The answer? "... to ourselves and our posterity. ..."
The word "ourselves" in this context refers to those men who wrote it -- and to their generation of Americans.
"Posterity," which literally means "descendants" or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.
Is your great, great, great, great granddaughter your posterity? Absolutely. Is she born yet? Absolutely not. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.
Now, specifically what rights are ascribed by the Constitution to ourselves and our posterity?
"Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Clearly, the Fifth Amendment establishes that our posterity -- those yet unborn -- shall not be deprived of life without due process. Bingo!
This same principle was contained in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Life is an unalienable right, which means man can't take it away through laws or through Supreme Court decisions. And just so there is no confusion about this being a limitation only on the federal government, check out the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Tell me, where is due process for those unborn children sentenced to death while still in the womb?
Some abortion advocates have tried to suggest that Roe v. Wade -- an arbitrary and capricious attempt by the Supreme Court to exceed its constitutional limitations and legislate -- is itself the due process for unborn babies.
Once again, however, the Constitution trumps that poor excuse for an argument.
"Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Roe v. Wade is, thus, a sham -- a house of cards. It was an artificial attempt to make abortion a right by citing a "right of privacy" that is itself nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade created rights where none existed and abrogated those that were enshrined as unalienable.
I rest my case.
But I will not rest entirely until this nation is awakened to abortion as both a national tragedy as well as a constitutional threat to all of our God-given rights -- as well as an endangerment to the lives and liberties of our posterity.
Editor's note: Joseph Farah strongly recommends purchasing the video documentary "Baby Parts for Sale" from the WorldNetDaily online store.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His book "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice" has gained newfound popularity in the wake of November's election. Farah also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business. Joseph Farah Twitters at josephfarah.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22817

reply from: nancyu

To you, yes I would be "intolerable". My prolife friends, however, tolerate me quite well.
And thanks for the "reverse compliments"...... when you start to kiss up to me like you do with Yuuki, I'll really be worried.
I find you very tolerable Yoda, to say the least.
I'm proud and feel I am in very good company with anyone and everyone who has been "slimed" by spinwiddy.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Hey! Your imaginary 10-year-old "niece" wrote me another message today!
Seek help...
It seems you are the one who needs help.
At the top of the forum page click on "my forums"
Click "add ignored user"
Type in my "imaginary" niece's user name.
And she is not at all imaginary. She is a very real live person that I love very much, but she does like attention.
Behave yourself faithgirl!

reply from: nancyu

Whatever flips your nightie...

reply from: carolemarie

to the topic.....i don't see President Obama declaring that unborn babies deserve the full protection of the law anytime soon. He ran as an open supporter of abortion and won the election in a landslide, so flipping on abortion is very unlikely....

reply from: iCelebr8Life

concernedparent is quite correct. The legal status of abortion is what it is and we need to do our part to help women, counsel women, and inspire women to carry to term. We can hope and pray to reverse Roe vs Wade, but in the meanwhile, I am going to help encourage and inspire these mothers to give birth.

reply from: nancyu

I agree.
Abortion is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. And it ain't legal.

reply from: iCelebr8Life

As abortion is illegal and continues, whether it is legal or not is irrelevant to the unborn. All that matters is whether or not the child will get to stay in the womb and it's up to loving people to win over the hearts, minds and wombs of women that they will carry to term.
It sounds like people are seemingly more concerned with being right rather than actually helping women on an individual level to carry to term.

reply from: nancyu

It is not necessary to "make" abortion illegal. Abortion supporters have tried to "make" abortion legal, but they failed. It's impossible to make murder of innocent human beings "legal" All Roe Vs Wade did was fool some people who wanted to be fooled. But -- the truth will out.
The decision in Roe Vs Wade was unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Constitution is the law of the land. Roe vs Wade is not. The only idea that we need to impress upon society is that all unborn children are persons. Whole persons -- entitled to protection by the same laws against murder as any other person.

reply from: nancyu

Rock: "Thou Shalt Not Murder"
Paper: Roe Vs Wade
Scissors: Unborn children are http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg.
Abortion is not legal.

reply from: faithman

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.

reply from: nancyu

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.
No heads or tails about it. There is nothing legal about depriving persons of life without due process, and abortion does exactly that.
Read http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html to the United States Constitution

reply from: faithman

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.
No heads or tails about it. There is nothing legal about depriving persons of life without due process, and abortion does exactly that.
Read http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html to the United States Constitution
Been there and done it. But great reminder.

reply from: nancyu

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.
No heads or tails about it. There is nothing legal about depriving persons of life without due process, and abortion does exactly that.
Read http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html to the United States Constitution
Been there and done it. But great reminder.
Yeah, but did you get the tshirt?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/george.html

reply from: nancyu

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/george.html

reply from: nancyu

When someone is choking what do you do?
The "heimlich maneuver" is an emergency technique to dislodge something that is blocking someone's airway, to prevent them from suffocating.
How is this done? Is it done by applying gentle pressure to the victim's abdomen? Is it done by talking to the person and persuading him to stop choking? Is it done by shooting the person in the abdomen?
No, it is done by applying forceful pressure. That is what is also needed to stop abortion.
Forceful pressure.

reply from: Yuuki

Because violence is always the answer.

reply from: Shenanigans

Worked for Genghis Khan.

reply from: faithman

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.
No heads or tails about it. There is nothing legal about depriving persons of life without due process, and abortion does exactly that.
Read http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html to the United States Constitution
Been there and done it. But great reminder.
Yeah, but did you get the tshirt?
There is a T-shirt?

reply from: faithman

Because violence is always the answer.
Then pack your shyt and git. The country was started by a violent revolution. Slavery was abolished by a violent war. Civil rights were won just as much by violent riots as peaceful demonstration. And the evil agression against the innocent is stopped every day by lethal force, unless you are an innocent womb child that is...

reply from: 4choice4all

History revisionist. This country was not started by a violent revolution but by thinking individuals that declared their independence and only when force was necessary, defended it. Civil rights were not won by the violent riots....they were run when the oppressive terrorists ruined their cause and lost support of their violent tactics. When logical loving people said enough.

reply from: nancyu

Because violence is always the answer.
Is the hiemlich maneuver violence yuuki? (wow. Way to miss the point)

reply from: Shenanigans

An American doctor told me he was sued because he preformed the hiemlich on someone choking at another table in a resturant he was at.
He said he won, but he thought it was a sad state of affairs that it actually made it to court in the first place!!

reply from: nancyu

You forgot http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html, or http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html.
No heads or tails about it. There is nothing legal about depriving persons of life without due process, and abortion does exactly that.
Read http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html to the United States Constitution
Been there and done it. But great reminder.
Yeah, but did you get the tshirt?
There is a T-shirt?
http://www.customink.com/designs/iaap2sides/12975460-2746379/hotlink?cm_ven=hotlink&cm_cat=2&cm_pla=Body_txt&cm_ite=page

reply from: Yuuki

An American doctor told me he was sued because he preformed the hiemlich on someone choking at another table in a resturant he was at.
He said he won, but he thought it was a sad state of affairs that it actually made it to court in the first place!!
Sadly it could be interpreted as violent, and I'm sure it doesn't feel great to have a fist being jabbed into your diaphragm repeatedly while your world goes black from asphyxiation.
Anyway... The "foreful pressure" applied during the heimlich is being applied directly the the person in question who is dying. Locking women up in basements or shooting abortion doctors is killing and hurting the person SECONDARY to the life in danger. Apply "forceful pressure" to someone's face is called punching them where I'm from.

reply from: Yuuki

Because violence is always the answer.
Then pack your shyt and git. The country was started by a violent revolution. Slavery was abolished by a violent war. Civil rights were won just as much by violent riots as peaceful demonstration. And the evil agression against the innocent is stopped every day by lethal force, unless you are an innocent womb child that is...
Nothing faithman posts are the words of a true Christian. His words are full of hate, bigotry and violence. Please, don't listen to such dark, Godless things.

reply from: Yuuki

Worked for Genghis Khan.
I wouldn't consider him a great diplomat.

reply from: 4choice4all

Worked for Genghis Khan.
I wouldn't consider him a great diplomat.

reply from: Yuuki

Worked for Genghis Khan.
I wouldn't consider him a great diplomat.
But at least we know who they are modeling their methods after.
lol!

reply from: nancyu

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/george.html

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.

reply from: Faramir

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.
It's legal, dude.
That's why I'm prolife.
I wouldn't need to be if it were illegal.
Call the cops if you're convinced it's illegal.
If you're right, you could single handely put a stop to this injustice. Just make the calls and see what happens.

reply from: Shenanigans

Worked for Genghis Khan.
I wouldn't consider him a great diplomat.
But he had great fashion sense.
And I liked his horse. Mr. Ed.

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.
It's legal, dude.
Yeah, we all know how "pro life" you are dude. You defend the murderers instead of the victims.
That's why I'm prolife.
Yeah. Right.
I wouldn't need to be if it were illegal.
Well then I guess you can stop being pro life then. And since rape, robbery and murder is illegal you don't need to be opposed to them anymore either.
Just because laws are not enforced doesn't mean they cease to be laws.
Do you believe the law that says "thou shalt not murder" ? Or has that ceased to be a law?
Do you believe that the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived life without due process"? Or has the Constitution ceased to be law?
Faramir, what exactly are your "pro life" beliefs anyway?
Call the cops if you're convinced it's illegal.
What do cops have to do with anything? They don't enforce laws against murder unless the government tells them to, and the government is corrupt.
If you're right, you could single handely put a stop to this injustice. Just make the calls and see what happens.
Like I said. Apparently the only "laws" you believe are the ones the government tell you to believe, and then only the ones which are enforceable right? You call yourself Catholic, yet you don't seem to put much stock in what the Catholic Church teaches. You call yourself American but you don't pay attention to what the Constitution says. You call yourself pro life, but you do nothing to defend unborn children.
Think about this:
Every time the phrase is uttered, another woman thinks it is okay to kill her own child.
Is that what you want on your conscience?

reply from: nancyu

Rock: "Thou Shalt Not Murder"
Paper: Roe Vs Wade
Scissors: Unborn children are http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg.
Abortion is not legal.

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.
It's legal, dude.
Yeah, we all know how "pro life" you are dude. You defend the murderers instead of the victims.
That's why I'm prolife.
Yeah. Right.
I wouldn't need to be if it were illegal.
Well then I guess you can stop being pro life then. And since rape, robbery and murder is illegal you don't need to be opposed to them anymore either.
Just because laws are not enforced doesn't mean they cease to be laws.
Do you believe the law that says "thou shalt not murder" ? Or has that ceased to be a law?
Do you believe that the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived life without due process"? Or has the Constitution ceased to be law?
Faramir, what exactly are your "pro life" beliefs anyway?
Call the cops if you're convinced it's illegal.
What do cops have to do with anything? They don't enforce laws against murder unless the government tells them to, and the government is corrupt.
If you're right, you could single handely put a stop to this injustice. Just make the calls and see what happens.
Like I said. Apparently the only "laws" you believe are the ones the government tell you to believe, and then only the ones which are enforceable right? You call yourself Catholic, yet you don't seem to put much stock in what the Catholic Church teaches. You call yourself American but you don't pay attention to what the Constitution says. You call yourself pro life, but you do nothing to defend unborn children.
Think about this:
Every time the phrase is uttered, another woman thinks it is okay to kill her own child.
Is that what you want on your conscience?

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.
It's legal, dude.
Yeah, we all know how "pro life" you are dude. You defend the murderers instead of the victims.
That's why I'm prolife.
Yeah. Right.
I wouldn't need to be if it were illegal.
Well then I guess you can stop being pro life then. And since rape, robbery and murder is illegal you don't need to be opposed to them anymore either.
Just because laws are not enforced doesn't mean they cease to be laws.
Do you believe the law that says "thou shalt not murder" ? Or has that ceased to be a law?
Do you believe that the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived life without due process"? Or has the Constitution ceased to be law?
Faramir, what exactly are your "pro life" beliefs anyway?
Call the cops if you're convinced it's illegal.
What do cops have to do with anything? They don't enforce laws against murder unless the government tells them to, and the government is corrupt.
If you're right, you could single handely put a stop to this injustice. Just make the calls and see what happens.
Like I said. Apparently the only "laws" you believe are the ones the government tell you to believe, and then only the ones which are enforceable right? You call yourself Catholic, yet you don't seem to put much stock in what the Catholic Church teaches. You call yourself American but you don't pay attention to what the Constitution says. You call yourself pro life, but you do nothing to defend unborn children.
Think about this:
Every time the phrase is uttered, another woman thinks it is okay to kill her own child.
Is that what you want on your conscience?
Faramir: Phony, hypocrite, liar. Accuses others of derailing threads, being unkind to others, dodging questions.
Where are his answers to my questions?

reply from: nancyu

No. It is not legal. And if YOU are pro life, YOU should stop saying that it is.
It's legal, dude.
Yeah, we all know how "pro life" you are dude. You defend the murderers instead of the victims.
That's why I'm prolife.
Yeah. Right.
I wouldn't need to be if it were illegal.
Well then I guess you can stop being pro life then. And since rape, robbery and murder is illegal you don't need to be opposed to them anymore either.
Just because laws are not enforced doesn't mean they cease to be laws.
Do you believe the law that says "thou shalt not murder" ? Or has that ceased to be a law?
Do you believe that the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived life without due process"? Or has the Constitution ceased to be law?
Faramir, what exactly are your "pro life" beliefs anyway?
Call the cops if you're convinced it's illegal.
What do cops have to do with anything? They don't enforce laws against murder unless the government tells them to, and the government is corrupt.
If you're right, you could single handely put a stop to this injustice. Just make the calls and see what happens.
Like I said. Apparently the only "laws" you believe are the ones the government tell you to believe, and then only the ones which are enforceable right? You call yourself Catholic, yet you don't seem to put much stock in what the Catholic Church teaches. You call yourself American but you don't pay attention to what the Constitution says. You call yourself pro life, but you do nothing to defend unborn children.
Think about this:
Every time the phrase is uttered, another woman thinks it is okay to kill her own child.
Is that what you want on your conscience?
Faramir: Phony, hypocrite, liar. Accuses others of derailing threads, being unkind to others, dodging questions. Are mine too difficult faramir?

reply from: nancyu

Attention Augustine and other doubting Catholics:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7516&Itemid=48

reply from: Banned Member

The job of the court is to determine what law is or is not constitutional. Constitutional itself does not mean "just". It means that said action is not "constitutional". Constitutional does not even have to mean moral. Some people think that income tax is immoral and unjust. As a nation of laws we cannot simply carry on as though court decisons did not take place even if they are immoral and unjust. We as Christians and Catholics have no reason to expect that states will ever be just or moral either partially or completely. States such as the United States do sometimes make immoral and wrong decisions. We need only to do what we can. There is no mandate to make nations morally perfect creations. We belong to the kingdom of heaven, not the kingdom of men.
How do we disobey law that says that abortion is permissable? Abortions laws are not laws which mandate that we are required to do something. No one is saying that we have to have an abortion. However, conscience clauses have become a huge point of contention precisely because pro-life people are refusing to provide abortive health care. But for the majority of pro-life people there is nothing which we can do to disobey a law which permits, rather than requires. How do you suggest that we actively disobey a law which does not require us to do something?

reply from: nancyu

Did you even read the post? We stop being accomplices. It's called nullification. Nullification by the People: Just say it: Abortion is NOT legal.
Write if 500 times on the blackboard:
Abortion is NOT legal.

reply from: Banned Member

Okay, abortion is not legal. I can say it Nancy. You can say it. Everyone who is pro-life can say it. Abortion is not legal. Just words. What do they do? Does that mean that abortions are going to stop? There is a big difference between "not legal" and "illegal". What Roe V Wade said was not that abortion was legal, but rather than abortion was not illegal. Not illegal because it was okay to kill unborn children in the womb, but because the court either willingly failed, or refused, to acknowledge the evidence of the unborn child. What you think about abortion being legal or not legal has no bearing on the abortions that happened in America today, or tomorrow or any day after. Abortion is permitted in the United States of America right here and right now. That's reality. No amount of the parsing of words which seek an easy automatic already existing victory is going to change that fact that tomorrow, there are going to be another 4000 babies killed in America.

reply from: nancyu

Good. That's all I ask.
I believe it was you who posted "WITH PERSONHOOD, ROE VS WADE COLLAPSES",
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=8181&enterthread=y
Well has personhood been established yet? In YOUR mind has it been established? Then YOU should consider Roe Vs Wade collapsed.
If you are not proclaiming the abortion is not legal, and explaining why it is not, then you are not holding up your corner of The Constitution, or of The Truth.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=2

reply from: nancyu

http://www.saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources/Brief4Roeder.pdf

reply from: B0zo

I called an abortion clinic today and told the administrator that abortion is not legal.
She said, "Really? Thanks for letting us know. You saved us a lot of legal problems and possibly jail time."
They closed the clinic hours later.
We must all do this, and if they don't believe it, call the cops and tell them nancyu and bozo sent you.
We could have all abortion clinics shut down by next month.

reply from: nancyu

I know you like painting me as an idiot bozo, and don't worry, I do detect your sarcasm. Fortunately, I do believe that MOST people can read, and understand my context here. Just remember YOU are the one who calls himself Bozo, Bozo.

reply from: Babykillersnomore

Guys, come on. Let's not infight. It's a waste of our time, let's go and discuss something beneficial to this site

reply from: Babykillersnomore

There are babies to save....We need to take up arms to actually defend the unborn, not sit here. Rise up, and we will crush the damn liberals, and burn them in a fire.

reply from: carolemarie

Hating people isnt helpful at all. We certainly DO NOT need to go about kiling folks who disagree with us, how would you like it if THEY decided they needed to kill those who disagreed with them?
Grow up.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=289417369816&ref=search&sid=100000423350682.2539481482..1
It's a message so important that you have to request to see it. It's a message so valid, the creator of the group has to hide it from the public. I speculate that she got tired of people reporting the group and speaking out against the Tiller shooting. The group was continuing to draw pro-Roeder/pro-violence members even as of this afternoon. Hopefully the group gets banned entirely.

reply from: Spinwubby

So, are you going to post YOUR group?

reply from: Banned Member

Why, do you want to join it?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Americans for the Rights of the Unborn?
I think not...

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Americans for the Rights of the Unborn?
I think not...
That's too bad.

reply from: nancyu

LindaMc and broken, I like the way you think. If you're ever on facebook be sure to look me up.
Here's a little bit of what Augustine won't tell you:
We became facebook friends after our dear mutual friend "Yoda" was killed in a plane crash. I finally figured out from reading his posts that he was our own beloved "Augustine" I thought of him as a true prolife champion and a dear friend until a day or two following the conviction of Scott Roeder.
On January 29, he wrote this note to his group, and and pasted a copy of it on my wall:
"Today, Scott Roeder was convicted of killing George Tiller. George Tiller was an abortionist. George Tiller killed more than 10,000 (actually it was more like 60,000) human persons. Today, a jury decided in 37 minutes that Scott Roeder was guilty of murder. 37 years after Roe V Wade, the highest court in the United States of America still does not believe that abortion is murder. I find that as difficult to accept as the fact the actions of Scott Roeder ultimately saved lives. I am glad that George Tiller is no longer performing abortions. As for myself, like so many others who are dedicated to preserving human life, it is difficult to know how to feel about any of this.
George Tiller was not any other abortionist. He called the subjects of his abortions babies. George Tiller admitted what the law will not admit, that abortion kills an unborn human person. He admitted that he liked the work that he did. Tiller's own records show that he performed abortions so that women could go to proms, attend weddings, and in one instance even to go to a rock concert. That was the extent of Tiller's compassion for the unborn human person and the extent to which he was willing to exploit both women and unborn children for his own gain. And his exploitive nature was generational. Tiller's own father performed abortions for a living. Illegal abortions.
George Tiller was killed on a Sunday while at church. Tiller openly claimed that he was doing what God wanted him to do. He would doubtless have been performing abortions on Monday and Tuesday and on every other day of that week and on every other week of the year. George Tiller killed babies for a living. To accept that Scott Roeder took the law into his own hands, you must accept that George Tiller killed human persons for a living. The court that sought justice for George Tiller were reluctant even to allow the jury to hear that George Tiller performed abortions. A defendant in America has the right, no matter how guilty, to testify in court to a jury as to the nature and motive for his actions.
I do not advocate what Scott Roeder did. I wish that he had not done what he did. But I remember that George Tiller did what the monsters of the Nazi regime did for years in killing those persons they deemed unworthy to live, those they deemed unfit even to exist so that they took it upon themselves to exterminate them. And so they killed them in the same cool collected manner that George Tiller performed abortions all these many years. That Tiller even offered the mothers of those children he killed the chance to be with the deceased testifies to the evil of the act. The scope and depravity of what Tiller did and how he responded to the death he caused with his own hands is nearly beyond human comprehension.
It should have been representiatives of the law that entered that church that Sunday morning, or his place of work or any other place, to arrest George Tiller for the deaths of thousands of unborn human persons who he himself publically admitted to killing. If you believe that the unborn child is equal to the child born, you must believe that what George Tiller did for a living was the same as any other murder for which he should have been tried and convicted. George Tiller was a criminal by any moral and legal standard. The nature of his actions were clear to any person of conscience. His actions should have exposed him to the law and should have made him accountable to the law.
I am not glad that George Tiller is dead. But I am glad that this monster is not performing abortions any more. It's a strange place to be in the world for a person on conscience to know that the world is a little bit safer unborn child because George Tiller is no longer in the world. I pray that the people of this nation will soon awaken to this human atrocity and end this disaster of human moral failing before another 50 million human persons are dead. I pray that this nation finally moves to end abortion in all its forms before another desparate man acts out in violence in the name of justice.
It's astonishing that people should have to even consciously consider whether a person who admits to killing 10,000 60,000 human persons should be answerable before the law. It's amazing that a man who kills thousands could present himself in a place of Christian worship before a God who tells us that we are all made in His image. The shockig act of abortion happens a thousand times in a thousand places every day in the United Sates of America. If only people could muster the same shock and disapproval for what happens every day in American abortion mills as they have for one death in a Kansas church on a Sunday morning."
The day after that he convinced himself that Scott's actions were "inexcusable". Well I am convinced that Scott's actions were heroic. To me, if you are deep down in the heart pro life (like I thought he was) you just can't condemn the man for defending real live children, who are being led to the slaughter by the thousands daily.
But, when I started expressing this view he began deleting ALL of my comments, and finally removed me from his list of "friends" Now he is hell bent on destroying my newly formed group "Abortion is NOT Legal". He warns everyone he knows not to join the group. He paints me as a "violent extremist". Some of his followers have sent me threatening messages calling me a "crazy Jihadist" Others are praying for me and my lost soul.
Augustine seems to have some sort of obsession with me and with smearing my name.
Why? I'm not sure. But I think it's because he's really Bozo.

reply from: Shenanigans

Just an observation, to both Augustine and Nancy and whoever else.
It's kind of sad that you would retract your friendship based on a disagreement regarding your differing opinions about Roeder's actions. Some of my good friends are adamantly pro-abortion. I have a raft of companions who think differently to me in pretty much every aspect of political and religious idealogy. Will I stop being their friends? No. Will they stop being mine? No.
I find friends with such different opinions are good for us, they help us better strengthen our own opinions and arguments and we're safe in those discussions, plus, it teaches us the ability to respect other people. Its why I don't all out attack or insult or flame or whatever, those on the pro-abortion camp, because I have friends who are pro-abortion and to treat strange pro-abortion people badly would be offensive to my pro-abortion friends IRL. I wouldn't want my pro-abort friends getting treated with insults and attacks online.
I mean, really, has anyone actually changed their mind on abortion because someone called them a baby killing wh0re?
Just agree to disagree and move on with your friendship, if you can't, then doesn't that say you built your friendship on a shonky foundation?

reply from: nancyu

Nicely said. Thank you Shenanigans, but I don't think that's going to happen in this case. Augustine isn't Augustine.

reply from: Banned Member

"Today, Scott Roeder was convicted of killing George Tiller. George Tiller was an abortionist. George Tiller killed more than 10,000 human persons. Today, a jury decided in 37 minutes that Scott Roeder was guilty of murder. 37 years after Roe V Wade, the highest court in the United States of America still does not believe that abortion is murder. I find that as difficult to accept as the fact the actions of Scott Roeder ultimately saved lives. I am glad that George Tiller is no longer performing abortions. As for myself, like so many others who are dedicated to preserving human life, it is difficult to know how to feel about any of this.
George Tiller was not any other abortionist. He called the subjects of his abortions babies. George Tiller admitted what the law will not admit, that abortion kills an unborn human person. He admitted that he liked the work that he did. Tiller's own records show that he performed abortions so that women could go to proms, attend weddings, and in one instance even to go to a rock concert. That was the extent of Tiller's compassion for the unborn human person and the extent to which he was willing to exploit both women and unborn children for his own gain. And his exploitive nature was generational. Tiller's own father performed abortions for a living. Illegal abortions.
George Tiller was killed on a Sunday while at church. Tiller openly claimed that he was doing what God wanted him to do. He would doubtless have been performing abortions on Monday and Tuesday and on every other day of that week and on every other week of the year. George Tiller killed babies for a living. To accept that Scott Roeder took the law into his own hands, you must accept that George Tiller killed human persons for a living. (Both are true but neither justifies the murder of a single human being.)The court that sought justice for George Tiller were reluctant even to allow the jury to hear that George Tiller performed abortions. A defendant in America has the right, no matter how guilty, to testify in court to a jury as to the nature and motive for his actions. (That doesn't mean that the defendants actions are justified)
I do not advocate what Scott Roeder did. (This statement speaks for itself) I wish that he had not done what he did. (Read that correctly, I wish that Scott Roeder had not killed George Tiller) But I remember that George Tiller did what the monsters of the Nazi regime did for years in killing those persons they deemed unworthy to live, those they deemed unfit even to exist so that they took it upon themselves to exterminate them. And so they killed them in the same cool collected manner that George Tiller performed abortions all these many years. That Tiller even offered the mothers of those children he killed the chance to be with the deceased testifies to the evil of the act. The scope and depravity of what Tiller did and how he responded to the death he caused with his own hands is nearly beyond human comprehension. (Scott Roeder's actions were no better than Tiller's)
It should have been representiatives of the law that entered that church that Sunday morning, (Not Scott Roeder) or his place of work or any other place, to arrest George Tiller for the deaths of thousands of unborn human persons who he himself publically admitted to killing. If you believe that the unborn child is equal to the child born, you must believe that what George Tiller did for a living was the same as any other murder for which he should have been tried and convicted. (That doesn't mean that Scott Roeder had any right to enact justice in anyone's name) George Tiller was a criminal by any moral and legal standard. (So is Scott Roeder a criminal) The nature of his actions were clear to any person of conscience. (As much as Roeder's criminal actions should be) His actions should have exposed him to the law and should have made him accountable to the law. (The same is true of Roeder and thankfully he was convicted)
I am not glad that George Tiller is dead. (That's right, I wish that Tiller were still alive) But I am glad that this monster is not performing abortions any more. (Better than no abortions are perforned, but violence will not cause that to happen) It's a strange place to be in the world for a person on conscience to know that the world is a little bit safer unborn child because George Tiller is no longer in the world. (Strange that Tiller was ever allowed to do what he did) I pray that the people of this nation will soon awaken to this human atrocity and end this disaster of human moral failing before another 50 million human persons are dead. I pray that this nation finally moves to end abortion in all its forms before another desparate man acts out in violence in the name of justice. (No more Scott Roeders!)
It's astonishing that people should have to even consciously consider whether a person who admits to killing 10,000 60,000 human persons should be answerable before the law. It's amazing that a man who kills thousands could present himself in a place of Christian worship before a God who tells us that we are all made in His image. The shockig act of abortion happens a thousand times in a thousand places every day in the United Sates of America. If only people could muster the same shock and disapproval for what happens every day in American abortion mills as they have for one death in a Kansas church on a Sunday morning." (If people were shocked by Tiller's death, as they should have been, than abortion should shock them as well)
I have not advocated violence. I will never advocate violence. I do not support Roeder's actions. I do not believe that Scott Roeder has helped the pro-life movement.
Perhaps Nancy simply read into this piece what she chose to read. She hated George Tiller and truthfully, I think that she rejoiced in his death. She thinks that it is okay for some people to kill abortionists but not others. Oddly, that sounds a lot like if you don't want to shoot an abortionist, than don't shoot one. This is merely an inverted view of "If you don't like abortion, than don't have one." I have not changed. I have never said that I believe that abortion should be stopped at any cost. I have never advocated a justifiable defense theory. No more violence. Not at the cost of one more person's life and certainly not at the cost of my own soul. George Tiller and Scott Roeder have something common. Both believe that because they could do a thing, that therefore it was morally justifiable. Both were clearly wrong. One did not answer to the law, the other will spend the rest of his life in prison.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHVYRqRuNuk

reply from: Banned Member

Nancy was trashing me for the better part of a week unknown to me, because I had removed her remarks condoning the murder of George Tiller. I removed anyones remarks who advocated the same. It wasn't personal but the topic was not open to discussion. What Scott Roeder did was wrong and he was rightfully convicted. I do not believe that there was any miscarriage of justice. Like the jury said, who was very well aware of the abortion aspect, more than I had initially realized, this case had nothing to do with abortion. Scott Roeder murdered George Tiller and no number of images of abortion babies is going to change that fact.

reply from: nancyu

Just so you know, I too, wish that Scott Roeder had not killed Tiller, Scott wishes that he had not killed Tiller. If killing children in their mother's wombs weren't sanctioned by the State...if Tiller had been shut down one day sooner... Tiller would be the one rotting in prison (instead of burning in eternal hellfire) and Scott Roeder's name would be unknown to all of us.

reply from: LexIcon

Wow! How exactly did he know this? His pastor must have agreed, or Tiller would have been excommunicated. That he wasn't proves that the God that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America worships is an abortionist at heart, but One who needs the hands of people like George Tiller to establish the divine will on earth.
I'm glad that we finally have that cleared up.

reply from: Banned Member

If Tiller's abortions had been closed down one day sooner, who would Roeder be planning to kill right now? Or rather who would he have killed by now? There's always another abortionist. Roeder had in in his heart to kill an abortionist. Tiller simply happened to be at hand. No Nancy, you can't justify Roeder's actions and you know it.

reply from: LexIcon

Wow! The Vatican covered-up pedophiles?
I searched the question and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
Excerpt: "Pope John Paul II declared that 'there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young'. With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers."
How did the ELCA respond to Tiller's murder?
In this article http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4149 I read:
"Our loss is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence."
Absent is any condemnation of the supposedly "divinely ordained work" that the beloved Dr. Tiller performed, namely, killing babies, which leads me to conclude that the God of the ELCA really is an abortionist at heart, and that you are a bomb throwing anti-Catholic bigot.

reply from: nancyu

If Tiller's abortions had been closed down one day sooner, who would Roeder be planning to kill right now? [No one.]
Or rather who would he have killed by now? [No one]
There's always another abortionist. Roeder had in in his heart to kill an abortionist.[No one has filled Tiller's shoes yet. It's been nearly a year since his death, how many more children would he have killed by now? ballpark..]
Tiller simply happened to be at hand. No Nancy, you can't justify Roeder's actions and you know it. [Oh, but YES Augustine, I can. Roeders actions WERE justified -- He acted in defense of LIFE and LIMB of INNOCENT human beings. His actions WERE justified --except in the minds of proabort PPProlifers like you.]

reply from: nancyu

What can I say, trashing pro aborts and phony ppprolifers is a hobby of mine.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkIw_fqmC1k

reply from: nancyu

http://www.covenantnews.com/grayson100210.htm

reply from: nancyu

http://www.covenantnews.com/grayson051228.htm

reply from: nancyu

Wow! The Vatican covered-up pedophiles?
I searched the question and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
Excerpt: "Pope John Paul II declared that 'there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young'. With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers."
How did the ELCA respond to Tiller's murder?
In this article http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4149 I read:
"Our loss is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence."
Absent is any condemnation of the supposedly "divinely ordained work" that the beloved Dr. Tiller performed, namely, killing babies, which leads me to conclude that the God of the ELCA really is an abortionist at heart, and that you are a bomb throwing anti-Catholic bigot.
I LexIcon!

reply from: LexIcon

Wow! My is all aflutter!

reply from: BenningtonV

Roe V Wade, folks.....learn to accept it, cause it's not going anywhere. Find another topic to pout about.

reply from: LexIcon

Roe v. Wade is a legal abomination that has led to upwards of 50 million elective abortions since it was inflicted on the country in 1973. It sprang from the "penumbras and emanations" of Harry Blackmun's tortured mind, and will be overturned once the U.S. Supreme Court recovers its true role in this representative republic, namely, to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it was written instead of imposing its own policy preferences and legislating from the bench.

reply from: joueravecfous

Will that be before or after Obama makes his next appointments?

reply from: LexIcon

Probably after, since the Court would need a case that it could use as an occasion to revisit the central holding of Roe, and I don't see one on the horizon. Still, there have been positive developments lately with the Court overturning parts of McCain-Feingold and Justice Roberts even making the point that stare decisis is NOT sacrosanct -stare decisis being THE main reason why Justice Souter wrote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that EVEN IF Roe had been wrongly decided, he would be loathe to overturn it.
In short, I have hope that scrapping Roe may occur sooner rather than later, Obama's diehard abortioneer nominations to the Court notwithstanding. In spite of it all, reason sometimes prevails.

reply from: onterroristwatch

Tell you what, if abortion is not legal, next time you see a woman enter an abortion clinic (while you're lurking around outside), call the cops on her and see what they say. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

reply from: EpicFailguy

http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm

reply from: LexIcon

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/an-interview-with-robert-p-george-on-roe-v-wade/
Excerpt: The legal problem with Roe v. Wade is simple: The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The late John Hart Ely, a famous legal scholar who himself supported legal abortion as a matter of public policy, said that Roe v. Wade "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the people. Their ruling was a gross usurpation by the judiciary of the authority vested by the Constitution in the people themselves, acting through the constitutionally prescribed institutions of republican democracy. As dissenting Justice Byron White put it, Roe was nothing more than an exercise of "raw judicial power." It was not merely an incorrect decision, but an anti-constitutional one.
When Roe is taken together with its companion case of Doe v. Bolton, which was handed down on the same day and incorporated by reference into Roe, the result is indeed the severe restriction of the authority of any state to protect the life of the child in the womb at any point in gestation - even during the third trimester. Some people fail to understand this because they don't know about, or haven't paid close attention to, the Doe ruling. Roe prohibits restrictions on abortion for the sake of protecting fetal life in the first two trimesters, but says that the states may (not must, mind you, but may) protect fetal life in the third trimester. Doe, however, undercuts this permission. It says that states may not restrict abortion even in the third trimester - all the way up to birth - if an abortion is judged to be necessary to preserve maternal "health." Then it defines "health" expansively to include mental or psychological health, as well as physical health, and to note that "emotional" and "familial" factors must be taken into account in assessing whether an abortion is required for the sake of "health."

reply from: EpicFailguy

Does the law mean what the lawgiver intended it to mean, or what the rest of us prefer to interpret it as meaning? Obviously people who disagree with the ruling in Roe will argue that it was wrongly decided, and even that the legal basis for the decision was invalid, but supporters of abortion offer equally compelling (legally speaking) arguments to the contrary. In the end, we must accept that the basis and decision were legally valid, whether we agree with them or not.
Our means of redress is Constitutional amendment.

reply from: EpicFailguy

PROTIP:
Posting opinions you agree with doesn't make your arguments any more or less compelling, regardless of the level of expertise of the party giving the opinion. There are always experts who are equally qualified who will disagree. This is the problem with subjective determinations.

reply from: LexIcon

Very well, offer the "equally compelling (legally speaking) arguments to the contrary" if you can.
What I know is that Harry Blackmun refused to address the question of when human life BEGINS, but that didn't stop him from declaring open season (legally speaking) on "potential life," whatever the hell "potential life" is as a constitutional matter, since he never bothered to define the term (legally speaking).
What it HAS meant is more than 50 MILLION "potential lives" PUT TO DEATH since that legal abomination was rammed down our collective throats in 1973.
Some years later Justice Burger allowed that IF ONLY THE COURT HAD KNOWN how its abortion rulings would have led to such appalling bloodshed, that is, abortion as a last resort form of birth control, it would NOT have gone along with Blackmun's "reasoning." Why he didn't anticipate that the law TEACHES MORALITY is the question of the ages.
As for you, would YOU support a Human Life Amendment that restored some form of 14th Amendment due process considerations and protections to the unborn so that they could no longer be killed at any time and for any reason at all, which is CURRENTLY the case under the regime of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton?

reply from: EpicFailguy

Certainly. You might begin by reviewing the opinion of the court delivered by Justice Blackmun in the case. Of course, how "compelling" you, personally, find it to be is also highly subjective, but the same is true of the opinion you quoted. I do believe my source to be the more qualified, since his opinion is not only "expert," but delivered in a professional capacity. As Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, he was not only an expert on Constitutional law, construction, and interpretation, but was actually charged by this nation with the duty to interpret the document. His opinion was therefore much more significant than Mr. George's. In fact, The opinion you quoted is entirely insignificant from a legal standpoint, carrying no more or less weight than yours or mine...

reply from: EpicFailguy

The only question before the court was the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting abortion...

reply from: EpicFailguy

Yes, I would, but I must admit I can not see how that is relevant to this discussion...The legal status of abortion and the decisions that got us here are "done deals," and there is little to be gained by whining about how unfair we believe it has all been. My personal feelings have no bearing on the reality of the situation. It is what it is, whether I approve or not.

reply from: LexIcon

Certainly. You might begin by reviewing the opinion of the court delivered by Justice Blackmun in the case. Of course, how "compelling" you, personally, find it to be is also highly subjective, but the same is true of the opinion you quoted. I do believe my source to be the more qualified, since his opinion is not only "expert," but delivered in a professional capacity. As Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, he was not only an expert on Constitutional law, construction, and interpretation, but was actually charged by this nation with the duty to interpret the document. His opinion was therefore much more significant than Mr. George's. In fact, The opinion you quoted is entirely insignificant from a legal standpoint, carrying no more or less weight than yours or mine...
Who is this supposed "expert?" I see no reference in anuthing that you've posted thus far except to one Gary Lawson, but what EXACTLY has this supposed "expert," a Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, no less, " said or written about Roe v. Wade?
BTW, I HAVE reviewed Blackmun's opinions -Roe and Doe- and found them wanting, as did Justice Byron White, who wrote in dissent:
"As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

reply from: LexIcon

The only question before the court was the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting abortion...
But in determining constitutionality Blackmun saw fit to throw in a calculated non-definition of human life that opened the door to abortion-on-demand, which is PRECISELY what he had intended all along.

reply from: EpicFailguy

The only question before the court was the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting abortion...
But in determining constitutionality Blackmun saw fit to throw in a calculated non-definition of human life that opened the door to abortion-on-demand, which is PRECISELY what he had intended all along.
Be that as it may....
Oh, and in response to your other post, reread mine.

reply from: LexIcon

Yes, I would, but I must admit I can not see how that is relevant to this discussion...The legal status of abortion and the decisions that got us here are "done deals," and there is little to be gained by whining about how unfair we believe it has all been. My personal feelings have no bearing on the reality of the situation. It is what it is, whether I approve or not.
If saving human life is NOT relevant to this discussion, then why in the hell are you here? Do you imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court is NOT cognizant of the fact that MANY "whining" legal scholars are appalled that the extra-constitutional nonsense that is Roe v. Wade is STILL the law of the land (although somehwat modified -the trimester mumbojumbo having been scrapped)?

reply from: LexIcon

Humor me. Who is your expert "witness?"

reply from: EpicFailguy

Clearly your reading comprehension is sub par...I said I didn't see how my position on amendment was relevant to this specific discussion.
Humor me. Who is your expert "witness?"
Had you read and understood my post, you would have understood that I referred to Justice Blackmun...

reply from: EpicFailguy

You are Spock.
I don't understand the term, and could not find a definition online to fit the context. Would you care to elaborate?

reply from: LexIcon

Hmm. Above you referred to the Chief Justice, but Blackmun was never Chief. Burger was Chief when Blackmun wrote Roe.
Of course Blackmun would defend his own writing as definitive. Your argument is absurd.

reply from: EpicFailguy

I stand corrected on the issue of Blackmun being Chief. I do LOL at your rebuttal to my argument, however. It is, in your opinion, "absurd!" Bravo. I guess you told me!

reply from: LexIcon

http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/roe/burger_roe.asp
Excerpt:
"I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of pregnant women, using [*208] the term health in its broadest medical context. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1971). I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.
In oral argument, counsel for the State of Texas informed the Court that early abortion procedures were routinely permitted in certain exceptional cases, such as nonconsensual pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. In the face of a rigid and narrow statute, such as that of Texas, no one in these circumstances should be placed in a posture of dependence on a prosecutorial policy or prosecutorial discretion. Of course, States must have broad power, within the limits indicated in the opinions, to regulate the subject of abortions, but where the consequences of state intervention are so severe, uncertainty must be avoided as much as possible. For my part, I would be inclined to allow a State to require the certification of two physicians to support an abortion, but the Court holds otherwise. I do not believe that such a procedure is unduly burdensome, as are the complex steps of the Georgia statute, which require as many as six doctors and the use of a hospital certified by the JCAH.
I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."
Unfortunately for Burger, abortion on demand is PRECISELY what we got.

reply from: EpicFailguy

And concurred....as did the majority of Justices, the only opinions that carried any legal significance. Now isn't that "absurd?"

reply from: EpicFailguy

Of course you would defend opinions in line with your own, and declare opposing views "absurd!"
Your rebuttal is "absurd," LOL!

reply from: LexIcon

Justices White and Rehnquist could well have thought it.

reply from: EpicFailguy

You do realize there is nothing in Burger's opinion to support the contention that the Roe decision was in any way legally invalid or incorrectly rendered, right?
I'm not sure what point, if any, you intended to attempt to make with the Burger quote.

reply from: LexIcon

And concurred....as did the majority of Justices, the only opinions that carried any legal significance. Now isn't that "absurd?"
No. It isn't absurd at all. It is a bloody nightmare that has torn this country apart, and will continue to tear this country apart until it is rectified.

reply from: LexIcon

You do realize there is nothing in Burger's opinion to support the contention that the Roe decision was in any way legally invalid or incorrectly rendered, right?
I'm not sure what point, if any, you intended to attempt to make with the Burger quote.
I posted Burger's concurrence FYI, he being the Chief and all...

reply from: EpicFailguy

Justices White and Rehnquist could well have thought it.
And that would not have changed the fact that the majority concurred, would it? Once more, it really doesn't matter who objects to the decision. The only opinions that were legally significant were those of the Justices who heard the case and rendered the decision.

reply from: EpicFailguy

You do realize there is nothing in Burger's opinion to support the contention that the Roe decision was in any way legally invalid or incorrectly rendered, right?
I'm not sure what point, if any, you intended to attempt to make with the Burger quote.
I posted Burger's concurrence FYI, he being the Chief and all...
Well, thank you for that, I guess...

reply from: LexIcon

Burger was playing politics. You've read "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward?

reply from: LexIcon

Agreed, but as Justice Roberts recently implied, stare decisis is not sacrosanct. Bad rulings CAN be overturned. The only question for THIS Court is whether or not "Flipper" Kennedy will redeem himself if the occasion to overturn Roe presents itself.

reply from: nancyu

From Dave Leach:

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion IS Legal. That's why we work in the pro-life movement. To make abortion ILLEGAL!

reply from: nancyu

QUESTION:
What will it take to convince you that abortion is illegal? Who must say it, before you will believe it? The Supreme Court? Congress? The President of the United States? The Pope? Gingi? Lila? God? (Ah, wait, He's already said so, and you don't believe Him) ...Gingi and Lila though, that's a thought. I think if they said it, you would believe it.

reply from: Banned Member

Why would Gingi or Lila say something so stupid? Even the Pope recognizes that abortion is legal in the United States, that's why he speaks so strongly against it. It's the same strong manner in which the Pope speaks so strongly against pro-life violence. Can you walk into an abortion clinic and have an abortion in America? Yes. Will you be or can you be arrested for murder? No. Why? Because abortion is legal. There is nothing in law that says that abortion is illegal. There is nothing in law yet that says that abortion is the killing of a person. Abortion IS legal!

reply from: Banned Member

God said that abortion is illegal? God's 10 commandments are not civil laws, they are God's laws for man. Is adultry illegal? Is failure to go to church on Sunday illegal? Is it against the law not to believe in God? Can you go to jail for breaking any of the laws of God which are not also cival laws? Graven images and taking the Lord's name in vain? Failing to honor your mother and father? Coveting your neighbor's goods? Is it illegal to lie? In some instances not not all. Laws from the state do not govern morality. They govern actions. And the law says that most forms of abortion are legal. It's a harsh realty but reality just the same.

reply from: EpicFailguy

Like statues of saints, etc? Did you know Orthodox Jews believe Christians are idolaters, and should be executed?
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html

Seriously, read this, all you Christians who also happen to be Zionist pawns. You may be cutting your own throats.

reply from: LexIcon

Like statues of saints, etc? Did you know Orthodox Jews believe Christians are idolaters, and should be executed?
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
">http://come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
Seriously, read this, all you Christians who also happen to be Zionist pawns. You may be cutting your own throats.
From your linked site:

reply from: Banned Member

Perhaps some radical so-called Jews are violent like the so-called Christians who propose blowing abortion providers brains out rather than applying legal measures against abortion.

reply from: LexIcon

This is most interesting! http://www.lifenews.com/int1423.html

reply from: nancyu

dork. You intentionally missed the point. WHEN will you believe that abortion is illegal. What physically will have to happen to convince you that it is NOT legal?
I'm asking you, what it will take for it to be illegal, and for you to believe it to be illegal? When the Supreme Court sends down its ruling that abortion is no longer legal, will you believe it? If every state in the union passes personhood legislation, will you believe that killing children is illegal then? Or will you still need a little more convincing?
Killing innocent children is NOT legal is it? Unborn children are still children aren't they? Murdering them is NOT legal, but aborting them is. It's semantics that creates the illusion that it is legal.
BUT -- IT IS NOT.

reply from: B0zo

I sure will! When abortion is illegal I will most definately believe it is illegal.

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm sure I"ve banged this drum before, but does it really matter if abortion is illegal or not, given over 4,000 children will die today because of it? In clinics that are set up for the sole purpose of abortions? Where doctors are paid by women who desire abortion?
I mean, abortion is techincally "illegal" down here, but there's 18,000 approx. each year.
Illegal or not, these children are being killed by it.

reply from: Banned Member

If abortion were not legal, abortion would not happen.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree that if abortion is made illegal again, most abortions will end. People will change their behavior. And hopefully, the prolife community will help women and children at risk and those in crisis pregnancies so nobody feels abortion is a solution or a need.
As Mark Crutcher has said, take the profit out of abortion and it will end.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Actually it would, but the numbers would go way down. Women would not turn to it as a first resort instead of a last, husbands/boyfriends and family members would not be able to pressure them into getting one, and so on.

reply from: Banned Member

The point here is that NancyU believe that abortion is already not legal. That's simply not the case. George Tiller performed abortion precisely because abortion IS legal. That's why Roeder in his off mind shot and murdered George Tiller. If abortion were illegal, there would not be Planned Parenthoods and other abortion providers advertising in newspapers and on the internet, offering women ways to kill their own unborn children. Abortion IS legal. That's why there is a pro-life movement. That's why we are trying to change the law. While there are some restrictions and particular types of abortions which are prohibited, there is no real good law now that says that abortion is illegal. Sadly, abortion IS legal.

reply from: B0zo

I think arguing with her gives her more credibility than she deserves. We should treat her like our crazy aunt who lives with us. Treat her with kindness and patience, but don't pay any attention to the nonsense that comes out of her, and lock her away when company comes so we are not embarrassed to tears.

reply from: nancyu

Wow Augustine, for someone pretending to be so smart, you sure are better at pretending to be stupid!
You're pretending you don't understand the question, or else you really don't..anyway, I'm wondering WHEN and HOW will abortion be "MADE" illegal, by your standards?
(by the way..it is NOT legal..already)

reply from: nancyu

Is that so dimwit? Did you happen to read the post above this one by Shenanigans? You blind idiot?

reply from: faithman

It's not rather than doofus, as well as..... Get it right next time... sheesh

reply from: Banned Member

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2911

reply from: nancyu

http://personhoodeducation.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cliff-zarsky-personhood-brief.pdf

reply from: faithman

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal.
You are here to whine and promote paganism.

reply from: SpitMcGee

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal.
You are here to whine and promote paganism.
Naw, bro. That's my job.

reply from: nancyu

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal?.
Prove it.

reply from: Banned Member

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal?.
Prove it.
Call Planned Parenthood and ask to set up an appointment for the procurement of an abortion for someone. See if the police show up at your door. Oh excuse me, I meant Officer Friendly.

reply from: nancyu

If abortion is not legal, why does this website exist? Why do a hundred other pro-life groups exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? Abortion IS legal?.
Prove it.
Call Planned Parenthood and ask to set up an appointment for the procurement of an abortion for someone. See if the police show up at your door. Oh excuse me, I meant Officer Friendly.
The fact that laws (against murder)are not enforced (with regard to unborn persons) isn't proof that abortion is legal. Try again.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001841----000-.html

reply from: nancyu

http://www.banabortionnow.com/
BanAbortionNOW.com

reply from: Banned Member

Augustine is not only opposed to the notion that abortion is not constitutional but is also opposed to the establishment of personhood as law and sees no value in it. So, purely from a practical standpoint, (real world), why is it that whenever a couple discover that they are pregnant, why do they immediately start thinking about names for the new child? Pray tell Augustine, why would a non-person need a name? Is the entire human race delusional? What could possibly cause the entire human race to be so confused on such a fundamental matter? How can this be, Augustine?
Oh wait.. I just remembered.. Augustine is smarter than everyone on the planet and is one of the chosen few who can properly perceive reality in it's fullness. Sorry, my mistake.

reply from: farmerdg

One of the most important messages we can get out to our young people today is the message that all life is created by God and that we do not have the right to decide which baby is born into this world and which life is tossed away by a mother's choice to have an abortion. 

A new ministry has been founded to get this message out to teens in youth groups across>lace w:st="on">Americalace>.  The mission of Youth4Life is to educate and rally today's generation for the Pro-Life cause.  Our vision is to instill in our young people the conviction that abortion must never be an option; to promote organizations providing help and assistance to mothers who choose life; to raise up the next generation of pro-life advocates; and to realize the overturning of Roe v. Wade in our lifetime.

Please check out Youth4Life's website at http://www.youth4life.org/www.youth4life.org to see how you can become involved with this powerful ministry.

reply from: farmerdg

One of the most important messages we can get out to our young people today is the message that all life is created by God and that we do not have the right to decide which baby is born into this world and which life is tossed away by a mother's choice to have an abortion. 

A new ministry has been founded to get this message out to teens in youth groups across>lace w:st="on">Americalace>.  The mission of Youth4Life is to educate and rally today's generation for the Pro-Life cause.  Our vision is to instill in our young people the conviction that abortion must never be an option; to promote organizations providing help and assistance to mothers who choose life; to raise up the next generation of pro-life advocates; and to realize the overturning of Roe v. Wade in our lifetime.

Please check out Youth4Life's website at http://www.youth4life.org/www.youth4life.org to see how you can become involved with this powerful ministry.

reply from: nancyu

We learn what is right and what is wrong by the LAW. If you want abortion to end JUST say it:
The unborn child is a PERSON. Abortion Is NOT Legal.

reply from: Banned Member

One article. You base your entire belief system upon this one article? Pathetic.

reply from: nancyu

Sorry I didn't do this sooner Augustine, I forgot that you can't count past one:
1) http://corpuschristirighttolife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=212
2) http://www.banabortionnow.com/
3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001841----000-.html
4) http://personhoodeducation.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cliff-zarsky-personhood-brief.pdf
5) http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2911
6) http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/an-interview-with-robert-p-george-on-roe-v-wade/
7) http://www.covenantnews.com/grayson051228.htm
8) http://www.covenantnews.com/grayson100210.htm
9) http://www.saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources/Brief4Roeder.pdf
10) http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=2
11) http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7516&Itemid=48
12) http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/george.html
13) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
14) http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22817
15) http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=438
16) http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html
17) http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

reply from: nancyu

One court ruling? You base your entire belief system on Roe Vs Wade? You forgot everything else? Like the Constitution that your president is tromping on? Like the Bible the you profess to follow? Like the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you claim to belong to?
YOU'RE pathetic.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd46NVSYqjM&feature=channel

reply from: PatriciaClark

For a retreat we were shown that the abortion of the child. It was so terrible to see and the worse thing was the flesh was sold in the hotels and people used to eat the babies meat. Oh God save us from this. Is there any lawyer who can fight against this?

reply from: terry

Hi Obfa, welcome to the forum. Please read the forum rules pinned at the top of the General Abortion Discussion category.
This is a forum for the discussion of abortion. Your contribution so far (consisting only of a photo of a coat hanger) is clearly intended to make a point, but it would be a stretch to consider that photo a real contribution to the debate. I'll let it stand for now, to give you a chance to participate, if that is what you are here for.


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