Home - List All Discussions

This is our brother...

by: nancyu

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

reply from: faithman

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

reply from: Akhathistos

SOLIDARITY WITH PREBORN PERSONS !
"Charity is no substitute for justice withheld." -St. Augustine -
JUSTICE FOR PREBORN CHILDREN - NOW !

reply from: Probabyalways

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit8.php

reply from: Akhathistos

"He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother !"
(pro-life slideshow vid with song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3algYCrl3M

reply from: Akhathistos

cool, probabyalways,
"Prenatal Form and Function - The Making of an Earth Suit"
luv the creative use of language.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ehd.org/timeline_quiz_visual.php?difficulty=i&unit=8&name=Unit%208:%20%20%207%20to%208%20Weeks

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ehd.org/timeline_quiz_visual.php?difficulty=i&unit=19&name=Unit%2019:%20%20%209%20Months%20to%20Birth

reply from: carolemarie

So was Dr. Tiller.
Defending human life means defending unborn and born life, without regard to race, gender or religion. And I would add residence and occupation.
That is why a prolife message that is mixed (supporting saving babies by killing Doctors,) is a failed and flawed message.
We must protect all human life. It is all worth saving. That is a consistant prolife ethic.

reply from: faithman

Wrong again killer. It has always been just to defend innocent life from evil aggression. But you never tire of standing behind false ethics.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not wrong.
Your position is the opposite of the Christian way of life. It is against conservative principles like the rule of law.

reply from: faithman

Once again you are a sick liar killer of three. You would know a sound principle if it bit you on the leg. All 50 states have justifiable defense laws. OOOOHHH but that is right. You say the womb child is not equal to the born child. I can see how a killer of three womb children might think that way.

reply from: carolemarie

The law says that a fetus is not a person. That is the difference here.
There is no justifible defence to kill someone to save a non-person. That is the problem of your argument.

reply from: faithman

SSSSOOOOO once again you agree with the death merchants. No big surprise there at all.

reply from: carolemarie

If you want to argue that the law allows for justifible defence then you would have to agree that the law is what gives you permission to do that. The same law that says abortion is legal makes it impossible for you to claim the justifiable defence as a legal action.
There is no defense for gunning down a man in church.

reply from: B0zo

Once again you are a sick liar killer of three. You would know a sound principle if it bit you on the leg. All 50 states have justifiable defense laws. OOOOHHH but that is right. You say the womb child is not equal to the born child. I can see how a killer of three womb children might think that way.
If you truly believed this, it would be reprehensible to do nothing about it, just as it would be to watch a woman being raped, or a child being beaten to death, and standing there doing nothing and not intervening.
Yet only one guy every 10 years does anything like that, and it's usually a maniac, and people like you just flap your gums and call women scancs, so your words really don't mean much, and your "concern" for the babies, and your claims of "justifiable defense" do not ring true.

reply from: Shenanigans

Once again you are a sick liar killer of three. You would know a sound principle if it bit you on the leg. All 50 states have justifiable defense laws. OOOOHHH but that is right. You say the womb child is not equal to the born child. I can see how a killer of three womb children might think that way.
If you truly believed this, it would be reprehensible to do nothing about it, just as it would be to watch a woman being raped, or a child being beaten to death, and standing there doing nothing and not intervening.
Yet only one guy every 10 years does anything like that, and it's usually a maniac, and people like you just flap your gums and call women scancs, so your words really don't mean much, and your "concern" for the babies, and your claims of "justifiable defense" do not ring true.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/1554/

reply from: Banned Member

We are a nation of laws. To be a vigilante is to destroy the very system of laws you seek to reform.
Laws regarding justifiable defense do not apply to the unborn or abortion.

reply from: B0zo

Even regarding the born, do the laws allow for gunning down a man holding a collection plate in church when he is threatening no one at that time?

reply from: Banned Member

No individual has the right to gun down a person for taking part in a legal action, either while in the commission of that act, or prior to at any time.

reply from: B0zo

Then the claim of "justifiable defense" is a total croc, since to claim it, (pretending abortion is illegal and the unborn are legal persons), he would have to have been in the act of performing an abortion.

reply from: nancyu

Tiller was not my brother. He was not even a person.

reply from: nancyu

Ahh...but that's where we disagree. Abortion is NOT legal. Tiller is not a person until he comes back to tell me that the children he killed were. (I might settle for you speaking those words for him, but I'm not holding my breath)

reply from: nancyu

Says you...and you are not a person.

reply from: nancyu

Even regarding the born, do the laws allow for gunning down a man holding a collection plate in church when he is threatening no one at that time?
Yes, if he was a mass murderer of children, yes.

reply from: nancyu

So you are agreeing that the unborn are not persons. Well that makes you a non person bort scumbag loser.
Personhood for unborn children is well established within the law.

reply from: Banned Member

What if, like in China, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html where the law supports infanticide? Is that a law that is to be blindly obeyed as well?

reply from: Banned Member

Once again you are a sick liar killer of three. You would know a sound principle if it bit you on the leg. All 50 states have justifiable defense laws. OOOOHHH but that is right. You say the womb child is not equal to the born child. I can see how a killer of three womb children might think that way.
If you truly believed this, it would be reprehensible to do nothing about it, just as it would be to watch a woman being raped, or a child being beaten to death, and standing there doing nothing and not intervening.
Yet only one guy every 10 years does anything like that, and it's usually a maniac, and people like you just flap your gums and call women scancs, so your words really don't mean much, and your "concern" for the babies, and your claims of "justifiable defense" do not ring true.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Author: Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, first Baron Lytton

reply from: Banned Member

Even regarding the born, do the laws allow for gunning down a man holding a collection plate in church when he is threatening no one at that time?
Screw man's law. The law sucks a thousand ways and exists to serve the vanities of man. Scripture supports and offers opposition to the killing of Gods enemies. Excuse me if I don't accept your personal interpretation on the subject as the final word in this matter.

reply from: B0zo

So you are agreeing that the unborn are not persons. Well that makes you a non person bort scumbag loser.
Personhood for unborn children is well established within the law.
No, I don't agree that the unborn are not persons.
And I am unaware that the law says they are, and wonder why you and your buddy in violence (talking about it but not doing) and ignorant rhetoric are in favor of personhood laws, if they are not needed.

reply from: B0zo

Even regarding the born, do the laws allow for gunning down a man holding a collection plate in church when he is threatening no one at that time?
Screw man's law. The law sucks a thousand ways and exists to serve the vanities of man. Scripture supports and offers opposition to the killing of Gods enemies. Excuse me if I don't accept your personal interpretation on the subject as the final word in this matter.
Then not too many people understand scripture do they?
I suppose Roeder is a messiah of sorts.

reply from: nancyu

So you are agreeing that the unborn are not persons. Well that makes you a non person bort scumbag loser.
Personhood for unborn children is well established within the law.
No, I don't agree that the unborn are not persons.
And I am unaware that the law says they are, and wonder why you and your buddy in violence (talking about it but not doing) and ignorant rhetoric are in favor of personhood laws, if they are not needed.
You just said they are not "legally persons" didn't you? Make up your mind. Do you really believe someone can be a person, but not "legally" a person? Get a brain.
I am in favor of enforcing laws against murder with regard to unborn persons. So I am in favor of striking down laws that disregard the personhood of unborn children. So I guess you could say that I am NOT in favor or "personhood legislation" per se. But I am in favor of REMOVING pro abortion laws which disregard personhood. Understood?

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.abate-il.org/stclairco/images/marbles.jpg

reply from: nancyu

http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/footnote-54.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001841----000-.html

reply from: nancyu

You know if you spent a fraction of the time defending unborn children as you do crying over Tiller (who is not coming back you know) there would be no more abortion in the world ever again.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

Says you...and you are not a person.
He's just as much of a person as a preborn person is.
All human beings are people from conception on. Nothing any person, law, book, definition or anything else says will ever be able to change that.
If children can understand that, why can't adults?
I wonder if Augustine thinks justifiable defense laws apply to abortion in countries where abortion is illegal and the preborn have consitutional rights and personhood.

reply from: Banned Member

No, they're mine. Where did you find them.

reply from: nancyu

Says you...and you are not a person.
He's just as much of a person as a preborn person is.
All human beings are people from conception on. Nothing any person, law, book, definition or anything else says will ever be able to change that.
If children can understand that, why can't adults?
I wonder if Augustine thinks justifiable defense laws apply to abortion in countries where abortion is illegal and the preborn have consitutional rights and personhood.
My point exactly. I give him the same degree of "personhood" as he does the unborn child.

reply from: nancyu

Why don't they Augustine? Could you please show me where in the Catechism it states that we are not to defend the unborn, quite as much as we do the born.

reply from: B0zo

Why don't they Augustine? Could you please show me where in the Catechism it states that we are not to defend the unborn, quite as much as we do the born.
The fact is that we don't "defend" the unborn as much as we do the born, and cannot with our current laws.
If you believed the situation was the same and cared as much for the unborn as you say you do, you would be wrestling women to the ground every day at abortion clinics.
But instead, you let them walk right in and kill their babies, so please don't say you would do the same for the unborn as the born, as you certainly do not.

reply from: The11th

Well there's that whole thing about assault being illegal, and abortion not being considered assault.

reply from: nancyu

Scott Roeder could. He must be the Pro Life version of Chuck Norris!

reply from: B0zo

Scott Roeder could. He must be the Pro Life version of Chuck Norris!
You could do it too.
If you saw a woman about to stab her own child, you would do something if you could and not just watch.
If you saw a pregnant woman walking into a clinic to have an abortion, you would just watch.
You would do nothing to stop her, even though you (say) value the unborn as much as the born.
So how come you would intervene in the case of a born child but not in the case of an unborn child?

reply from: nancyu

Scott Roeder could. He must be the Pro Life version of Chuck Norris!
You could do it too.
If you saw a woman about to stab her own child, you would do something if you could and not just watch.
If you saw a pregnant woman walking into a clinic to have an abortion, you would just watch.
You would do nothing to stop her, even though you (say) value the unborn as much as the born.
So how come you would intervene in the case of a born child but not in the case of an unborn child?
Who knows whether I would or would not in either case? You seem to know what I would do in any situation. You must be psychic, (or maybe the better word is psycho)

reply from: B0zo

Scott Roeder could. He must be the Pro Life version of Chuck Norris!
You could do it too.
If you saw a woman about to stab her own child, you would do something if you could and not just watch.
If you saw a pregnant woman walking into a clinic to have an abortion, you would just watch.
You would do nothing to stop her, even though you (say) value the unborn as much as the born.
So how come you would intervene in the case of a born child but not in the case of an unborn child?
Who knows whether I would or would not in either case? You seem to know what I would do in any situation. You must be psychic, (or maybe the better word is psycho)
You know there are abortion clinincs. You know pregnant women are entering them. You believe it is justifiable defense to stop them. Yet you are not making your posts from jail, which is where you would be if your actions matched your rhetoric.
If you truly believe abortion is the same as killing a born child, then you are standing idly by watching children being killed, and not lifting a finger to stop it.

reply from: carolemarie

The ends do not justify the means. It is wrong to kill other people. Even abortion providers no matter how much you want to.

reply from: Banned Member

Scott Roeder could. He must be the Pro Life version of Chuck Norris!
You could do it too.
If you saw a woman about to stab her own child, you would do something if you could and not just watch.
If you saw a pregnant woman walking into a clinic to have an abortion, you would just watch.
You would do nothing to stop her, even though you (say) value the unborn as much as the born.
So how come you would intervene in the case of a born child but not in the case of an unborn child?
Hey.. I know this one. Legal consequences. Did I win?

reply from: Banned Member

WHAT? Did you just imply that, since you yourself don't stand outside of abortion clinics stopping women from going in, that you must believe that killing an unborn child is not as bad as killing a born child. WOW. Is that what you meant to imply?

reply from: Banned Member

Really? If you had the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden you wouldn't/couldn't do it?
Who's back do you have.. nobodies?

reply from: B0zo

WHAT? Did you just imply that, since you yourself don't stand outside of abortion clinics stopping women from going in, that you must believe that killing an unborn child is not as bad as killing a born child. WOW. Is that what you meant to imply?
I mean to imply it's not the same thing, since if it were, we all would be doing something to physically stop it, instead of just talking about it.

reply from: sk1bianca

looks like a vicious circle to me:
you think abortion kills a person? that's horrible! why don't you do anything to stop it?
you wanna stop abortion? you can't! it would be illegal!
at the same time you americans are crazy about super-heroes, who almost always beat the sh*t out of the bad guys (isn't that assault?) and disappear when the police turns up. isn't that vigilantism? isn't that illegal?
America... a nation of laws that put human laws above the Law of God.

reply from: B0zo

What country do you live in? Abortion is illegal there?
And we might have it wrong right now about abortion, but America is a great country and a compassionate country. We feed the world and we protect the world. We're doing a poor job of protecting our own, but the world is a safer place because of our presence, and because many of our people do have a devotion to God and to what is right.

reply from: B0zo

"We Americans" are over 300 MILLION and are very diverse, and I don't really know of anyone "crazy about super-heroes." Those stories are fantasy and fun, but that has just been a trend in movies. At one time it was war movies and westerns. Whatever...having fun watching Spiderman beat up the bad guys doesn't mean we support vigilantism in real life.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dPR3_HlVGs&feature=channel

reply from: Banned Member

Why don't they Augustine? Could you please show me where in the Catechism it states that we are not to defend the unborn, quite as much as we do the born.
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

reply from: nancyu

Why don't they Augustine? Could you please show me where in the Catechism it states that we are not to defend the unborn, quite as much as we do the born.
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
I'm missing it. Where's the part about the unborn children again?

reply from: nancyu

Here's a good question I missed before. If you believed abortion to be illegal (which it is ) would justifiable defense apply?

reply from: Banned Member

Here's a good question I missed before. If you believed abortion to be illegal (which it is ) would justifiable defense apply?
Civilians do not have the right to murder suspects. Also, the amount of force must be proportionate to the threat. Even if abortion were illegal, Scott Roeder would be serving time for murder. One, Tiller could have been stopped by non-lethal means. Secondly, Tiller was not in the act of performing an abortion.

reply from: nancyu

Here's a good question I missed before. If you believed abortion to be illegal (which it is ) would justifiable defense apply?
Civilians do not have the right to murder suspects. Also, the amount of force must be proportionate to the threat. Even if abortion were illegal, Scott Roeder would be serving time for murder. One, Tiller could have been stopped by non-lethal means. Secondly, Tiller was not in the act of performing an abortion.
What a load of crap. If laws against murder were being enforced with regard to unborn persons, Roeder wouldn't have killed anyone. And killing to defend innocent persons is not murder.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDmlIacuXP4&feature=channel

reply from: B0zo

Here's a good question I missed before. If you believed abortion to be illegal (which it is ) would justifiable defense apply?
Civilians do not have the right to murder suspects. Also, the amount of force must be proportionate to the threat. Even if abortion were illegal, Scott Roeder would be serving time for murder. One, Tiller could have been stopped by non-lethal means. Secondly, Tiller was not in the act of performing an abortion.
What a load of crap.
Do you think if you belive a man wants to kill you that you can legally go to his church and kill him while he is passing the collection basket? Do you really think that is legal or "justifiable defense"?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_OULGPTfq4&feature=channel

reply from: nancyu

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=3066

reply from: nancyu

Why don't they Augustine? Could you please show me where in the Catechism it states that we are not to defend the unborn, quite as much as we do the born.
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
I'm missing it. Where's the part about the unborn children again?

reply from: angelofsorrow

Tiller was a murderer, plain and simple.

reply from: B0zo

Over 3,000 a day are still happening.

reply from: carolemarie

The point that seems to escape you all seems to be this: justifible defence is only a defense if the action being stopped is against the law.
Abortion is legal in our country, thereforth, you can't shoot abortion providers and cite the justifible homicide as a legitimate defense.

reply from: B0zo

Seems painfully obvious...
Even to those who back it, since they don't do any justifiable defending of their own.

reply from: nancyu

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

reply from: nancyu

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

reply from: Banned Member

Prove it.
You are a remarkably ignorant woman aren't you? Call the police, tell them that there are murders happening at your local Planned Parenthood. Call your senator, tell them your state is allowing murder to take place at Planned Parenthoods. Call the media, tell them that Planned Parenthood murdered 4000 people yesterday and see if they show up to cover the story.

reply from: B0zo

Prove it.
I called the sheriff and told him about an abortion and asked for an arrest and he said he couldn't do anything about it because it is legal, and he said I was a nut.
Now what?
Should the sheriff be shot for standing in the way of justifable defense?

reply from: nancyu

Prove it.
You are a remarkably ignorant woman aren't you? Call the police, tell them that there are murders happening at your local Planned Parenthood. Call your senator, tell them your state is allowing murder to take place at Planned Parenthoods. Call the media, tell them that Planned Parenthood murdered 4000 people yesterday and see if they show up to cover the story.
You are remarkably poor at providing evidence. The idea that laws against murder of persons are not being enforced with regard to unborn persons, is not proof that it is legal. All you have proven is that the laws aren't being enforced.
Probably because of evil people like you who keep SAYING it's legal. But hey, believe what you want to believe..

reply from: carolemarie

Honey, superhero's are not REAL and we all know that, unless we are under 5

reply from: carolemarie

Nancy, you can say abortion is an immoral law, but it is the current law of the land. That is why abortion clinic advertise in the yellow pages.
Just because you don't like it, and think the reasoning of Supreme Court is stupid and wrong, doesn't invalidate the law.
We don't get to claim justifyable defense killing people who are doing legal things that we don't approve of

reply from: Banned Member

The problem with all of these edicts and legal opinions Nancy is citing here in addition to the fact that several of them are neither laws nor binding upon the United States of America, is that none of them are specifically laws against abortion. Abortion is the legal elective termination (killing) of an unborn human person in the womb. The laws which permit abortion do not permit abortion because the unborn is not a person, but rather because the law is saying that it is okay to kill a person under specific circumstances. That is why personhood is immaterial to the question of abortion. Abortion is legal. That is why we don't need laws or amendments stating what a human person is, but instead specific laws against the specific means of killing persons the function and intention of which abortion falls under. Fail Nancy.

reply from: Banned Member

Augustine, if the Personhood movement were able to successfully establish Personhood as the law of the land, don't you think that the acceptance of the Personhood concept would favor a change in the supreme courts future decisions on the subject of abortion?

reply from: Banned Member

No. No I don't. Not for a moment. Personhood either in law or amendment would be another piece of paper these people could read any way they want with whatever exceptions they so choose. These people are hell bent on legalized abortion in whatever forms they can devise and by whatever name they can call it. They know what a person is and when life starts and so do we. What we need is constitutionally tested law that clearly and unambiguously states that abortion in all it's forms by all it's names is the unlawful taking of a human life.

reply from: nancyu

Carole, I can say what ever I want to say. And when I say that Abortion is not legal, I'm telling the truth. Ten Supreme Courts don't get to invalidate the Constitution or the Laws of God.

reply from: Banned Member

In the above, when you say "these people" and "they", I assume you mean the Supreme Court Justices.
The crutch that the faltering logic of abortion proponents use to support their reasoning is, exactly, that fetuses are not constitutionally protected human beings.
The establishment of the fact of, personhood from conception, into law, through the passage of State amendments, would certainly undermine the existing legal precedent on this exact point, would it not?
Consequently and subsequently, the next case that would come under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court would then become constitutionally tested law, would it not?
If this is wrong then why?
If you have a better path to share then do tell.

reply from: nancyu

In the above, when you say "these people" and "they", I assume you mean the Supreme Court Justices.
The crutch that the faltering logic of abortion proponents use to support their reasoning is, exactly, that fetuses are not constitutionally protected human beings.
The establishment of the fact of, personhood from conception, into law, through the passage of State amendments, would certainly undermine the existing legal precedent on this exact point, would it not?
Consequently and subsequently, the next case that would come under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court would then become constitutionally tested law, would it not?
If this is wrong then why?
If you have a better path to share then do tell.
Wow Lefts, you shut them up for longer than I though possible. Good Job!!

reply from: Banned Member

Some of us work for a living.
In the above, when you say "these people" and "they", I assume you mean the Supreme Court Justices.
The crutch that the faltering logic of abortion proponents use to support their reasoning is, exactly, that fetuses are not constitutionally protected human beings.
The establishment of the fact of, personhood from conception, into law, through the passage of State amendments, would certainly undermine the existing legal precedent on this exact point, would it not?
Consequently and subsequently, the next case that would come under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court would then become constitutionally tested law, would it not?
If this is wrong then why?
If you have a better path to share then do tell.
Wow Lefts, you shut them up for longer than I though possible. Good Job!!

reply from: nancyu

Ain't it the truth. And I'll bet 10 brazilian dollars that lefts is one of those who do. Most of the rest are either on welfare or are politicians. ( No offense to people on welfare)

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZPwwdLkhyM

reply from: nancyu

http://www.rootsthebook.com/

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

http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/press-release">Press Release: Historic Campaign Web Portal Launched for Colorado Personhood Amendment

reply from: nancyu

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/a-declaration-of-personhood-now?commented=0#txpCommentInputForm
By Jay Rogers. Posted July 06, 2010.

reply from: nancyu

Relevant Pro-Life Issues
1. What issues promoted by the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the largest number of American deaths? Answer (1) legalized abortion 50 million and counting. (2) legalized slavery over 600,000 Americans killling each other.
2. Which is the only country to express in their founding documents that there are self-evident truths that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life and liberty?
3. Which branch of the federal government has denied the inalienable rights to life and liberty to certain classes of human beings?
4. Which branch of the government has constitutional responsibility to protect life and liberty?
5. Is there any difference between a human being and a person?
6. Has the United States Congress ever defined who is a person for protection under the 5th Amendment?
7. Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever defined who are protected as persons under the 14th Amendment?
8. Could the Civil War have been prevented by the Supreme Court?
9. Was Preisdent Abraham Lincoln wrong when he refused to obey the Supreme Courts decision for legalized slavery?
10. Were U.S. citizens wrong to kill each other over the right to choose to own slaves?
11. Was it wrong for our country to forcefully take away the slave owners rights to own other humans as their property?
12. Is it constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Supreme Court to give one human being the right to choose to take the life another innocent human being because of inconvenience ?
13. Is legal abortion at the present time available for any reason the mother wants the unborn child eliminated?
14. What reasons did the Supreme Court give in the last written to continue legalized abortion
15. Are the Supreme Court judges who legalized killing innocent unborn humans as accessories before the killing?
16. Was Pontius Pilate guilty of the death of Jesus Christ, when he publicly declared Jesus Christ innocent 3 different times, and he actually tried to save Jesus's life, and he only gave those who wanted Jesus crucified the authority to execute Jesus, and then washed his hands showing that he had no part in the execution of Jesus.
17. What are the means are provided in the U.S. constitution to overturn unjust decisions of the Supreme Court?
18. Is this a country of the people, for the people, and by the people, or is it a country ruled by 5 unelected judges of the Supreme Court?
19. Is the constitutional right to liberty greater that the constitutional right to life?
20. Does a democratic form of government guarantee equal justice for all as proclaimed in the 14th Amendment and the Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.corpuschristirighttolife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=250

reply from: nancyu

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/in-support-of-personhood-post-1/
http://www.archangelinstitute.org/in-support-of-personhood-post-2/

reply from: Banned Member

America is not a theocracy. Being obediant to civil authorities sometimes means that we allow people to continue to sin, even to commit heinous sins, like abortion. It's not like we haven't told these people that abortion is murder. He have in clear language. They already know that they are killing people/persons/human beings/unborn children; the language is superfluous. They simply don't care because they are entirely commited to their belief that the ills of the world and human freedom must be cured and defended by killing unborn children. Abortion has become the ultimate anti-human liberation statement. Nothing we say about the unborn human person is going to change the law until the culture changes the people. Only the conversion of human consciences and the outright defining and banning of abortion will bring an end to abortion. Only the radical theocrats are pushing for the personhood amendments, essentially trying to impose a theological virtue upon a currently secular state. America after is not a religious state or a secular state, but a human state, run by human beings both with and with and without consciences. We must inform these consciences with the light of truth. We must not threaten or coerce people to acts of the conscience. Virtue that comes about through compulsion rather than human charity is a lie and an ugly one at that. What are we to do? Keep telling the truth. Keep telling the truth. Keep telling the truth.

reply from: Banned Member

The truth is that developing human babies in the womb are people, but you don't want that defined or told. I just don't get why you can't get something as simple as that.

reply from: nancyu

America is not a theocracy. Being obediant to civil authorities sometimes means that we allow people to continue to sin, even to commit heinous sins, like abortion. It's not like we haven't told these people that abortion is murder. He have in clear language. They already know that they are killing people/persons/human beings/unborn children; the language is superfluous. They simply don't care because they are entirely commited to their belief that the ills of the world and human freedom must be cured and defended by killing unborn children. Abortion has become the ultimate anti-human liberation statement. Nothing we say about the unborn human person is going to change the law until the culture changes the people. Only the conversion of human consciences and the outright defining and banning of abortion will bring an end to abortion. Only the radical theocrats are pushing for the personhood amendments, essentially trying to impose a theological virtue upon a currently secular state. America after is not a religious state or a secular state, but a human state, run by human beings both with and with and without consciences. We must inform these consciences with the light of truth. We must not threaten or coerce people to acts of the conscience. Virtue that comes about through compulsion rather than human charity is a lie and an ugly one at that. What are we to do? Keep telling the truth. Keep telling the truth. Keep telling the truth.
Pure BS...You're either pro personhood, or your pro abortion. Pick one, you can't be both, and there ain't no option 3.

reply from: B0zo

Do you know what the "false dichotomy" fallacy is?

reply from: MC3

Augustine:
Your statement that America is not a theocracy reflects theory not reality. Secular Humanism is a religion and, over the last 60 years or so, a Supreme Court that sees itself as its high priests has gradually installed it as the de-facto state-sanctioned religion of the United States. Roe v. Wade is but one of many examples of this phenomenon.
Additionally, the rhetoric in your posts suggests that you may not have a clear definition for the pro-life principle. Allow me to shed some light on this for you. At the moment of fertilization, a new human being - a person - is created. As such, from that point forward and until natural death occurs, that person is legally entitled to the same right-to-life as any other living human being.
That's it! The act of protecting the right-to-life of the unborn is as unrelated to religion as is the act of protecting the right-to-life of five-year-old girls or fifty-year-old men.
Further, you seemed to imply that the pro-life movement should not take steps to protect these particular lives until we had used "the light of truth" to instill virtue in the American people. You also characterized those of us who are trying to return to the unborn that which was stolen from them as "radical theocrats" whose mission is to "threaten or coerce people to acts of the conscience."
To put it more succinctly, your position is that we are attempting to legislate morality. On that point, I will remind you of something Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Morality cannot be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
That last line defines everything we are trying to do. And in that effort, we will not apologize for being indifferent to the motivations or the arguments or even the sincerity of the heartless.
As for those of you in the "Armchair Quarterback Brigade" whose only contribution is to sit on the sidelines watching and criticizing, I'll quote Theodore Roosevelt, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Yes, those of us in the pro-life movement have often fallen short. We have made lots of mistakes and we will make some more. Fortunately, people like you have always been right there handy when we needed you to point them out for us. So of course, it is no surprise that you have surfaced once again to attack the Personhood campaign and hurl personal insults at those who are fighting for it. And who knows, maybe time will prove you right. My only problem is that such a proclamation should not be coming from some cold and timid soul whose face continues to be unmarred by dust and sweat and blood.

reply from: B0zo

You never know when "armchair quarterbacks" will start making real contrtibutions.
Besides, isn't this forum an arena for ideas and debate? Why can't the personhood approach be legitimately questioned? Augustine expressed his ideas about why he thinks the personhood approach is wrong. How is that being an "armchair quarterback"? Why not express alternatate ideas in the face of the "personhood is the ONLY way" approach"? Personhood may very well be the best approach, and if it is, it can certainly withstand some challenges.
Doing real pro-life work requires a sacrifice of time and is not easy for those who have jobs and bills to pay. Does the person who makes a decent living at doing pro-life work have any more right to boast about "blood, sweat, and dust" than the non-advocate pro-life man working hard all day at his regular job or business?
And note, MC3, that a member of this board has contributed much in the way of pro-life work doing sidewalk counseling and other pro-life work, experiencing more than her share of "blood, sweat, and dust," but not receiving a dime to do it, yet is often the butt of the most horrid verbal abuse I've ever seen online (from fellow pro-lifers) and not once have you made a public defense of her or a public condemnation of the verbal abusers. Those "armchair quarterbacks" who question her methods (which have been successful), and who bully her relentlessly because she is post-abortive and not sufficiently contrite to suit them, get a pass.

reply from: Banned Member

Do you know what the "false dichotomy" fallacy is?
Are you suggesting there is a third position?
1. Pro-life
2. Pro-abortion
3. Sort of both but not really either
That 3rd one is also pro-abortion.
Do you know what I call a person who intentionally needlessly complicates things?

reply from: B0zo

Ouch! [IMG][/IMG]
It seems there are many carreer prolifers who are well paid to be marred by dust sweat and blood.
Isn't that what they're being paid to do, and why should they expect that of the "layperson" voicing an opinion on a forum?
I think the "cold and timid soul" comment was a low blow, and uncalled for, and not appropriate for the forum owner who ought to take the high road and set a good example, imho.

reply from: B0zo

Do you know what the "false dichotomy" fallacy is?
Are you suggesting there is a third position?
1. Pro-life
2. Pro-abortion
3. Sort of both but not really either
That 3rd one is also pro-abortion.
Do you know what I call a person who intentionally needlessly complicates things?
The statement to which I responded did not say this. It said: "You're either pro personhood, or your pro abortion. Pick one, you can't be both, and there ain't no option 3."
She said "pro personhood" and not "pro-life."
And her meaning is that if you do not buy into her political solution, then you are a "pro-abort," as it his "her way or the highway," and further, you're probably working as a spy for PP, and are probably even one of those kooks who says abortion is legal.

reply from: Banned Member

Martin Luther King Jr was pro-abortion! He was also a lying plagiarizing self promoting charlatan. He was a mouthpiece for a civial rights movement. Nothing more.
Secularism is not a religion properly speaking, it is a socio-political belief system. Secular humanism more properly is a non religion, a godless system that relegates God and concepts of "god" to harmless and ineffective well meaning "feel good" customs. Yet I would sooner replace this secular humanism with real republican principles than create even a shadow of a theocracy.
Human being is a concrete determinate noun describing an member of the human species. Person is merely a description of the human being in question. Person ironically comes from the Latin for 'mask'. Perhaps you did not read my Case against personhood thread. Or perhaps you should read it as one who is not personally tied to the fortunes of the personhood movement either as a movement of success or failure.
Precisely what I mean by radical theocrats is the political actions of radical Christian evangelicalism. It's a movement that is also decidely anti-Catholic in flavor. I do not believe that the United States was founded as a Christian republic but rather a Republic that was founded by Christians. There is a decided difference. I would sooner and rather see an American Christian evangelical theocracy burn to the ground than live in a nation of evangelical hand wavers. To be frank, evangelical misportray the orgin on the United States as easily and as willfully as you misportray the origin of the Bible.
And as Bozo pointed out. Some of us do not live by and through benefactors and actually work for a living for money to pay weekly and monthly bills. It is precisely people like me, people in my economic sphere who are most affected by abortion and whose generation has been decimated by abortion. I have sacrificed more in the way of time given my station in life and personal means than you may ever know. You however, if abortion would end tomorrow, would frankly, be out looking for a new job. For me, pro-life is a way of life. For you, it's an occupation.

reply from: Banned Member

Originally posted by: Augustine

It is precisely people like me, people in my economic sphere who are most affected by abortion and whose generation has been decimated by abortion. I have sacrificed more in the way of time given my station in life and personal means than you may ever know.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~

How have you been affected by abortion, and what have you sacrificed?

reply from: Banned Member

I have sacrificed thousands of hours of my own time. How have I been affected? In 1972 I had a cousin who was aborted. That cousin would have been the same age as myself.

reply from: faithman

Dude...go count beads somewhere... you are embarrassing your self.

reply from: Banned Member

Dude...go count beads somewhere... you are embarrassing your self.
Embarrassing? You and your Roeder friends were auctioning off pictures on Ebay to raise money for convicted murderer's legal defense fund. These were pictures of Tiller getting his brains blown out that were drawn by children . And you talk to me of embarrassment?

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~

Farting around on the computer is a sacrifice?  Gee, most consider it entertainment.  When I fart around on message boards is it a noble sacrifice?

Having a cousin aborted didn't affect your life any more than it would have affected your life if he'd never been conceived.  How would your life have been different if you'd had a cousin?

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Farting around on the computer is a sacrifice?  Gee, most consider it entertainment.  When I fart around on message boards is it a noble sacrifice?
Having a cousin aborted didn't affect your life any more than it would have affected your life if he'd never been conceived.  How would your life have been different if you'd had a cousin?
You are pathetic in your indifference as Faithman is in his virulence.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~

You didn't answer my questions.

You probably shouldn't claim martyrdom when you haven't sacrificed anything nor been victimized by others' personal decisions.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
You didn't answer my questions.
You probably shouldn't claim martyrdom when you haven't sacrificed anything nor been victimized by others' personal decisions.
What is time to you?

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Time spent farting around on blogs and message boards?  Entertainment.

reply from: faithman

Dude...go count beads somewhere... you are embarrassing your self.
Embarrassing? You and your Roeder friends were auctioning off pictures on Ebay to raise money for convicted murderer's legal defense fund. These were pictures of Tiller getting his brains blown out that were drawn by children . And you talk to me of embarrassment?
Somebody's got something on e-bay? Could you post a link? I gotta see this.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Time spent farting around on blogs and message boards?  Entertainment.
http://greatersurbiton.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/obama1.jpg

reply from: Probabyalways

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

reply from: Banned Member

Dude...go count beads somewhere... you are embarrassing your self.
Embarrassing? You and your Roeder friends were auctioning off pictures on Ebay to raise money for convicted murderer's legal defense fund. These were pictures of Tiller getting his brains blown out that were drawn by children . And you talk to me of embarrassment?
Somebody's got something on e-bay? Could you post a link? I gotta see this.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/02/ebay-removes-drawings-that-glorify-slaying-of-abortion-doctor-ge/

reply from: MC3

BoZo:
Yes, the Personhood question can indeed be legitimately questioned on this forum and, in fact, such a discussion is welcomed. However, if you will go back and read the post to which I was responding, you will see that there was essentially nothing in it that spoke to the merit or lack of merit in the Personhood initiative. About the closest the writer came was to assert that the "only" people supporting the concept are "radical theocrats." That is, of course, pure idiocy.
Finally, I have never, and will never, disparage the role fulfilled by those pro-lifers who, as you accurately describe, "have jobs and bills to pay." For many years, I was in that same situation and did the best I could to support the cause in both money and effort. During those years, I always referred to myself as a "weekend warrior" and I still see such people as the backbone of our movement. However, by his own words that he has posted here many times in the past, this guy does not fit that mold. He is not a weekend warrior; he is exactly what I said he is - an armchair quarterback. And I assure you, those terms are not interchangeable.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/in-support-of-personhood-post-1/
My name is Bryan J. Brown. I served Kansas as a Deputy Attorney General under Phill Kline between 2003 - 2007 and as a First Amendment litigator for Don Wildmon's American Family Association in the six years before that. Prior to that professional experience I was involved in pro-life activism as far back as Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop's seminal 1979 seminar "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" and as intense as leading "rescue movement" groups in Fort Wayne and Wichita. During those tours of duty on the front lines of the culture war I was privileged to meet, and work beside, some of America's most well known pro-life and pro-family leaders.
I have stood up to statism and stood against due process violations in courts across the nation and, most recently, during my unconstitutional processing through the bar application process in Indiana. I have been in recent combat with forces of political correctness in very high places, and can assure all that the denial of due process for the unwanted is their stock-in-trade. I have documented this since my earliest days in the pro-life movement: I marched in Bloomington, Indiana while courts and hospital administrators legally dehydrated Baby Doe to death. I was also imprisoned by a federal judge for more than two months for merely refusing to pledge a personal oath of supremacy to him.
Which brings me to the topic at hand: My experiences in Christian activism, government service and constitutional law all move me to heartily endorse the "personhood" movement rising up from the grassroots across the nation.
With the arrival of Obama and his ilk on the national scene all have witnessed just how quickly the political tides can change in America. It is also revealed in the human weaknesses of even our best representatives, as the former Congressman from Northeast Indiana most recently demonstrated.
The political situation is not advantageous in most state capitols - but it is much worse in Washington, D.C. Obama continues to pack the federal bureaucracy, the federal courts, and even the Highest Court in our land with appointments who are open to the charge of being thought-out and thorough-going Leftists. He is doing incalculable damage to the American Experiment in ordered liberty that our Founding Fathers birthed in this alleged land of the free and home of the brave.
Obama, pro-life turncoats of both parties and even Republican stalwarts have demonstrated the futility of trusting in mere statutory or administration changes. Both are temporary at best. Neither offer the unborn or the presently born safe haven. King David advised us to trust not in princes.
To where does one retreat when the political floods threaten sweeping and potentially irreversible change? Americans have only one safe haven, politically speaking. It is the strength and vitality of our system of government that has held us together when most of the major democracies have fallen, - some over and over again. It is our system of constitutional republics. We are not just a nation of laws, we are a nation of organic laws. That is to say that our constitutions, state and federal, define our legal social order in a powerful fashion, a fashion that no mere statute or attorney general's opinion or even off-point supreme court decision can uproot.
Which brings me back to the topic at hand: My experience as a political dissident and social reformer move me to heartily endorse the "personhood" movement sweeping across the nation.
http://www.archangelinstitute.org/in-support-of-personhood-post-2/
In support of Personhood, post 2
(Cont'd from this post)
Which brings me back to the topic at hand: My experience as a political dissident and social reformer move me to heartily endorse the "personhood" movement sweeping across the nation.
Merely consider the great social reform movements of the past: The abolitionists did not rest until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed all equal rights regardless of color; the suffragettes did not rest until a series of constitutional amendments guaranteed women the right to vote and fully participate in the civil life of the nation; even those opposed to "demon rum" had the will to fight for a constitutional amendment enshrining their moralist aims. Shall we value the life of the unborn less than they valued an alcohol-free society?
By amending the organic documents that form the very bedrock of the American legal order to protect the unborn we place those little lives in the safest haven which we can reach this side of Eternity. By amending the organic documents that created what the Founders called "the laboratories of democracy" we bind the abortionists with the surest bonds available this side of Hell. By amending the organic documents in keeping with the high ideals of subsidiarity* we rebuke a federal system that is drunk of the blood of America's next generation and set up a case for review before the highest secular court this side of Heaven.
Add to all of those fine reasons this: By amending the organic documents that define our state governments we can derail Obama's socialist health care system. It may be, in fact, our last best hope - for such action would be a grassroots movement to alter the very foundational documents of statecraft.
Some will say the time is not right for such bold action. Martin Luther King, Jr. was told that as well. We join his reply: "The time is always right to do what is right."
Some will say such action is patently futile. Mother Teresa was told that as well. We join her reply: "I do not pray for success, I ask for faithfulness."
Some will say such action is far too disruptive. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a modern martyr) was told that as well. We join his reply that it is not enough to merely "bandage the victims under the wheel," we must also "jam the spoke in the wheel itself."
There are those here among us who claim that America and even Western Civilization itself is in the process of falling into the abyss. Many also claim that the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is at hand. Such is the Blessed Hope that all Christians are to share.
If that Hope is to be realized in this generation - or if we rather face the judgment of an Angry God - under either scenario we can envision few tasks to be found doing on that great Day of the Lord more important and pleasing to God than petitioning a renegade government for a redress of the grievances of the next generation. There is no greater redress under our system of government than a constitutional amendment.
A constitutional amendment was the end goal of the abolitionists, the suffragettes and the prohibitionists. Are the lives of the preborn important enough to you to add them to this pantheon of protected interests?
Planned Parenthood, the politicized leadership of the culture of death's bevy of agent provocateurs, and professional killers (abortionists) shriek "no!" And that should be reason enough to move forward in haste.
This statement has been approved by the ArchAngel Institute's Board of Directors.
Meetings to establish the Personhood Committee will began at the offices of the ArchAngel institute in June, 2010. Please contact the Institute if you are interested in working to promote Personhood on this Committee of the ArchAngel Institute.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2010 at 12:01 am and is filed under Personhood. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to "In support of Personhood, post 2"
1. Spidey Says:
July 13th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Thank you for your strong stand on personhood. If we aren't fighting for the personhood of the unborn, what are we really fighting for? Even if abortion were made illegal, the unborn could be killed through "medicinal" treatments or disregarded as embryonic tissue for research purposes. There is a slippery slope that quickly emerges when we fail to recognize the sanctity of life and the personhood of the unborn.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udWCWpn6VMw

reply from: speck

Bozo, remember the key of intent.
Perhaps a lack of voice by some towards CM have another avenue of jealousy.
As you stated, she does all of her work with no profit.
A man down to his last 5 dollars with no food in his fridge, buys a homeless man dinner.
A millionaire gives a homeless man 100.00.
Who made the bigger sacrifice?
People can point fingers at what they view as "armchair quarterbacks", however, in many instances, the same people who point, have made a lesser sacrifice and possibly gained. Money and other such greedy things.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhS9_R3Ucg

reply from: nancyu

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001841----000-.html
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

reply from: nancyu

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001841----000-.html
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html
There you go again saint cm, calling a fetus a "non person"
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=4411

reply from: Banned Member

Quick question, how do you know that's a him? It barely looks human.

reply from: Banned Member

Wrong again killer. It has always been just to defend innocent life from evil aggression.
Is that a fact? Then why are you pro-fetals out there being evil aggressors against innocent life?

reply from: Elessar

Is not every man and child, woman and boy, conceived, and yet to be conceived and now since long asleep in the earth your brother and sister in humanity? How would you defend them each and all of them?

reply from: nancyu

Is not every man and child, woman and boy, conceived, and yet to be conceived and now since long asleep in the earth your brother and sister in humanity? How would you defend them each and all of them?
With laws. The US Constitution defends all persons. I defend them by insisting that ALL human beings are persons. Defending them doesn't mean I will always be successful at protecting them, but I do my best to defend them, Augustina, by reminding everyone that abortion is NOT legal, because the unborn child IS a PERSON.
What do you do? Besides stalk people, I mean.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/a-martyr-for-kenya/

reply from: nancyu

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5yu4Tpn6BI

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ignoreroe.com/
Roe who?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.banabortionnow.com/


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