TheBaldMan
New member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
I think you need to learn a little bit more about law and government in the USA. The President does not have the legal right to make abortion illegal, ever. What you're suggesting is a dictatorship...TheBaldMan said:Let us suppose that President Bush made abortion illegal tomorrow. What would that do? What would happen?
Sorry, can't happen that way either. There aren't any Federal laws against abortion, nor would one ever pass.TheBaldMan said:Ok, change that to “Bush asks Congress to support legislation that outlaws abortion.” Satisfied?
TheBaldMan said:What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001? Try Democrat endorsed policy. Abortion killed more unborn black children in 2001 than the top 15 causes of death for blacks. Abortion ended more black lives than heart disease, cancer, and all homicides. 287,709 blacks died in America in 2001 while 312,375 unborn blacks were aborted. For every black person that passed away in 2001, one unborn black child was aborted.
Click Here for 2001 Black Death Rates
Click Here for 2001 Black Abortion Rates
Carnell Knowledge
TheBaldMan said:Scientist, not Right-Wing Christians, say that life begins at conception.
_________________________________________________________
Conception (BABY) noun
The process of a sperm and an egg joining and causing a baby to start to form:
at/from the moment of conception.
_________________________________________________________
TheBaldMan said:...causing a baby to start to form:
TheBaldMan said:I guess baby doesn't count?
TheBaldMan said:You can parse words all you want. Scientists, even Liberal Scientists, believe life begins at conception. This has never been disputed.
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]
It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.
TheBaldMan said:"Virtually every secular medical book and even a senate hearing declare human life begins the instant of conception."
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/article.htm
TheBaldMan said:If life does not begin at conception then why was Scott Peterson charged for two murders?
No one would deny that Laci Peterson was a person under the law. But what about the unborn child/baby/fetus/product of conception she was carrying? In order to make the "special circumstances" part of the law stick and allow the state to seek the death penalty under its provision, that entity Laci Peterson was carrying would have to be deemed a "person" under the same legal definition that applies to her.
It is here that the dictionary and the law part company. The dictionary defines a "person" as "a human being; individual." But the Supreme Court has rewritten that to assign personhood (and thus the law's protection) only after the redefined baby is born and takes its first breath.
From the statements of family members, Laci Peterson wanted her baby, but her desire did not confer personhood on the child, according to court rulings. A woman can legally kill her baby until the child's body has fully emerged from her body. But if Laci Peterson wanted her baby, can the law be on her side and impose the ultimate penalty on the one who illegally took that child's life? The answer to that question will make this trial compelling beyond whatever other facts emerge.
If Scott Peterson is convicted of double murder and sentenced to die, that will mean a California court will have determined that the second victim in this case was, in fact, a person before the law.
TheBaldMan said:What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001? Try Democrat endorsed policy. Abortion killed more unborn black children in 2001 than the top 15 causes of death for blacks. Abortion ended more black lives than heart disease, cancer, and all homicides. 287,709 blacks died in America in 2001 while 312,375 unborn blacks were aborted. For every black person that passed away in 2001, one unborn black child was aborted.
no, they're just trying to convince themselves that we're somehow hypocritical in pushing for equal rights, but not disallowing black women from getting abortions. I don't get it, but I don't get most of their logic either.zerochik said:So are you saying this is some sort of conspiracy against black people? I think the numbers are so high because they happen to be the responsible ones and get the abortion rather then put their kid on the street or go on welfare.
galenrox said:no, they're just trying to convince themselves that we're somehow hypocritical in pushing for equal rights, but not disallowing black women from getting abortions. I don't get it, but I don't get most of their logic either.
that's how it goes, you always just kind of get where they're trying to go with it, but then it's like, "Are they dead serious? Do they actually think this **** makes sense?"zerochik said:aw, ok. now things make sense, sort of :think:
galenrox said:that's how it goes, you always just kind of get where they're trying to go with it, but then it's like, "Are they dead serious? Do they actually think this **** makes sense?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?