Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

[Lursa]

Someone has the people convinced of the most amazing things.

We are going to kill the elderly! Women all over the country are aborting their babies the day before the due date! It's anarchy!

I know. And the hypocrisy is mind boggling as well.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

Having a choice within a reasonable time frame or under certain conditions is one thing. Having unlimited choice is another.

Why? No such elective abortions take place.

Do we need laws that say it's illegal to ride unicorns when no unicorns exist? :roll:

If you disagree, show the data on how many occur.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[veritas1]

50 years since roe.



When do you predict these things will happen?


Trump wants a wall. Soon there will be giant walls around every town!!!!!

Are you really this obtuse? Nobody was remotely considering extreme late term abortions or even post birth "abortions" until recently. That anyone could seriously discuss them as Governor Klanrobes of VA did, shows a moral decline that can only lead to atrocities if not reversed. If we can kill fully formed and viable babies, why not others?

 

[vegas giants]

Are you really this obtuse? Nobody was remotely considering extreme late term abortions or even post birth "abortions" until recently. That anyone could seriously discuss them as Governor Klanrobes of VA did, shows a moral decline that can only lead to atrocities if not reversed. If we can kill fully formed and viable babies, why not others?

Fake news,dude

 

[veritas1]

Why? No such elective abortions take place.

Do we need laws that say it's illegal to ride unicorns when no unicorns exist? :roll:

If you disagree, show the data on how many occur.

Can a state lawfully forbid such abortions under Roe? If so, how? A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right, is it not? That something isn't happening hardly precludes it from happening. Germans weren't gassing Jews until they were. That slippery slope was real. Are we so different that we can't become callous to life we deem an inconvenience?

 

[vegas giants]

Can a state lawfully forbid such abortions under Roe? If so, how? A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right, is it not? That something isn't happening hardly precludes it from happening. Germans weren't gassing Jews until they were. That slippery slope was real. Are we so different that we can't become callous to life we deem an inconvenience?

50 years dude. It's not happening

 

[veritas1]

Fake news,dude

Oooookkkkay......back to your crayons.

 

[veritas1]

50 years dude. It's not happening

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Lursa]

Can a state lawfully forbid such abortions under Roe? If so, how? A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right, is it not? That something isn't happening hardly precludes it from happening. Germans weren't gassing Jews until they were. That slippery slope was real. Are we so different that we can't become callous to life we deem an inconvenience?

Who cares? They dont happen.

OTOH, yes, a state can make laws restricting elective abortion in the 3rd trimester. But not all states have such a law.

It doesnt really matter tho, since NO such elective abortions occur.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[vegas giants]

I wasn't talking to you.

I dont care

 

[vegas giants]

Oooookkkkay......back to your crayons.

Your claims are dismissed for lack of evidence

 

[Lisa]

1. So what? We're talking about the United States and the US Constitution, what it covers and what it leaves to the states.

2. Again, so what? That doesn't change the point made above.

3. The case has already been made that the state has a compelling interest to protect life. They do this constantly with laws, law enforcement, the justice system and the penal system. The ONLY difference between the people benefiting from these laws and those getting no protection is whether they have been born. Yet, they are ALL human beings, with brains, beating hearts and human DNA. If we make a claim that humans born have a greater right, or an exclusive right, under the Constitution or law generally that unborn humans do not possess, then it must be shown why this is true and what fundamental difference exists between these two classes of human beings to compel us to this conclusion. Either both deserve the protection of the state or neither does.

4. The 4th amendment is very specific. Any use of it to argue that an inherent right exists to kill off the unborn, is legalistic contortion used to reach a desired result.

5. The right to believe or not believe is tangential to the abortion argument. One can make a strong argument against unfettered abortion with no reference to religion whatever.

A fetus is not yet alive until it can survive outside of the uterus and do so without heroic medical intervention. That is why there is a limit on elective abortion is currently at 22-24 weeks +/- because at that point the fetus becomes viable.

You cannot kill what isn't alive, despite what you claim that the bible says. Jesus was not anti-abortion.

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Mark 13:17


But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

Your opinions on abortion only apply to you and cannot be forced on others. If you dont liker abortion then dont have one but you cannot and do not have the right to make the medical decisions for other people, who are alive and in independent people. I'll give a Fig Newton what a man think about abortion when they are in labor and 10cm dilated.

 

[ataraxia]

Army and Navy are still military.

Sure. And clearly the Air Force is unconstitutional, right?

You want an Air Force? Pass an amendment. I can’t just play fast and loose with the constitution like that. It starts with things like the Air Force, and that becomes the slippery slope on which activist liberal judges can ban nuclear arms for private citizens and legalize same-sex marriage.

 

[Lursa]

A fetus is not yet alive until it can survive outside of the uterus and do so without heroic medical intervention. That is why there is a limit on elective abortion is currently at 22-24 weeks +/- because at that point the fetus becomes viable.

You cannot kill what isn't alive, despite what you claim that the bible says. Jesus was not anti-abortion.

Well the unborn at any stage is alive. If it dies, then the woman has a miscarriage. It's not viable tho, as you pointed out. It's wholly dependent on the woman.

I think this scripture is especially relevant to this issue, since it shows how little the Lord values the unborn.

Psalms 58:8 "Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."​

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[tres borrachos]

Are you really this obtuse? Nobody was remotely considering extreme late term abortions or even post birth "abortions" until recently. That anyone could seriously discuss them as Governor Klanrobes of VA did, shows a moral decline that can only lead to atrocities if not reversed. If we can kill fully formed and viable babies, why not others?

Please tell us where these women all are who sit around pregnant for 40 weeks and then decide the day before their due dates that they want to terminate the pregnancy and have the baby be born dead.

 

[Lisa]

I always find it curious when people deny any connection to the founding of the United States, the founding fathers and the Constitution to organized Christian religion and its influence.

Jefferson, Madison and Adams had very clear words on this subject, that your biased source ignores.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

—John Adams

Notes from the state of Virginia, by Jefferson,

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. ... Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.

Something else from Jefferson,

For Jefferson, an Enlightenment rationalist, reason had to govern in all areas, including religion. “For the use of … reason… every one is responsible to the God who has planted it in his breast, as a light for his guidance, and that, by which alone he will be judged,” Jefferson explained.2 His declaration to Benjamin Rush that “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” was made in the context of religious freedom: any government effort to control religious beliefs was “tyranny over the mind of man.”

and again,

Beating back the effort to impose religious taxes in a sometimes bitter legislative battle, the triumphant Madison was able to have Jefferson’s Statute adopted, one of the great successes of Jefferson’s life. Jefferson reported triumphantly that the legislative effort to insert “Jesus Christ” in the preamble to the Virginia Statute was defeated, establishing that religious freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

You need to read and understand James Madison's essay Memorial and Remonstrance on Religious Assessments. Madison would have opposed tax exempt status for religious because it is a state support of religion because of that tax break.
Memorial and Remonstrance - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Lursa]

Please tell us where these women all are who sit around pregnant for 40 weeks and then decide the day before their due dates that they want to terminate the pregnancy and have the baby be born dead.

I know, it's ridiculous.

At that point, abortion is actually more painful and more dangerous than childbirth. And so then why not just give birth and make a cool $20,000 for a private adoption?

I mean...does it make sense to have an abortion then? No. And no one does, unless there's a medical reason at that point.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[tres borrachos]

I know, it's ridiculous.

At that point, abortion is actually more painful and more dangerous than childbirth. And so then why not just give birth and make a cool $20,000 for a private adoption?

I mean...does it make sense to have an abortion then? No. And no one does, unless there's a medical reason at that point.

As a woman with three children, I know damn well the last thing I would be thinking about on 39 weeks and 6 days is "well this has been fun but let's abort - yeeha!". And to your point, at that conjecture a woman would say (who didn't want it) "Let's get this baby out of me and put it up for adoption stat". They would not under any circumstances want an abortion.

I want to know what idiot is feeding these people these kinds of ridiculous notions. Is it someone like that scuzball Jerry Falwell?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!

Where does it say “AR-15?”

 

[Lisa]

Re: Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

Reading the likes of Zinn and similar people shows you KNOW NOTHING of the Founding Fathers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you support that claim? Why did my college US History classes use Howard Zinn's book as one of the two textbooks if it is so poor?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Well the unborn at any stage is alive. If it dies, then the woman has a miscarriage. It's not viable tho, as you pointed out. It's wholly dependent on the woman.

I think this scripture is especially relevant to this issue, since it shows how little the Lord values the unborn.

Psalms 58:8 "Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."​

The scripture is not relevant to anything related to our constitution.

 

[Lursa]

As a woman with three children, I know damn well the last thing I would be thinking about on 39 weeks and 6 days is "well this has been fun but let's abort - yeeha!". And to your point, at that conjecture a woman would say (who didn't want it) "Let's get this baby out of me and put it up for adoption stat". They would not under any circumstances want an abortion.

I want to know what idiot is feeding these people these kinds of ridiculous notions. Is it someone like that scuzball Jerry Falwell?

They believe what they want to believe. Most will still tell you that an abortion "tears a baby apart screaming in pain." That's false, so wrong.

97.5% of all abortions take place early, the raspberry-sized or smaller unborn is flushed painlessly from the womb. In later, medically-necessary abortions, lethal/anesthetic injection is required by law. There's no pain or awareness. And if disememberment is necessary, it's already dead. The purpose of that is to save the mother from more pain and internal damage.

I often wonder why pro-lifers object to that so much? They cant control their emotions enough to stop visualizing it and realize it's safer for the woman? Not only that, such a late term abortion would have been a WANTED pregnancy, now sadly ended due to medical reasons (mother or fetus). That woman/couple would be grieving as well.

Many of the pro-life people in these threads have seen this, sourced and linked, many times and still continue to either lie about it or refuse to believe it.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

The scripture is not relevant to anything related to our constitution.

It was relevant to her post.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[tres borrachos]

They believe what they want to believe. Most will still tell you that an abortion "tears a baby apart screaming in pain." That's false, so wrong.

97.5% of all abortions take place early, the raspberry-sized or smaller unborn is flushed painlessly from the womb. In later, medically-necessary abortions, lethal/anesthetic injection is required by law. There's no pain or awareness. And if disememberment is necessary, it's already dead. The purpose of that is to save the mother from more pain and internal damage.

I often wonder why pro-lifers object to that so much? They cant control their emotions enough to stop visualizing it and realize it's safer for the woman? Not only that, such a late term abortion would have been a WANTED pregnancy, now sadly ended due to medical reasons (mother or fetus). That woman/couple would be grieving as well.

They are being fed propaganda. And they don't give a **** about some unborn baby anyway.

These are the same people who want more guns after 20 First Graders were ripped to shreds hiding behind their toilet in the bathroom of their classroom at Sandy Hook.

I'm so sick of their bull**** and lies.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It was relevant to her post.

So is her voice. Sit down.