| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2007 09:29:02 AM |
| Object: |
Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 11:18:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 01:26:37 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 02:01:08 PM |
|
|
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 02:17:10 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7lo1k$7gh$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Osprey"
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/TJOF3MKNQV4JP090I
please note the the The Alan Guttmacher Institute, supports planned
parenthood. Alan Guttmacker is the former president of planned parenthood.
Why do women have abortions?
74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other
responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship
problems with husband or partner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
There you go...and if you notice, the majority of the time...it's matters of
convenience and not for medical reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 03:36:05 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7lo1k$7gh$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Osprey"
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/TJOF3MKNQV4JP090I
please note the the The Alan Guttmacher Institute, supports planned
parenthood. Alan Guttmacker is the former president of planned parenthood.
Why do women have abortions?
74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other
responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship
problems with husband or partner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
There you go...and if you notice, the majority of the time...it's matters of
convenience and not for medical reasons.
Um, the topic was *late term* abortions, and my question to Ken was
why he could possibly imagine a woman would go through all that
pregnancy demands of them and their bodies, only to have an abortion
at the last moment after all the sacrifice. And I suggested
that medical reasons seemed like the most obvious answer for
_late term_ abortions.
The figures you point to are for abortions in general, and not
for the extremely small percent of abortions that fall into
this singular category. I strongly suspect that the reasons
for late term abortion are quite different from those for
an abortion at, say, seven weeks.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 04:16:23 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7ltjl$nkp$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7lo1k$7gh$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Osprey"
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal
under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't
be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of
their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or
to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort,
is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to
say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying
the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/TJOF3MKNQV4JP090I
please note the the The Alan Guttmacher Institute, supports planned
parenthood. Alan Guttmacker is the former president of planned
parenthood.
Why do women have abortions?
74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other
responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship
problems with husband or partner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
There you go...and if you notice, the majority of the time...it's matters
of
convenience and not for medical reasons.
Um, the topic was *late term* abortions, and my question to Ken was
why he could possibly imagine a woman would go through all that
pregnancy demands of them and their bodies, only to have an abortion
at the last moment after all the sacrifice. And I suggested
that medical reasons seemed like the most obvious answer for
_late term_ abortions.
For late term abortions, yes..I will agree with you and I support exceptions
being made that allow women to abort during the late term if there is a
medical reason.
Some people in here, seem to support the idea that a woman should be able to
freely choose to abort at a late term for any reason..even if she just
suddenly changed her mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 03:37:15 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/TJOF3MKNQV4JP090I
please note the the The Alan Guttmacher Institute, supports planned
parenthood. Alan Guttmacker is the former president of planned parenthood.
Why do women have abortions?
74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other
responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship
problems with husband or partner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
There you go...and if you notice, the majority of the time...it's matters of
convenience and not for medical reasons.
Noting that those three figures add up to more than 100% it becomes
obvious that those who answered were able to check as many as they
wished. There is no indication in such a questionaire as to what
reason is the PRIMARY reason that they want an abortion. All that
proves is which reasons are applicable to more people.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "goodspeed, stan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 02:19:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:17:10 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7lo1k$7gh$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Osprey"
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Interesting. Got a couple of cites?
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/TJOF3MKNQV4JP090I
please note the the The Alan Guttmacher Institute, supports planned
parenthood. Alan Guttmacker is the former president of planned parenthood.
Why do women have abortions?
74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other
responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship
problems with husband or partner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
There you go...and if you notice, the majority of the time...it's matters of
convenience and not for medical reasons.
How do you know anything?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 01:29:10 PM |
|
|
In article <3-mdnYcgosbAxgPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems.
cite any such credible studies.
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.0307090126.4a25ab87@posting.google.com:
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
i predict you will run away again.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Goodspeed" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 02:43:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:26:37 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems.
http://women.webmd.com/tc/Abortion-Reasons-Women-Choose-Abortion
Nothing about selfishness in there.
That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
The preservation of mental and emotional health is a damned good
reason; ll of which you listed fall under _that_ category.
Top three reasons:
No -- they are among the _other_ reasons as to why women make the
abortion choice.
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Since when are these a matter of (selfish) convenience for the mother?
Should she inconvenient herself, her children and future children by
making a selfish choice of giving birth and raising an additional
child, if she knows she can't manage it somehow?
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 02:50:01 PM |
|
|
Stan Goodspeed wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:26:37 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems.
http://women.webmd.com/tc/Abortion-Reasons-Women-Choose-Abortion
Nothing about selfishness in there.
That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
The preservation of mental and emotional health is a damned good
reason; ll of which you listed fall under _that_ category.
Top three reasons:
No -- they are among the _other_ reasons as to why women make the
abortion choice.
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Since when are these a matter of (selfish) convenience for the mother?
Should she inconvenient herself, her children and future children by
making a selfish choice of giving birth and raising an additional
child, if she knows she can't manage it somehow?
Osprey thinks so. He thinks that 'convenience' covers
everything up to and including wanting to avoid
malnutrition or bankruptcy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stan goodspeed" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 06:23:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:26:37 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
Or so that the Mrs. Heishman-to-be could marry the loser heishman!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 10:41:02 PM |
|
|
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Obviously you were lying before.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 10:58:01 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469edd4e$0$14146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Actually, they are..but you're so obtuse and deliberately stupid you refuse
to admit the truth.
If she can't afford to raise a child and she gets pregnant, would it be
inconvenient for her to have the child?
Answer: yes
That settles the first reason...Convenience
If she is in school and having a child would prohibit or slow her down from
completing her goals, would it be inconvenient for her to have the child?
Answer: yes
That settles the second reason...Convenience
If she doesn't want to be a parent, would having the child be inconvenient
for her?
Answer: yes
That settles the third reason...Convenience
And it also settles the fact that you're just deliberately stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S.G." |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 06:07:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:58:01 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469edd4e$0$14146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Actually, they are..but you're so obtuse and deliberately stupid you refuse
to admit the truth.
"Late term" abortions are performed when there's eminent danger to the
pregnant woman's health/life.
None of the reasons which you have listed have anything to do with
medical-necerssary abortions (mislabeled "Partial-Birth Abortions).
If you wish to discuss the possible, common reasons why a woman may
choose an first term abortion, please let me know -- I
may have some insight to the matter that you have "conveniently"
over-looked.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 01:14:08 AM |
|
|
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469edd4e$0$14146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Actually, they are..
None say anything about convenience, *****.
You're lying again.
If she can't afford to raise a child and she gets pregnant, would it be
inconvenient for her to have the child?
If she gets sick and needs to abort or die, would it be inconvenient
for her to die?
Answer: yes
Stupid *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 08:08:39 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469f0130$0$14060$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469edd4e$0$14146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of
their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort,
is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to
say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Actually, they are..
None say anything about convenience, *****.
You're lying again.
Gee, looks like Fisher needs to be told what the term convenience means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convenience
1. the quality of being convenient; suitability.
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort,
etc., as an appliance, utensil, or the like.
3. a convenient situation or time: at your convenience.
If she can't afford to raise a child and she gets pregnant, would it be
inconvenient for her to have the child?
If she gets sick and needs to abort or die, would it be inconvenient
for her to die?
That's medical and if you were smart enough to have read the cites I
provided, you would have seen medical reasoning is not one of the main
reasons women get abortions.
Answer: yes
Stupid *****.
Says the one who doesn't know what convenience means and couldn't read the
cites.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 11:40:03 AM |
|
|
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469f0130$0$14060$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:469edd4e$0$14146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f7legn$rc2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Wide
Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of
their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort,
is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems. That isn't to
say
that some women don't abort for medical problems, I'm simply saying the
main
reasons are matters of convenience.
Top three reasons:
Can't afford to raise a child
Doesn't want to have to quit school or other goals to support a child
Doesn't want to be a parent.
None of which are "convenience".
Actually, they are..
None say anything about convenience, *****.
You're lying again.
Gee, looks like Fisher needs to be told what the term convenience means.
You're not that smart, *****.
If she can't afford to raise a child and she gets pregnant, would it be
inconvenient for her to have the child?
If she gets sick and needs to abort or die, would it be inconvenient
for her to die?
That's medical and if you were smart enough to have read the cites I
You're not answering the question, dumbshit.
Answer: yes
Stupid *****.
Says the one who doesn't know what convenience means
You're lying again, *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 10:40:01 PM |
|
|
Osprey <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
There are studies that do show the primary reason most women do abort, is
for matters of "convenience" and not medical problems.
***** heishman is lying, as usual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
18 Jul 2007 11:32:47 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1184768942.964772.318220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
-- cary
Nah. Didn't you know that since there is no medical
exception for some procedures, that means that there
wouldn't ever be a medical need for them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 09:00:59 AM |
|
|
On Jul 18, 11:18 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1184768942.964772.318...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
-- cary
Speaking of the effects on the mother. Did you know that women that
get abortions continue to have the effects of the pregnancy coming to
term upon them? The baby is gone, but the body expects there to be a
birth. The mother is robbed of her motherhood and baby.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 11:07:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1184853659.857358.63100@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jul 18, 11:18 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1184768942.964772.318...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
-- cary
Speaking of the effects on the mother.
Instead of addressing my point...
Did you know that women that
get abortions continue to have the effects of the pregnancy coming to
term upon them? The baby is gone, but the body expects there to be a
birth. The mother is robbed of her motherhood and baby.
Care to put that into specific terms?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
19 Jul 2007 12:52:11 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:18 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1184768942.964772.318...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
"for convenience", eh?
Tell us, Ken, why would a woman choose to go through
nine months extreme weight gain, edema, hormonal swings,
fatigue, joint problems and all the other discomforts
of pregnancy -- only after having endured all this,
then decide an abortion is needed? Because they
fear the babies eyes might not match the new
drapes? For "convenience"? To be an "obect of lust"?
Think that actual medical problems might be the
answer instead?
-- cary
Speaking of the effects on the mother. Did you know that women that
get abortions continue to have the effects of the pregnancy coming to
term upon them? The baby is gone, but the body expects there to be a
birth. The mother is robbed of her motherhood and baby.
She isn't "robbed". She CHOSE. That is the whole point - that she
has the RIGHT to choose what to do with (and to) her own body. Not
YOU.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
20 Jul 2007 08:02:01 PM |
|
|
On Jul 18, 8:29 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's only a first step, but the Supreme Court just ruled to take us
back to Roe V Wade and make late term abortion illegal (illegal under
that decision, also). So, babies that are viable and aware won't be
killed (denied their right to life) and women won't be robbed of their
joy of being a mother for convenience, to be an object of lust, or to
avoid destruction to their social strata.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The problem is that since the federal Constitution has not one word
about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves the power to
address abortion issues uniquely to the state governments, power now
limited by the 14th A.. The fact that the Supreme Court took on Roe
v. Wade is no more than an example of the Supreme Court unlawfully
usurping state legislative powers.
Also, regardless that the 10th A.-ignoring Supreme Court found
abortion rights in the 9th A. in Roe v. Wade, the Court should
likewise have found the rights of the unborn child in the 9th A..
After all, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence (DoI)
that "all men are CREATED equal," (emphasis added) not that all men
are BORN equal. And since the Supreme Court had no problems forcing
Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter into the
establishment clause, then the Court surely should have found
Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the DoI in the 9th A.
with abortion rights.
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
20 Jul 2007 09:34:28 PM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
21 Jul 2007 03:12:06 AM |
|
|
On Jul 20, 8:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
--
Ray Fischer
I'm not interested in hearing about the Supreme Court's perversions of
the religious aspects of the 14th A., if that's what you are referring
to.
The truth of the matter is that John Bingham, the main author of the
14th A., clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th
A., that the 14th A. was not intented to take away any state powers
regardless what renegade Supreme Court justices have misled everybody
to believe. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no
rights that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the
Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
"No right reserved by the Constitution to the States should be
impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the
rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of
government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham,
Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
21 Jul 2007 12:46:12 PM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
I'm not interested in hearing about the Supreme Court's perversions of
the religious aspects of the 14th A., if that's what you are referring
to.
We're not interested in the perversions of the US Constitution that
you use to justify your need to subjugate women.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
21 Jul 2007 02:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Jul 21, 11:46 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
I'm not interested in hearing about the Supreme Court's perversions of
the religious aspects of the 14th A., if that's what you are referring
to.
We're not interested in the perversions of the US Constitution that
you use to justify your need to subjugate women.
--
Ray Fischer
Surely that's not your best reply to John Bingham's statements that
the 14th A. was not intended to take away any powers of the states, is
it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
21 Jul 2007 04:53:34 PM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:46 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
I'm not interested in hearing about the Supreme Court's perversions of
the religious aspects of the 14th A., if that's what you are referring
to.
We're not interested in the perversions of the US Constitution that
you use to justify your need to subjugate women.
Surely that's not your best reply to John Bingham's statements that
the 14th A. was not intended to take away any powers of the states, is
His opinion counts for almost nothing. The country is not a
dictatorship, and he didn't impose the 14th amendment. The only thing
that counts is what the amendment actually says, and it says that the
states MAY NOT violate the rights of people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court Rules against abortion murder! |
23 Jul 2007 11:11:12 AM |
|
|
On Jul 21, 3:53 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:46 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
fred <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, just as the Supreme Court regarded keeping its nose out of
state affairs as more important than intervening in the Terri Schiavo
case to keep Terri alive, the Supreme Court should likewise have kept
its nose out of 10th A. protected state affairs concerning abortion
issues.
That issue was settled by the Civil War and your side lost. States
are NOT given the power to violate the rights of people.
I'm not interested in hearing about the Supreme Court's perversions of
the religious aspects of the 14th A., if that's what you are referring
to.
We're not interested in the perversions of the US Constitution that
you use to justify your need to subjugate women.
Surely that's not your best reply to John Bingham's statements that
the 14th A. was not intended to take away any powers of the states, is
His opinion counts for almost nothing. The country is not a
dictatorship, and he didn't impose the 14th amendment. The only thing
that counts is what the amendment actually says, and it says that the
states MAY NOT violate the rights of people.
--
Ray Fischer
Again, John Bingham was the main author of the 14th A. and knew the
scope of its power better than anybody.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
