Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Tootie

(SNIP)

It doesn't say anything about people visiting here or pre-born. They do not have the same protections that are given to citizens of the USA.

Just for fun, let's re-read the liberty clause of the 14th again -

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No citizenship requirement there.

What it ultimately comes down to is the definition of "person" - and where human life begins.

[Tootie]

Originally Posted by kunsunoke

Just for fun, let's re-read the liberty clause of the 14th again -



No citizenship requirement there.

What it ultimately comes down to is the definition of "person" - and where human life begins.

Nope, wrong. You can not take a piece of a clause and not use whom it is stated for.

You can't have any person without first reading "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". That statement includes only those 2 specific groups. So it doesn't matter when human life begins, the only thing that matters is if that person has been born yet.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Roland of Gilead

Here's what gets glossed over: It's not simply a couple people boinking one night and zip, there's a baby. There's a 3rd party involved, and He gets to create the part that's a pretty essential component of a human being.

I don't disagree with you, but I also don't think you can write a law that is asking God to make a decision as to the outcome. It's forcing your belief system on another. I can accept you being pro-life (I am also a proponent for life), but neither you nor I can enforce our morals or beliefs on others. I am just trying to find a way to respect the sanctity of our rights.

I also think that once a child is viable to live outside the womb abortions should not be an option except in very rare cases with extenuationg circumstances.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Tootie

Nope, wrong. You can not take a piece of a clause and not use whom it is stated for.

Just to reiterate -

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key word there was "any". Note that the word in question was not "those". What that means is that even non-citizens are protected by the liberty clause.

Even were that not the case - Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was written for the express purpose of upholding the citizenship of African Americans who had at one point been considered property.

What do you suppose the framers of that amendment (having just fought a war to end slavery) would have thought about modern-day activist judges using it to uphold a practice that denies the inalienable right to life?

Keep in mind that back in those days conception was the legal standard for where human life began.

You can't have any person without first reading "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". That statement includes only those 2 specific groups.

Really? When did become okay for us to violate non-citizens' due process rights, outside of warfare?

So it doesn't matter when human life begins, the only thing that matters is if that person has been born yet.

With Roe v. Wade we got lines of demarcation - and those lines weren't established at birth. The current ban on partial birth abortion was also upheld. So apparently birth is not the only thing that matters - at least not to the law.

So we return, like the swallows to Capistrano, to the essential questions.

Where does life begin?

And what in the US Constitution specifically guarantees a right to abortion?

[RandomTask]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

So, by the standards of the pro-lifers' "Brady Bunch", the so-called human life that may be formed at conception is more the property of, and choice to be furthered by, their moral high-ground than those who create it?
...I'll tell you how to avoid pathetically raising your "non-aborts":

1) No home-schooling. You're raising fools who'll look to mommy and daddy when they can't hack it.
... homeschoolers make terrible employees. They always wanna quit and get a hug.

As a homeschooling pro-life atheist, I have to disagree.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by unloved

It's not so bad. It's almost exactly like where you go if we do find moral unity with you. It's just that the Beer in the Volcano is flat, and the Stripper Factory builds in VD.

I don't know why. This the above was my favorite piece of this thread. lol

Originally Posted by ••SpraynPray••

ABorT AbOrt! ABOOOOrt!

Planned parent hood is operating under the claus of Population control!

Must stop LOW IQ babbies from being born, must bring balance into the world!


But Its got electrolytes!

Idiocracy is a great B movie.

Originally Posted by Roland of Gilead

Here's what gets glossed over: It's not simply a couple people boinking one night and zip, there's a baby. There's a 3rd party involved, and He gets to create the part that's a pretty essential component of a human being.




Hmm . . .

That gets even murkier if you incorporate any type of god-construct into the debate. You either have to presuppose that your god is everyone's god/religion or that it doesn't matter what others may believe because their not the "chosen ones" yaddayaddayadda... Which is a strange exclusivity that gets subversively built into religion in peoples' minds.

And yes... I really don't care that much about anything. But, I enjoy the good debates that are had on this and other subjects. Isn't that what we're here for? Or is it to just quash all of those who have different opinions and label them as evil as we have one huge head-nodding OC party?

Originally Posted by RandomTask

As a homeschooling pro-life atheist, I have to disagree.

I'm a born-again atheistic-agnostic, I think... I appreciate our opportunity to respectfully disagree. I'm sure you're a decent guy...

So, before we jump too far into the same old grooves... There's an on-topic facet to this that jumps out at me. I find that the fact the the Planned Parenthood director just one day figured out her objection to the company's commodity and jumped ship whimsically suspect. I mean, did she not know what she was getting into? I doubt that. It's liek the McDonald's execs who are amazed that their food is killing people... "What!? We sell hamburgers?? I quit."

Maybe there's other motivation here ($$) or some underlying disagreement that isn't as interesting of a headline. Or, it could speak volumes to the mismanagement of Planned Parenthood because they're hiring flakes into directorship positions...

They have been in the news in the past for other Busch moves like employees taped telling a 15yr old to lie about her boyfriend's age or something I recall.

[Spishack357]

Woman wants to abort her own baby?, I say the "doctor" should make that bitch cut the arms and legs off her own baby...bet that would cut down on the number of baby murders in this Country...

[MichaelJ]

Conflicting science, moral, religious and social ideology is a stack of Jenga blocks that I'm not willing to try to topple.

Therefore my stance on abortion is, it's not even a consideration when it comes to my future progeny. True to my conservative ideals, that subject will be hashed out before the implied contract of sex happens.

What other people do is their business. I can live with my choices because I believe in them, I assume they can do the same.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by Tootie

Nope, wrong. You can not take a piece of a clause and not use whom it is stated for.

You can't have any person without first reading "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". That statement includes only those 2 specific groups. So it doesn't matter when human life begins, the only thing that matters is if that person has been born yet.

That makes no sense.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US. The text defines who are US citizens. The unborn are therefore not US citizens because they have not been born or naturalized in the US. It does not mean that non-US citizens (including but not limited to the unborn) are not persons.

The amendment uses "citizen" and "person" deliberately. It says no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It further enumerates certain rights that cannot be taken away from any person without due process.

[Joe Smith]

I love abortion debates. The answer is so simple you will slap your mama.







If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one!
Just give everyone else the right to chose for themselves.



As for the topic of the video, medical procedures are not always cute. I have seen the insides of people, sometimes it's gross. Some people can't look at blood, others could watch an autopsy while eating a snickers. everyone is different. If this person does not like looking at the procedure, don't watch it.