Unborn rights until birth...after that, off the radar
Posted By: And left to fend for their own. Nice. on 2008-08-22
In Reply to: Who knows...if we who believe that the unborn child... - sam
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Repeat: Unborn rights from conception to birth. nm
nm
They may be off your radar, not mine...
nm
I wonder what an unborn
baby does to make people dislike them? Oh yeah, they are an inconvenience. I guess that's reason enough. Babies are killed in facilities which represent healing, curing, life-giving such as hospitals and clinics. How much more terrible is that?
Who knows...if we who believe that the unborn child...
has as much right to life as you, your husband and your children (good thing for them you did not want an abortion I guess or they would not exist, we will continue to speak for them. And maybe, someday, the right person will hear, and we as a country can stop the slaughter of innocents to the tune of 1.2 million a year. While you are okay with that on the basis of your choice, we are not. And nothing you can say or do will ever change that either.
unborn versus born
I do not think they would choose their life over a child that was already born, but I do think many would choose (and do choose) their own life over an unborn child's life. And by life I don't necessarily mean a medical condition. If my daughter were a teenager (she is not quite there yet) and she was pregnant, and she chose abortion, her father and I would certainly support that choice versus her giving up a promising future to raise an unwanted child, especially at such a young age.
I know others would not choose that, but many do everyday. Certainly, I think men and women should choose birth control, abstinence, etc., but birth control fails, mistakes happen, rape happens, incest happens, and I don't feel anyone should have to give birth if they don't want to or aren't prepared for the responsibility of parenting.
Many women chose to give their babies up for adoption, and that is a wonderful choice for them. However, not the best choice for everyone. I want everyone to be able to have that choice.
Geez.....all that because I would like to stop the slaughter of the unborn....
and there is not a bit of that in you pile-on, ranting, screaming, judgmental zealots with poisonous, nauseating, self-important dreck for beliefs (mostly your words, I substituted one). Yep, persecution complex seems to have attacked you all en masse. Only it is not the world, it is one little poster named sam who you think is against YOU. Not you, come out of persecution palace. It is the act of abortion I am against. Way to personalize there in persecution palace. This more describes you, the pile on and try to silence the pro-lifer group. Which is exactly what makes people reject YOUR beliefs and ideology.
Obama killing EVERY unborn child now?
Man I guess I missed that. Obama causes end to human race. We better get to work on that stem cell research and cloning and stuff or there will be no one around to complain.
Murdering unborn children IS MY BUSINESS!!
If you really believe every murdered unborn child is because there were medical necessities, you really are living in la-la land!
I have had friends who have gone through being told after testing their babies were deformed, wouldn't live after birth, would have horrible deformities, etc., and out of 4 friends who have been told this, only ONE child truly had problems. That didn't stop them from having their child. They never thought about NOT having their child....after all, it was THEIR child!
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
We KILL violent criminals; apparently some think unborn children are the
criminals as they are murdered as well.
Sad.
I will not stop trying to stop the slaughter of the unborn in this country...
I never said you were a stupid wretch. What I said was, if you can watch that video below and not feel something, your heart must be seared over. If you can watch that video and advocate what you advocate, yes, I'm sorry, I find that cold. I am entitled to my opinion and all your ranting and name calling and belitting is not going to change that. Someone needs to speak for the child. You certainly aren't allowing it any rights, including the right to live. You are okay with that, I'm not.
Rights
And I have a right to protect myself, my beliefs, my religion my family, and my country. And I will. Did you see us going to them? They have been attacking us forever, not just on 9-11. Check it out and you will find this is true. I guess if we all just lie down and let them take over our country and attack us whenever they feel like it you will be happy. No country worthy of existence is war free. If you have no stomach for wars then knit things and make cookies or something. Maybe you could write a children's book about a perfect society and imagine yourself there. Just wear a blindfold or something and when others strike out at you then you can lie down and let them have at it. Finally, hatred is not "formulated" it is or is not. It is a feeling. It is prejudiced hostility or animosity. No one is without prejudice, just look at your own point of view versus mine. It is a human thing, hatred. The world is filled with humans, so it follows that hatred will occur along with all other human emotions, feelings, failings and triumphs.
what about his rights?
x
If your rights were to be taken away...(sm)
would you be sick of hearing that too?
Who is assigning rights?
Certainly not you with any credibility. If I lie I expect to be castigated over it because lying is immoral and demonstrates a weak and selfish character. Likewise if I KNOW someone else is a liar I will not fail to rebuke them - it is in fact wrong not to do so. Note also in the midst of your misdirected and uninformed tizzy that no names were mentioned. The liar knows who she is and you don't know, unless of course it's you. If so, change your ways. If not, look for better things to be indignant about - say, corporate oligarchies and the men and women dying in the streets to bring them obscene profits.
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
he doesn't get any rights
nm
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
It doesn't SEEM they have more rights, they do!
My town has more illegals than you can shake a stick at. They are very rude, with the exception of a few, they do NOT try to speak English AT ALL. They do not hesitate to go to our ERs with every little thing and hog up the emergency room; I know this to be a fact! They EXPECT medical treatment and will tell you they have a "right" to be seen. NO THEY DON'T!. They have no rights..they are illegal! They spit out one baby after the other at taxpayers' expense and then I pay to raise their children, educate their children (have to hire MORE teachers to accomodate their refusal to speak English), put clothes on their backs and the list goes on and on.
Heck, one family had the gall to show up in my friend's pet shop (mother couldn't speak a word of English). She had her daughter ask everyone where they could get a German Shephard to breed with some mutt they owned. The owner was trying to tell her they didn't encourage that, that there were enough unwanted puppies and that she should have her pet neutered. The woman just smirked, shrugged her shoulders, said something to her daughter, who in turn looked a little embarrased when she told the lady they were free to own as many pets as they wanted and could breed all they wanted.
The lady tried to explain again that there were plenty of unwanted puppies at the shelter if they wanted a puppy but the lady said "In MY country, we are not told to spay/neuter our animals to which the owner replied, "You are not in YOUR country, you are in the U.S."
They lady (who wanted a better life) replied something to "you are all just a bunch of stupid ******". Her daughter was so embarrassed and looked like she could have died but remember it is that attitude that is breeding many illegal children to be raised with OUR dollars in our country.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
Get a grip...........they have the same rights everyone
--
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
Pro birth control....s/m
I'm definitely not pro abortion, but am pro choice in, what should be, the rare event of unexpected pregnancy, and in that case I think that the woman herself should be the one to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not, and if so, it should remain a safe, and legal option. It's an extremely emotional, and difficult decision for most women to have to make in that situation.. I did a quick look and see that the abortion rate in the US has declined from 1996 to 2002. I'm going to look for statistics from 2002 to the present when I have more time. I think the key in the main is stressing birth control measures, and also making those measures affordable to all women across all socio-economic groups.
Birth control is....
used to prevent pregnancy......not kill an innocent child AFTER it is conceived. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! How do you people sleep at night?
As far as birth control....I have not seen anything about...
people wanting to remove birth control. Just because an individual elects not to use it does not mean they do not want anyone else to have access. With this permissive society liberals have created there is really no choice but to provide it.
Yes, there are natural causes for miscarriage. That is leaving it up to God. For us to put the life of an innocent child totally in the hands of someone else to choose whether it lives or dies, just as a personal choice, I believe is wrong. Just as those in these orphanges murdered children...it is murder. Killing an innocent for no reason other than "oops" is wrong.
What overturning Roe vs. wade would do is put it back in the hands of legislators who, by the constitution, are the only ones who can enact laws. The Supreme Court should not be enacting laws. They are to interpret...not legislate. I believe it should be overturned because it is unconstitutional. Then put it to a state-by-state vote. Some states would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother. Some would outlaw it, period. Some would allow it in all forms. But at least it would be the will of the people.
Why do you think congress has never tried to pass an abortion law? Even when the democrats had control? Even before Roe vs. Wade? The truth is in the pudding.
birth certificates...
I just pulled out my daughter's birth certificate to look at it after reading a post somewhere below that said that Obama's birth certificate did not have a lot of information on it that birth certificates have (such as weights, name of particular hospital, etc.) and guess what - neither does my daughters. It has the raised seal and is signed by the American consulate of the United States and states that she was born a female in Nuernberg, Bavaria, Germany on (insert date) and that it was recorded on (insert date).
Nowhere does it say what hospital, what time, who the parents are, what the birthweight was, or any of that stuff. This is just an official copy that they gave me and they kept all that other stuff on file.
So, if my daughter is most definitely an American citizen and it is not on her birth certificate - why would Barack Obama's necessarily have to have it? Maybe it was not their custom in Hawaii at the time he WA born to put all that on the birth certificates. So just because it is not there does not make it a fake.
birth certificate
 As in the words of Archie Bunker from "All in the Family" to his TV wife Edith: "Stifle yourself...geeeez".
I assume you were there at his birth?
x
Birth certificatem(sm)
I agree with above. No way would Obama have been elected president if he wasn't a legitimate candidate. Believe me when government employees have to undergo background checks these days, I am sure he was subjected to the same plus more. To me this is just a loud-mouthed, disgruntled black man who probably in his mind thought he was going to be our first black president. Too bad Obama beat him to the punch. 
I think it is just like the birth certificate - it won't go away. nm
x
BTW, there are much better birth control
options than birth control pills. One of them IUDs, when those are in, there is nothing to 'forget' about them.
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Abortion is for men, not reproductive rights
Men can do as they please s*xually and have no long term consequences. If you are pro-choice or pro-life either one it's so clear it's for men NOT for women. Especially when you see how many adult men are bringing in teenager girls to the clinic. Abortion is another way to allow men to use women without consequences to them like responsibility.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
No rights? They have the right to step up to the plate.
They have the right to support their child. Unfortunately, mother nature did not give them the capacity to bear children. What they do not have the right to do is to force a woman to be their own personal incubator against her will. If they do not want to be stripped of their reproductive rights, perhaps they should take their own measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies (condoms, vasectomy) or practice abstinence and keep their pants zipped.
Yeah and to he** with the baby's rights.
Not a person worthy of my trust. Your trust is yours to give to whoever. Have a nice day.
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?.....sm
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Pierre, S.D. — My son and I are on ground where one of my heroes –- the legendary Joe Foss, U.S. Marine, America's leading ace in aerial combat, Medal of Honor recipient, mentor and friend -– once stood beside me. We're hunting –- and exercising our Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." We will be back home in time to vote in hopes that this "right of the people" won't be "infringed." But I wonder.
Last week in Ohio, the Obama for President Campaign suggested that Americans need a "second Bill of Rights." The idea –- not a new one for liberals –- came this time from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, as she introduced Senator Obama at a rally in Toledo. Congressman Kaptur enthusiastically endorsed the initiative –- first proffered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Senator Obama said nothing to disabuse his enthusiastic followers of the notion. It was a bad idea when FDR advocated it -– and it is now.
President Roosevelt made the proposal in his State of the Union address –- delivered over the radio from the White House -– instead of in person before Congress. He claimed that he had "the flu" and that his doctors would not permit him "to go up to the Capitol." The nation was then –- as we are today -– at war. And FDR –- the "indispensable leader" –- was already preparing for his 4th presidential campaign.
In promoting his new "Bill of Rights," Mr. Roosevelt observed that we already enjoyed "certain inalienable political rights –- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." He then said, "They were our rights to life and liberty." Notably, FDR used the past tense and omitted the Second Amendment in its entirety -– no small lapse when nearly 16 million Americans were under arms.
Unfortunately, the idea that our original Bill of Rights is inadequate –- or even archaic –- has achieved new currency with liberals. In enumerating his abbreviated version of the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, FDR described our rights as "political" and insufficient. The framers saw them as God-given and a sacred trust to deliver unabridged to future generations.
Therein is the challenge in next week's elections. The mainstream media and the polls predict a rout to the left. Does that mean Congress would have free reign to resurrect FDR's "second Bill of Rights"? And, if so, what then happens to the real Bill of Rights -– first handed into our care on December 15, 1791?
The practitioners of politics –- and those who write and speak about it –- claim that these matters are secondary to "pocketbook issues." I was told this week that, "Nobody in America cares about that 'Constitutional stuff' right now with all that's gone wrong with our economy." If that's true, we're in more serious trouble than my 401(k).
Perhaps I have spent too much of my life with young Americans who sacrificed the comforts of home and the company of loved ones to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of us. They didn't sign up to fight for gold or colonial conquest or "the economy." The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have been covering for the FOX News Channel in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Philippine Archipelago volunteered to defend us and protect our liberty from those who had done us grievous harm.
They raised their right hands and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They understand what it means to "bear true faith and allegiance." Most of them have seen parts of the world where there is no freedom and they know that freedom is an idea worth fighting for -– preferably at great distance from home.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of young Americans in uniform -– and those who preceded them -– foreign adversaries do not immediately threaten our liberty. But freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our essential freedoms are "political rights." If that is true, then politicians –- and the judges they appoint -– can abridge, alter or eliminate them.
The extraordinary dedication, commitment and tenacity of American men and women in uniform serving the cause of freedom inspires me. Their bravery and perseverance on battlefields around the world should remind us all that freedom is fragile and must be defended to flourish. The Bill of Rights –- including the Second Amendment -– did not come to us gratis or without obligation.
We are blessed in America that we can fend for freedom with ballots instead of bullets. Our charge is to elect those who will deliver those freedoms, intact and undiminished, to those who follow us -– as my son and I now follow in the footsteps of Joe Foss.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445386,00.html
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Good for her, they could use some women's rights over there.
xx
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
In a country that is still free for now, we have rights
nm
yes, I will explain human rights to you now sm
Barack Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo. Throughout the world, this announcement will be understood as an introduction to a new kind of American leadership, a repudiation of the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.
Closing Guantanamo will be a complicated process, which must be accomplished in phases. But the first step clearly is the settlement of the 50 or 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. These men have been called the “Guantanamo refugees.” Some of these men are stateless, but most of them simply can’t be returned to their home countries because their lives would be in danger there.
A number of European countries have recently indicated a willingness to take in some of the Guantanamo refugees. But the U.S. must also take some of them.
A group of 17 ethnic Uyghurs from western China have been at Guantanamo almost since its opening. From very early on, they were known to be innocent. In September 2008, a federal court officially cleared them of “enemy combatant” status. In October, Federal Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered them released into the U.S, where Uyghur-American families were waiting to take them in. Justice Department lawyers obtained a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was briefed and argued in late November. The Government argued that only the President has the power to order the transfer of detainees and their release into the U.S. The appeal has not yet been decided by the Court. As President, Obama should either dismiss the appeal and comply with Judge Urbina’s order or exercise his power as President to bring the Uyghurs to the U.S.
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Fighting for your parental rights
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=412082
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
I hate to ask this but just what "special" rights is
the homosexual community demanding?
|
