It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vatican attacks US abortion move

page: 28
9
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
seriously what is with attacking women.

it does take sperm to fertilise the egg, dont want to give a biology lesson but when the egg doent encounter a sperm then the woman has whats called a period are you going to call us women murders because of a potential child and on that note are men mass murderers for doing the one armed shuffle.

you expect the woman to carry thechild and care for it or give it away but where does the man come into it.

also whats with the gay bashing to are we pro lifers running out of what to say.


The gay bashing is off topic but it does reflect the sexual lines of morality where the more we allow the more we see going over what we allow.

It just happens to be part of the attack on Catholics where gays who talk about how bad Religion is, seem to conveniently leave out the fact that the Priests weren't just Catholic, they are Gay too.

They don't want that part brought up.

That is too bad

As for attacking woman I think males who have absolutley no say in this matter when woman insist they do not would make males a scandalous bit miffed at these woman and these woman only but now,,

we are not even allowed to get angry about it ?

Pffft




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I am in no way affected by you - your belief - or verbiage.

But you are crossing the line.





I am in no way affected by you


Oh no?? then what do you call this? your idea of indifference?

No, that dog won't hunt anne, you're affected all right just because you don't admit it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Fact is YOU DO care, you care about what people think of you but you underestimate our willingness to forgive so you deny it and post anyway



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Here are the two legal foundations for the Roe v. Wade (1973) case.

1) The right of privacy.
Although not spelled out in so many words, such other rights as are found in the Amendments add up to the Right of Privacy. The right to be secure in your person (4th Amendment) or the right to remain silent in the face of questioning (5th Amendment). The right not to be detained by excessive bail (8th Amendment). The general common law rights we inherited from the English are summarized by the term "due process." When taken in toto, these can be expressed as a right of privacy. No right in a free society is absolute. The Right of Choice is equated to the Right of Privacy. But the Right of Privacy can only be violated for a compelling state interest.

2) Rights or protections owed to a person
are legally spelled out in the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “ . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction, the equal proteti0n of the laws.”

Q. What is a person?
In the English language, a fetus is a fetus and a person is a person. A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

Hence, the US Con affords no protection to a fetus. Only to persons.


[edit on 2/3/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Annee
 


Here are the two legal foundations for the Roe v. Wade (1973) case.

1) The right of privacy.
Although not spelled out in so many words, such other rights as are found in the Amendments add up to the Right of Privacy. The right to be secure in your person (4th Amendment) or the right to remain silent in the face of questioning (5th Amendment). The right not to be detained by excessive bail (8th Amendment). The general common law rights we inherited from the English are summarized by the term "due process." When taken in toto, these can be expressed as a right of privacy. No right in a free society is absolute. But the Right of Privacy can only be violated for a compelling state interest.

2) Rights or protections owed to a person
are legally spelled out in the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “ . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction, the equal proteti0n of the laws.”

Q. What is a person?
In the English language, a fetus is a fetus and a person is a person. A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

Hence, the US Con affords no protection to a fetus. Only to persons.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by donwhite]


Yep and the technology we had back then was inferior to what we have to day and is why they are so afraid of the new arguments given by Doctors where even the two higest ranking in the pro choice movement admitted "The right to life people have a more compelling argument this time" This fight ain't over and logical fallacy of what is a person has also been proven ONE BIG FAT ERROR IN LOGIC.

I can't wait to see how they argue this one again especially when Ms Roe tells them her story how she was manipulated into her first case by proponents of eugenics and made up her entire testimony.

This may not be enough to have it thrown out of court but it sure will get it heard again.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
i believe men should have a right to their children and make no better or worse person to bring up a child it is the individual no matter what sex, religion, colour or sexual prefernce they are.

i do belive though that the woman should not be the one who should always take the blame for mistakes and having the contraception.
the fact is a man can easily walk away a woman can not.
men should take more responsibiltiy when planting their seeds.

you never hear of a man being carted off because he got a girl pregnant or a boy being scorned by the community like girls are when the get pregnant while at school they go on with there normal lives while the girl is heckled and ousted from her community.

i dont agree with anyone using abortion as a form of contraception or an easy option it should never be an easy option but it still should be one because it is the woman or girls right it is her body and her organs so she should be able to choice with out being pressurised by anyone.

you chose to keep the child, adopt or what ever.
adoption is an option but there are not enough people to adopt so if all children where born it would be considerably worse, the adoption service might even get worse because they would be over run and would not have enough money to care for all the children that were in there care.
also what about babies being dumped there would be a posibility of this happening more frequently.

also another thought is illegal abortion if it became illegal to have an abortion women and girls who were desperate would go fine an illegal and back alley abortionist.

if the child is kept by the parent that does not want the child will be abused physically and mentally.
and also the world is over populated as it is.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Annee
 


Here are the two legal foundations for the Roe v. Wade (1973) case.

1) The right of privacy.
Although not spelled out in so many words, such other rights as are found in the Amendments add up to the Right of Privacy. The right to be secure in your person (4th Amendment) or the right to remain silent in the face of questioning (5th Amendment). The right not to be detained by excessive bail (8th Amendment). The general common law rights we inherited from the English are summarized by the term "due process." When taken in toto, these can be expressed as a right of privacy. No right in a free society is absolute. The Right of Choice is equated to the Right of Privacy. But the Right of Privacy can only be violated for a compelling state interest.

2) Rights or protections owed to a person
are legally spelled out in the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “ . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction, the equal proteti0n of the laws.”

Q. What is a person?
In the English language, a fetus is a fetus and a person is a person. A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.

Hence, the US Con affords no protection to a fetus. Only to persons.
[edit on 2/3/2009 by donwhite]


Like they are going to afford rights to those born dead sheesh man this why right to lifers are going NUKE this asnine and destructive idiocy in the most well financed most well thought out multi phased organized attack in the history of the SCOTUS



HISTORY -

Stage One – Participation in the National Donna Santa Marie Project M 2000.

This Project was based on a federal case in New Jersey that challenged Roe v. Wade . The Justice Foundation filed Friend of the Court briefs on behalf of Norma McCorvey, who was "Jan Roe" in Roe v. Wade, and Sandra Cano, who was "Mary Doe," asking the Court to overturn their cases. This was a historic event in United States jurisprudence!

Stage Two – Lawsuit to to protect women's health

A lawsuit was filed against the Texas Department of Health seeking a declaratory judgment that the Texas Department of Health and the Board of Medical Examiners had failed to adequately protect women's health by not enforcing existing abortion facility regulations.

The State of Texas settled the lawsuit by agreeing to major changes in abortion facility regulation. Implementation of new regulations in conjunction with the Women's Right To Know Act resulted in some of the most protective regulations in the nation. Texas now requires abortion facilities to inform women of the true facts of child development in the womb, as well as the devastating psychological risks of abortion to women. Similar litigation is being considered in other states, and soon The Justice Foundation will be offering assistance to other states for similar efforts.

Stage Three - Direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton as no longer just and equitable under Rule 60 of Federal Procedure.

October 10, 2006 - the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Sandra Cano's appeal to overturn its 1973 landmark decision in Doe v. Bolton. " We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to consider the changed factual and legal conditions since 1973 that make Doe v. Bolton and Roe v. Wade no longer just," said Allan Parker, President of The Justice Foundation and lead attorney for the case. "The Supreme Court has frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions," he said.

· Rule 60 Motion to reverse Doe v. Bolton denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia on January 11, 2006

· Motion for rehearing filed on February 1, 2006

· Appeal by petition to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari on July 31, 2006

· Ruling on the Petition of Certiorari on October 10, 2006 - The Supreme Court declined to hear the case


The declarations being given to the house and senate for the damage this has done to woman who have been duped into this maddness can no longer be ignored and the guargantuan size of the evidence is undeniably accurate as is the symptoms easily traced to the event that initially caused it. Roe v Wade and it's antiquated archaic and draconian premises are easily blown out of the water by todays Science and Compelling arguments



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kerrichin
 


I can't argue with any of this Kerr, and you are absolutley correct when you say their is complicity here regarding males and I am no more lenient with males that argue to escape culpability for their part.


Perhaps the artificial womb is the answer, and is being perfected as we speak. I have not kept up with the data on it lately but Ill check on that too



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

In loco parentis
Artificial wombs might end abortion, but the price would be the end of the family
By Gene Edward Veith
SCIENTISTS ARE REPORTEDLY WELL ON THEIR WAY to developing an artificial womb. At Cornell, womb cells have been replicated and fashioned into an out-of-body receptacle that has kept human embryos alive for several days, before the experiment—and the babies—were terminated to comply with in-vitro fertilization laws. Japanese researchers have devised chambers of amniotic fluid with nutrient pumps to nourish developing baby goats. Though some scientists doubt whether a human baby could be brought to term completely outside a mother's body—a process known technically as "ectogenesis"—others believe solving the technical difficulties is just a matter of time, possibly as little as five years.

Even though an artificial womb could make the family technologically obsolete, the prospect is panicking the abortion industry and cheering many pro-life activists.

Writing in the liberal New Republic, Sacha Zimmerman argues that the artificial womb will be, in the words of her title, "The Real Threat to Roe v. Wade." "If and when" ectogenesis is perfected, she writes, "the legal and philosophical premises underpinning Roe could be completely dismantled."

Roe vs. Wade rests on two principles: the viability of the fetus and the woman's right to privacy. As Ms. Zimmerman explains it, an artificial womb would mean that the fetus would be viable from the moment of conception. The developing baby could, at any point, survive outside the woman's body. As for the right to privacy, strangely construed by Roe vs. Wade to imply the right not to be pregnant, removing an unwanted baby and transferring him or her into an artificial womb would be no more intrusive than obtaining an abortion.

With the availability of artificial wombs, the old pro-abortion canard "I have the right to do whatever I want to with my body" would no longer apply. The life of her baby no longer need depend on her body. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the child could be removed from her womb and implanted into an artificial one for subsequent adoption.

In response, some "pro-choicers" are proving that they are, in fact, pro-death. Feminist philosopher Christine Overall, in her book Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies, insists that abortion is all about the right not to procreate, not just the right not to be pregnant. She maintains that "fetal extinction" needs to be the goal.

On the other side of the issue, many pro-life activists are hailing the technology, which they believe may turn the tide in the abortion debate. Not only would ectogenesis undo the legal foundations of Roe vs. Wade, it would convince the public—which could see the babies growing in amniotic tanks—that life begins with conception. Artificial wombs could save the lives of untold millions of babies.

Some on both sides of the debate are arguing that the artificial womb could be a solution to the whole contentious issue, a win-win proposition, as abortion would no longer be necessary.

But while the artificial womb may be beneficial in battling the holocaust of abortion, it comes with a monumental cost: the technological obsolescence of motherhood.

This may well be perceived as the ultimate medical victory. Just as medicine has cured many ailments and mitigated so much human suffering, now there will be a cure for the pains of childbearing. What woman would voluntarily choose the discomforts of pregnancy and the suffering of labor when her baby instead could simply come out of a machine?

Women would be obsolete. Their all-important power to engender and bear children would be transferred to a machine, liberating them from motherhood and handing feminists a huge victory.

The family would also be obsolete. Sex has already been divorced from procreation by birth-control technology and a popular culture that has promoted sex as entertainment sensation apart from the family. Already, sex is not even necessary for procreation, as a test tube and a petri dish can work just as well to conceive a new human life. Finish the baby up in an artificial womb, and pop it out when done. Children could be manufactured, in the numbers needed, by the state, which could raise them in specially designed schools. Who needs the family at all?

Women would be liberated from being wives and mothers. Men would be liberated from being husbands and fathers. Children would be liberated from their parents. Everyone could have sex with everyone else, according to their preferences, since sex would be liberated from both culture and biology. We would all live in a Brave New World.

Technology tends to hand us double-edged swords. Pro-family groups might use this particular sword as a weapon against mass abortion, but it can also be used to cut up the family once and for all.


Yeah,, *sigh* this and many other so called solutions in addition to our general addictions to drugs, sex and oil,,

Where did we all go so very very wrong

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
an artifial womb would be ood but im sure that people would be against it.

it would solve many problems but im sure it would cause many new ones.

it would mean that women would not have to suffer the agony of child birth which im sure is a plus


but then im sure every religion would hate it because it would''be against god''


ive just thought a good idea would be to make a pill or some sort of machine that would replicate pregnacy like the swollen ankles, sickness and even the labour and anything else that goes with the ''wonders'' of pregnancy one it might shut themen up the whole it cant be that bad arguement and on a plus note people might be more careful and not have ''accidents'' and deter girls from having teen pregnacies thinking its fun!!
hmm.........



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
but then im sure every religion would hate it because it would''be against god''


Well,, I don't know about that, I suppose their would be some like that. I am more worried about the family, the middle class, the war,



ive just thought a good idea would be to make a pill or some sort of machine that would replicate pregnacy like the swollen ankles, sickness and even the labour and anything else that goes with the ''wonders'' of pregnancy one it might shut themen up the whole it cant be that bad arguement and on a plus note people might be more careful and not have ''accidents'' and deter girls from having teen pregnacies thinking its fun!!
hmm.........


Yeah you would think they would have something a little more advanced in the way of birth control too by now. I mean the articial womb for instance is a technological advancement that makes me wonder sometimes why something more advanced has not come fourth in that regard.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
does make you wonder why there has not been a contraception that is 100% proof well except for the one thats a sure fire ''the dont do it method''

really is there any contraception that has been developed in the last decade or so.
perhaps they should make chastity belts again



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 




This fight ain't over and logical fallacy of what is a person has also been proved ONE BIG FAT ERROR IN LOGIC. I can't wait to see how they argue this one again especially when Ms Roe tells them her story how she was manipulated into her first case by proponents of eugenics and [she] made up her entire testimony. This may not be enough to have it thrown out of court but it sure will get it heard again.



Uhh, don't wait up for this one Mr A. You say above "I can't wait to see . . " and in this instance you will not have to wait! You may have missed this:



Women Regret Abortions, Want Supreme Court to Reverse Roe v. Wade by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor January 20, 2005 Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) - Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited abortion, isn't the only woman who wants the high court to reverse the case.

McCorvey is asking the nation's top court to overturn its decision using a Rule 60 motion allowing for a revisit of a case when circumstances change. What's new is the knowledge that abortion hurts women physically and emotionally . . women who had abortions say they regret their decisions. McCorvey said at a press conference this week announcing an appeal in her case had been filed with the Supreme Court. "I plead with all that I am for the Supreme Court to take Roe v. Wade and reverse it"
www.lifenews.com...


Note: This case was first filed in 2003. From my memory I can tell you it was THROWN out of court. Both times. So go back to sleep Mr A. Your PRAYERS will NOT be answered this time.


[edit on 2/3/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
does make you wonder why there has not been a contraception that is 100% proof well except for the one thats a sure fire ''the dont do it method''

really is there any contraception that has been developed in the last decade or so.
perhaps they should make chastity belts again


Yeah, I know and I was as equally angry at the Church for that asinine solution expecting abstinance as the ONLY solution to this.

The Church is like most of us who belong to one a very flawed people and most of us will admit that. What I do NOT condone is this running BS I see every where about "the evils of religion" it is utterly and patently false and is no more to blame for the evil in the world as is any other political, spiritual or secular ideology.

Most of the time, I see the same crap being given from as far back as the crusades or using the most exagerated version of the salem witch trials I have ever heard but is everywhere these days. Blaming all of Christendom for the over 200,000 lives burned at the stake is the biggest lie I have seen yet when the truth is it was around 21 people.

When it comes to society throughout history however it is a proven fact that Religion has been the only kind of culture that has thrived and in areas where it was NOT, they died out fast as they started.

I think if Religion was outlawed or gagged and kept out of the process, we would see the same thing happening conversely If their wasn't an opposing view to religion, I think IT would become a theocracy like sharia law and again, would be a very bad thing indeed



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Aermacchi
 




This fight ain't over and logical fallacy of what is a person has also been proved ONE BIG FAT ERROR IN LOGIC. I can't wait to see how they argue this one again especially when Ms Roe tells them her story how she was manipulated into her first case by proponents of eugenics and [she] made up her entire testimony. This may not be enough to have it thrown out of court but it sure will get it heard again.



Uhh, don't wait up for this one Mr A. You say above "I can't wait to see . . " and in this instance you will not have to wait! You may have missed this:



Women Regret Abortions, Want Supreme Court to Reverse Roe v. Wade by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor January 20, 2005 Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) - Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited abortion, isn't the only woman who wants the high court to reverse the case.

McCorvey is asking the nation's top court to overturn its decision using a Rule 60 motion allowing for a revisit of a case when circumstances change. What's new is the knowledge that abortion hurts women physically and emotionally . . women who had abortions say they regret their decisions. McCorvey said at a press conference this week announcing an appeal in her case had been filed with the Supreme Court. "I plead with all that I am for the Supreme Court to take Roe v. Wade and reverse it"
www.lifenews.com...


Note: This case was first filed in 2003. From my memory I can tell you it was THROWN out of court. Both times. So go back to sleep Mr A. Your PRAYERS will NOT be answered this time.


[edit on 2/3/2009 by donwhite]


Hey smartguy don't be so damn presumptuous

I know what the dates were I only posted it to bring you up to speed on where it was left off!

If it wasn't left there do you think Id be here arguing for it to be heard again! yeah go back to sleep. You haven't said anything I have not shown was anything less than sophistry anyway



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Is a life of hell better than no life at all?

That is for the 100% pro lifers out there...

I seriously think some of you (Including I) have ever been in such situations to truly understand that life with a dysfunctional family or no family at all can truly crush a kid. You have life peachy so you think that such abandoned children will have the same chances.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



If You Pray YES and GOD Says NO, Is IT Over?

I like this caption. It's pithy. Maybe even poignant. But I noticed you did not mention it or you did not even deign to reply to it. Did you not see it Mr A?






[edit on 2/4/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



If You Pray YES and GOD Says NO, Is IT Over?

I like this caption. It's pithy. Maybe even poignant. But I noticed you did not mention it or you even deign to reply to it. Did you not see it Mr A?


I have no idea what you are talking about

second line



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
I seriously think some of you (Including I) have ever been in such situations to truly understand that life with a dysfunctional family


Show me someone who has not grown up in a dysfunctional family and Ill show you someone who grew up in Ozzie and Harrietland.




You have life peachy so you think that such abandoned children will have the same chances.



I don't know,, I only know, killing them only guarantees

they never will



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
this whole concept that family breaking down is a problem is rubbish what goes on out doors is not always what goes on in doors.
is a couple fighting all the time good for the child or is two parents that have split up and are on good terms for the child better.
i would hate to go back to the days when people where forced to marry because they had gotten pregnant that would be terrible, alot of resentment from both parties would accure, yes on some occasions it worked but not all the time.
ive got friends who had the family unit but are screwed up because the parents just stayed together because of the children and ive got friends who had only one parent that are happy successful people because the one parent cared for all their needs.
ive also got friends who have parents devorced that are perfectly fine they say them selves the worst parts of their childhood was when the parents were fighting but they have great memories of going on holidays this their parents and their new partners.
my fiancee is a child from a devorced family and he and his sisters are fine, we are even having both his parents and there partners coming to the wedding because they get on great now.

also wouldnt an artifical womb be a good idea because if the woman wanted to have an abortion but the man wanted to keep the fetus then surely he could use one of these and have more say in what happens to his seed in a sense



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
it does take sperm to fertilise the egg, dont want to give a biology lesson but when the egg doent encounter a sperm then the woman has whats called a period are you going to call us women murders because of a potential child and on that note are men mass murderers for doing the one armed shuffle.


Perhaps taking a biology lesson would be helpful. Haploid cells are not living beings according to the scientific definition of 'life' however when a zygote is formed, it expresses the traits of life. According to your definition, blowing your nose causes death by shooting dna (a full set instead of a half set) out your nose and therefore you're a murder. Sounds absurd, does it not?

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

[edit on 4-2-2009 by saint4God]




top topics



 
9
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join