Kagan on the "Right" to Suction Someone's Brains

www.thewandererpress.com...

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Your link doesnt work without a login...

www.cnsnews.com...

sickening.

2nd line

reply to post by Starbug3MY

Hmm maybe we should suck out Kagans brains and see if it has any effect on her?
I dont support baby killers! She must not get confirmed.

OP - Stop slanting the intent.

Kagan’s 1996 White House files—that claimed it “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman”—somehow ended up verbatim in ACOG’s final statement on the issue. The language was then quoted in the Supreme Court decision throwing out Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
OP - Stop slanting the intent.

Kagan’s 1996 White House files—that claimed it “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman”—somehow ended up verbatim in ACOG’s final statement on the issue. The language was then quoted in the Supreme Court decision throwing out Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.

What "particular circumstance" can justify brain sucking?
Abortion in this country is done "on demand", for any reason, up until just prior to birth. There are nolimits pertaining to trimesters.

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Well, you quoted my post, which in it describes a "particular circumstance" in which partial birth abortion 'may' be considered. The answer to your question, is there.

Originally posted by Starbug3MY

Originally posted by LadySkadi
OP - Stop slanting the intent.

Kagan’s 1996 White House files—that claimed it “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman”—somehow ended up verbatim in ACOG’s final statement on the issue. The language was then quoted in the Supreme Court decision throwing out Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.

What "particular circumstance" can justify brain sucking?
Abortion in this country is done "on demand", for any reason, up until just prior to birth. There are nolimits pertaining to trimesters.

What part of “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” do you not understand? Sorry in the case of saving the life of the mother, do what you've gotta do. Most causes where it would cause death to the mother it would also kill the unborn, may as well save one of them right?

Originally posted by LadySkadi
OP - Stop slanting the intent.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Whether it is rare or not, it happens where health risk and/or safety of the woman is in jeopardy and at those times, there needs to be an option that can be decided upon by the people involved.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Well I can get her brains for a bargain. Less than fifty cents for most rounds out there.

=Sorry for the double post. Sorry for the double post=

The circumstances where the mother's life is in danger are extremely rare nowadays with all of the technology we have.

Good god, can you Americans agree on ANYTHING? As far as I'm concerned, a woman has every right to an abortion. No matter the circumstances, an unwanted child is better off aborted than born to a right-winger who thinks abortions are "sinful".

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Abortion will never be agreed upon. That's actually fine with me, as I believe it to be an intensely personal decision in which no circumstance will be the same.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Originally posted by America?
Well I can get her brains for a bargain. Less than fifty cents for most rounds out there.

What an astoundingly stupid thing to say, especially on an open forum. You wingnuts make me sick.

reply to post by Monger


It was a joke and I had no idea what the thread was about before I posted so sorry to the OP. I just saw something about kagan having the right to suck someones brain out.

reply to post by LadySkadi

I think the states should have their own choice whether to allow it or to put restrictions on it, not by the fed. I also think that PP should allow women to have much more information before they decide.

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Agreed with the PP information. It should be fully available. However, the distinction needs to be made - we are not discussing all abortions - we are discussing late term, partial birth abortions.

As for the states - lower courts do not have the ability to overturn a decision already ruled on by the Supreme Court.

I find it ironic that fat old white men feel competent and experienced enough to make the laws concerning women, their bodies and their decision whether to bring a child into this world.

I also find it ironic that the right wing is constantly crying for freedom on one hand and then trying to deny it to a segment of the population on the other.

I think that's called hypocrisy.

Kagan on the "Right" to Suction Someone's Brains

Hyperbole of the most crass, sensationalist type.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by whaaa]

Destroying a baby that's viable by sucking out his or her brains...and/or whatever else is done to tear apart that child...

because he or she is inconvenient?

Humanity never seems to stop devising ways and justifications for killing each other.

But this is beyond barbaric.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Ariel]