15th Texan City Becomes ‘Sanctuary’ For The Unborn, Outlaws Abortion Within City Limits

a reply to: Annee

It takes 2

How do you figure that?

It takes 2 yes votes to get pregnant. That means it only takes one no vote to not get pregnant.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

It's a difficult topic but my opinion is, and I won't force it on others, is that every life should be valued if possible.

Truth be known, I think that is the opinion of most. Every life has value, even the unborn. Sometimes nature is cruel and we have to make a horrific decision but that decision should be made with the understanding that it involves ending a life.

The only complication that is making this into such an issue is that there are those who see the abortion of any child as a victory somehow. Maybe it makes them feel good because they think they have "liberated" another woman. I sincerely hope such a person never says that to my wife; I doubt I could pull her off their corpse in time to get her out of there without charges. She considers both of our children precious, as do I, beyond measure, as we consider the loss of our third as a hole in our hearts that can never be filled.

Perhaps one day we can mature as a society to the point where we can discuss issues such as this with some measure of compassion and empathy. But that day is not today... today we fight tooth and nail and never give an inch. I will rejoice the day Roe v. Wade is struck down, and I will rejoice the more when reasonable laws that allow for those in painful situations to be allowed that terrible remedy are passed.

Until then, I will simply say bless you for your compassion towards others and may you never be placed in that position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

2 completly different things due to one being legal and the other not, that is why we have language to differentiate between things

Aren't we discussing places that have made abortion illegal? Doesn't that make it murder by your own statements?

TheRedneck

a reply to: infolurker

Abortion is a crime against humanity.


Upon conception the Mothers body is shared Neutral Territory and she has no imminent right of anything anymore.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LABTECH767

Wonderful decision by this city

Sure it is, if you think your city council and mayor should waste your city tax dollars legislating unconstitutional laws and fighting them in court, only to lose.

Just a very obvious question does not your constitution say you have the right to life happiness and liberty or something along those lines.

So who is being unconstitutional there, the mother killing the little American in her belly or these men for trying to PROTECT that child's constitutional right's.

It all hinges around the matter of an unborn child's right's, if a man stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach is he a murderer if the child dies and the mother lives, is a doctor such for tearing an unborn human being apart inside a woman belly.

Take a life to SAVE a life sure but take a life because it is inconvenient, sorry that is speaking for the one man who got in the life boat and lowered it then rowed away from the sinking ship all alone while woman children stood on the ship screaming for help.

People fighting for these kid's are the ones screaming for help, those whom seek to silence them for what is basically selfish motives are the scum that leave those kid's to die simple as that and if you disagree I will put it another way, no matter what that alter is called upon which these kid's are being sacrificed it is pagan and vile.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The only complication that is making this into such an issue is that there are those who see the abortion of any child as a victory somehow. Maybe it makes them feel good because they think they have "liberated" another woman.

I noticed, that taste is there, yes. It's actually very creepy thought that someone would take interest in my life, having the guts to comment on a possible abortion, talk me into one, for personal politics gain. Like this is a war and recruitment needs to be done. Check, another one convinced liberated, drop the human, next one.

Thank you for the blessing, I hope so too, my life depends on it.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

It all hinges around the matter of an unborn child's right's, if a man stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach is he a murderer if the child dies and the mother lives, is a doctor such for tearing an unborn human being apart inside a woman belly.

Take a life to SAVE a life sure but take a life because it is inconvenient, sorry you are speaking for the one man who got in the life boat and lowered it then rowed away from the sinking ship all alone while woman and children stood on the ship screaming for help.

People fighting for these kid's are the ones screaming for help, those whom seek to silence them for what is basically selfish motives are the scum that leave those kid's to die simple as that and if you disagree I will put it another way, no matter what that alter is called upon which these kid's are being sacrificed it is pagan and vile.

The above. I agree. There's a measurement with two different kind of rulers here. While I am not a person that likes telling others what they have to do, or to live, we are talking about a life here. Being a women myself I know that it is my body and in theory it's up to me.

I write theory, because I have to take this little life into consideration, too, if it grows inside me.

a reply to: LABTECH767

So who is being unconstitutional there, the mother killing the little American in her belly or these men for trying to PROTECT that child's constitutional right's.

According to The Supreme Court and Roe V Wade, the 14th Amendment says that little American doesn't become an American until it's born. They ruled that states have certain authority over that soon to be American once it achieves viability. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to the "born". And back in 1776, slaves weren't granted those rights. Women could be beaten, even killed by their husbands without any legal repercussions.

Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife.[35][36] One exception, however, was the 1641 Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts Bay colonists, which declared that a married woman should be "free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband."

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You argue in a circle because you came up with guilt.

I think I'm arguing circles around you.

A viper is not guilty because its venom and bite are deadly. It just wants to live.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I believe you will find that is NOT constitutional it is an Amendment penned at a much later period in time and has nothing in reality to do with the original constitution, the beliefs moral, ethical or religious or the intentions of the founding fathers of your nation.

This therefore is Amendment constitution not foundation constitution but CHANGES added to it by men whom had nothing to do with the original constitution, by that argument I put it to you that court cases ruling was itself Unconstitutional.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
I believe you will find that is NOT constitutional it is an Amendment penned at a much later period in time and has nothing in reality to do with the original constitution, the beliefs moral, ethical or religious or the intentions of the founding fathers of your nation.

This therefore is Amendment constitution not foundation constitution but CHANGES added to it by men whom had nothing to do with the original constitution, by that argument I put it to you that court cases ruling was itself Unconstitutional.

What Amendment are you referring to?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is not a supreme court decision based on interpretation of your Constitution actually an Amendment in all but name as it locks into law at a much later period that ruling as the only valid interpretation of that constitution barring another court case in a later supreme court action.
As an over ruling decision therefore does it not have the same validity as an official amendment?.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Is not a supreme court decision based on interpretation of your Constitution actually an Amendment in all but name as it locks into law at a much later period that ruling as the only valid interpretation of that constitution barring another court case in a later supreme court action.

No, it isn't. Congress can pass a subsequent Bill that can override a Supreme Court decision in the portion that was addressed. Additionally another Amendment can override the decision if passed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then forgive me my lack of knowledge on that point I am not from the States, but still unless congress over rules does this not then act as a fixture in your interpretation of the law, your right's and how that document is interpreted in the rights of the unborn child.

For me if a Childs mother or Father is American then that child is a Child of America, that being the case even unborn they are a citizen if not a registered citizen of the united states and that is how I would choose to interpret it (the child once born and at the age of adult hood should then be given the choice as to which nationality they choose to have if they are born of mixed nationality's or indeed as many folk's do to retain both).

a reply to: LABTECH767

it is an Amendment penned at a much later period in time and has nothing in reality to do with the original constitution, the beliefs moral, ethical or religious or the intentions of the founding fathers of your nation.

Okay. Let's go with the founders' intentions. Did the founding fathers think the government should dictate how a husband should treat his wife? Hint: Wife beating was legal, and if she happened to miscarriage as result, well she should have taken better care of her man. Spousal rape was not even a thing.

So, do you still think that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that an unborn baby had more protections and rights than the woman being beaten to a pulp? Or a man's investment in his slaves? Did the founding fathers want to make it illegal to rape, beat, and subsequently kill a slave, out of a duty to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

First of all as a Christian WIFE beating should NEVER have been legal, "In the Resurrection there is no difference between a man and a woman", this mean's woman priests and even popes are fine, woman should have equal rights to men and men are equally responsible for the well being of a child, a father should be punished for running away after conceiving a child and forced to pay equally for it's well being (Equally being measured on how much he has of course).

Many of the laws and morals of those folk's were indeed wrong, they were slave owners as well.

Those whom constantly draw upon OLD testament to justify such vile attitudes therefore are ignoring the grace, blood and word of Christ and reinterpreting it, over ruling it and pushing there own agenda.

Still both Patriarchal and Matriarchal Society's in the past have both made a mess of thing's, we are all human being's, all flawed.

I do not see much of merit beyond the founding of the US in those men so if your point was that they lacked and they were flawed how could anyone ever argue that point I agree, that said I still disagree were children are concerned.

If a woman goes out for a good time, get's a little too drunk and drop's her nickers for a guy and accidentally conceives a child then is it the Childs fault or is it actually FULLY the fault and responsibility of both consenting adult's and why then should the child have to pay the price for there mistake.

a reply to: LABTECH767

If a woman goes out for a good time, get's a little too drunk and drop's her nickers for a guy and accidentally conceives a child then is it the Childs fault or is it actually FULLY the fault and responsibility of both consenting adult's and why then should the child have to pay the price for there mistake.

In biblical days that couple would have been publicly stoned to death, regardless if the sassy tart was pregnant or not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

OLD testament day's yes but not new testament - original new testament the first century it went back to that old testament mentality because people are simply backward, let them have there own interpretations and they will always find a way to stone to death, offer sacrifices God does not want (which is what that punishment was after all) and accuse others.

That is however not the teaching of Christ, we have ALL fallen short, are ALL worthy of stoning but his blood saves us, he forgave and told us to, he saved and lay down his life for others.

Lay down his life for others, is that what someone having abortion is doing?.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
For me if a Childs mother or Father is American then that child is a Child of America, that being the case even unborn they are a citizen...

For you, but the Supreme Court says otherwise.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hey I don't have a stake in that any way, I think my nation is actually superior in so many ways being a Brit anyway, but we don't have that lovely mid west desert and the closest we can get is Blackpool bloody beach and its always soggy and cold - except in summer, hahaha.
Seriously though even that is a matter for international courts and in fact the supreme court should not have that particular decision, nationality by bloodline rather than place of birth is very important.
But for a nation of migrants place of birth is very important also I guess, strange then they would deny that to there own kid's just for being born beyond there borders, hmm.