Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

122

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
lol on the graph fail.

The peak closing of clinics correlates very well with the teen pregnancy drops. You illustrated kneedraggers point to the T.[/quote]

What?

From 1990 to 1996, the number of PP clinics in the United States rose from about 880 to 936. Concurrently, the teen pregnancy rate fell from 120 to 100 (per thousand).

Again, the number of PP clinics rose and fell and rose and fell and this is not reflected in the teen pregnancy rate even slightly.

The study cited in the OP is about as shoddy as this kind of thing can get.[/quote]

overall trend is down. curve fit that bitch.

123

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Feel free to stop posting ANY TIME you want! :)[/quote]

If I stop posting will you discontinue your practice of drinking unborn babies blood for breakfast?!

124

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.

125

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Murder,” was poor word choice on my part. [/quote]

OK, you saved me from writing a paragraph about that. Now, about stealing other people’s property, ummm… Last time I checked, “propery” was a legal term as well…

We have a right to that which we can PROTECT. We have organized a “civilization” based upon laws under a trubute taking state that provides “protection” and legal recourse against certain actions. But not everyone chooses to follow the rules. Those who break the rules risk getting caught and punished. But that is not the same thing as you having “god given unalienable rights”. That’s just stupid.

How can you have “unalienable rights”? The words were written by some dude who owned slaves…

How can a “right” be “unalienable” if it can MOST CERTAINLY be taken away? By both individuals AND the government.

Regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness - all those things sound very noble and civilized. But they are NOT guaranteed. Who would guarantee them? God? LMFAO!!! He hasn’t done a very good job of guarnateeing those rights through out history, now has “he”?

It’s just a man made construct. That’s all it is. We humans just happened BY ACCIDENT to evolve into the top predador position on this planet. We evolved from being scavengers, to foragers to learning agriculture and once we stayed in place, our groups or tribes if you will, grew larger. In the past few thousand years that we’ve call ourselves “civilized”, we learned a few things about population control (religion being a primary componant of that, by the way). But we evolved to this point. We drove the Neanderthals to extinction along with MANY other species along the way. We are not some “chosen people”. Life is not a “miricle”. Life is SCIENCE.

If you take a few BASIC elements that are commonly found floating around in space and put them in water and provide some heat and electric shocks (you know, an environment VERY similar to the earth about 5 Billion years ago) Lipids and urea will begin to form. Spontaneously. Single celled eucariots and procariots will eventually evolve. IT’S SCIENCE. THAT’S ALL.

Just because we evolved a set of abilities that enabled us to dominate this planet does not make us “better” than anything else on this planet. It gives us the POWER to harness those resources. There is NO absolute morality there at all.

Two members of a species mate - for now, lets assume they are mammals. The male ejaculates MILLIONS of sperm and if it’s lucky, it fertilizes an egg. The fertilized egg matures over a variable gestation period. During this time it is connected to the womb of the female via the placenta and umbilical cord - IT IS A PARASITE. It is NOT SEPARATE from the mother, they share nutrients because they are CONNECTED. Since they are CONNECTED, it is a part of HER BODY. She has a right to do what is best for HER BODY. If life is good, she’ll choose to have the baby. That baby’s LIFE becomes it’s OWN when the umbilical cord is cut and it is separated from it’s HOST, the female. THEN it can be considered an idividual human.

But even then, it has no “rights”. If it is born in the United States of America it has LAWS that will protect it. But if it’s born in China and it’s female, no one would think twice if it got thrown off a mountain.

This concept of “inalienable rights” is just plain wrong. The only inalienable right you have is to respond to your circumstance to the best of your ability. If you haven’t evolved enough to defend yourself than you will, like TRILLIONS of other sentient beings before you, DIE.

Every day, the gazelle wakes up and knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or else it will die. Every day, the lion wakes up and knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle or else it will die. Which one is right or wrong? But in EACH CASE, when you wake up, you’d better be running! [/quote]

That all sounds great except that the first post I respond to of yours stated that abortion laws infringe on a woman’s liberty. So you talk about liberty and then say basically that it doesn’t exist, which is awful confusing?

The Jews weren’t able to protect their liberty from Nazi Germany, so if I’m following your logic right, then they had no right to it then, correct?

126

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.[/quote]

I thought everyone hated the government on here??

Was the Supreme Court okay with slavery? I don’t know.

127

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
lol on the graph fail.

The peak closing of clinics correlates very well with the teen pregnancy drops. You illustrated kneedraggers point to the T.[/quote]

What?

From 1990 to 1996, the number of PP clinics in the United States rose from about 880 to 936. Concurrently, the teen pregnancy rate fell from 120 to 100 (per thousand).

Again, the number of PP clinics rose and fell and rose and fell and this is not reflected in the teen pregnancy rate even slightly.

The study cited in the OP is about as shoddy as this kind of thing can get.[/quote]

overall trend is down. curve fit that bitch.[/quote]

Not in the years that correspond with the teen pregnancy-rate graph. The overall trend is effectively static. A net change of essentially nothing.

And even if the two were both trending down overall, this would say exactly nothing about correlation. If statistically significant, sustained peaks and valleys don’t match up, then you’re fighting an uphill battle trying to tell anyone that correlation is present.

Alright, I’m done arguing over statistics and graphs. If you can look at those two data visualizations and see correlation, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of basic mathematics, or the bias-blindness which allows you to ignore your intelligence–because I know for a fact that I’m arguing with intelligent people here–and instead conclude what you’d like to conclude. Also, I consider a math debate to be over once Dr. Matt weighs in on it, which he has.

Next time, let’s argue about the quadratic equation.

128

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.[/quote]

I thought everyone hated the government on here??

Was the Supreme Court okay with slavery? I don’t know. [/quote]

If you don’t know how the SC felt about slavery then everything you stated is suspect. There is little excuse for that level of ignorance, especially in this age of instant information.

129

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought everyone hated the government on here?? [/quote]

How I feel about the government is immaterial. I took an oath, as I know you did as well, to uphold and defend the Constitution. I have never rescinded that oath, nor is it contingent on who occupies the seats of power.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of any god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words “god” or “creator” do not appear anywhere in the document. We just assume that all rights not specified as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, and by extension the people, as guaranteed by the 10th amendment.

But again, who is guaranteed ANY rights according to the constitution? Well, the people, of course. But which people? Only the citizens? Or everyone in the United States? Let us say that not only US citizens are guaranteed rights under the constitution, but that citizens of all nations have equal protection under US law.

What is a citizen? How does one become a citizen of any nation?

Try to answer that question without using the word “born”.

The unborn have no rights. They are citizens of no country. Nobody will issue a fetus a passport. They are not considered persons under the law. You may not like it, but this is the legal reality in this country right now. If you want to change the law, then you will need to speak to someone who can either write a new law, amending the constitution to include the unborn into the umbrella of equal protection, or else speak to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution so that the People also includes those who haven’t quite made it out of the birth canal.

This is why I said that the burden of proof is on the antiabortionists. If you want the law changed, you will have to prove why it should be.

130

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.[/quote]

I thought everyone hated the government on here??

Was the Supreme Court okay with slavery? I don’t know. [/quote]

If you don’t know how the SC felt about slavery then everything you stated is suspect. There is little excuse for that level of ignorance, especially in this age of instant information.[/quote]
Lol, I don’t act like I know everything like everyone else on the Internet…

131

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Feel free to stop posting ANY TIME you want! :)[/quote]

If I stop posting will you discontinue your practice of drinking unborn babies blood for breakfast?! [/quote]

But unborn baby blood mixed with Chocolate Anabolic Drive is the most refreshing breakfast shake EVER!

132

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought everyone hated the government on here?? [/quote]

How I feel about the government is immaterial. I took an oath, as I know you did as well, to uphold and defend the Constitution. I have never rescinded that oath, nor is it contingent on who occupies the seats of power.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of any god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words “god” or “creator” do not appear anywhere in the document. We just assume that all rights not specified as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, and by extension the people, as guaranteed by the 10th amendment.

But again, who is guaranteed ANY rights according to the constitution? Well, the people, of course. But which people? Only the citizens? Or everyone in the United States? Let us say that not only US citizens are guaranteed rights under the constitution, but that citizens of all nations have equal protection under US law.

What is a citizen? How does one become a citizen of any nation?

Try to answer that question without using the word “born”.

The unborn have no rights. They are citizens of no country. Nobody will issue a fetus a passport. They are not considered persons under the law. You may not like it, but this is the legal reality in this country right now. If you want to change the law, then you will need to speak to someone who can either write a new law, amending the constitution to include the unborn into the umbrella of equal protection, or else speak to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution so that the People also includes those who haven’t quite made it out of the birth canal.

This is why I said that the burden of proof is on the antiabortionists. If you want the law changed, you will have to prove why it should be.
[/quote]
You make a lot of good points about the law. What about natural rights?

I will respond further in the morning. I need to do some reading anyone, don’t want to be ignorant since you know the Internet has all the answers right at my finger tips…

Edit:

Look, I’ll be the first to admit, this is not my area of expertise. I can accept the argument that the law says x and until x changes, ie an unborn baby has rights, then the law is the law.

That said, what of Locke and naturnal rights? As a society have we abandoned the notion of unalianable rights all together? I don’t buy Angry’s explanation about only having the rights we can protect. What of natural property rights? Like I said, not my area, I should never have enter this rabbit hole, but at this point the only way out is further in…

133

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Feel free to stop posting ANY TIME you want! :)[/quote]

If I stop posting will you discontinue your practice of drinking unborn babies blood for breakfast?! [/quote]

But unborn baby blood mixed with Chocolate Anabolic Drive is the most refreshing breakfast shake EVER![/quote]

I think you meant Metabolic Drive.

Anabolic Drive is a competitor’s test booster, and it doesn’t come in chocolate flavor. :wink:

And I don’t know about you, but I never start the day without my aborted fetus and placenta stem cell smoothie.

134

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Murder,” was poor word choice on my part. [/quote]

OK, you saved me from writing a paragraph about that. Now, about stealing other people’s property, ummm… Last time I checked, “propery” was a legal term as well…

We have a right to that which we can PROTECT. We have organized a “civilization” based upon laws under a trubute taking state that provides “protection” and legal recourse against certain actions. But not everyone chooses to follow the rules. Those who break the rules risk getting caught and punished. But that is not the same thing as you having “god given unalienable rights”. That’s just stupid.

How can you have “unalienable rights”? The words were written by some dude who owned slaves…

How can a “right” be “unalienable” if it can MOST CERTAINLY be taken away? By both individuals AND the government.

Regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness - all those things sound very noble and civilized. But they are NOT guaranteed. Who would guarantee them? God? LMFAO!!! He hasn’t done a very good job of guarnateeing those rights through out history, now has “he”?

It’s just a man made construct. That’s all it is. We humans just happened BY ACCIDENT to evolve into the top predador position on this planet. We evolved from being scavengers, to foragers to learning agriculture and once we stayed in place, our groups or tribes if you will, grew larger. In the past few thousand years that we’ve call ourselves “civilized”, we learned a few things about population control (religion being a primary componant of that, by the way). But we evolved to this point. We drove the Neanderthals to extinction along with MANY other species along the way. We are not some “chosen people”. Life is not a “miricle”. Life is SCIENCE.

If you take a few BASIC elements that are commonly found floating around in space and put them in water and provide some heat and electric shocks (you know, an environment VERY similar to the earth about 5 Billion years ago) Lipids and urea will begin to form. Spontaneously. Single celled eucariots and procariots will eventually evolve. IT’S SCIENCE. THAT’S ALL.

Just because we evolved a set of abilities that enabled us to dominate this planet does not make us “better” than anything else on this planet. It gives us the POWER to harness those resources. There is NO absolute morality there at all.

Two members of a species mate - for now, lets assume they are mammals. The male ejaculates MILLIONS of sperm and if it’s lucky, it fertilizes an egg. The fertilized egg matures over a variable gestation period. During this time it is connected to the womb of the female via the placenta and umbilical cord - IT IS A PARASITE. It is NOT SEPARATE from the mother, they share nutrients because they are CONNECTED. Since they are CONNECTED, it is a part of HER BODY. She has a right to do what is best for HER BODY. If life is good, she’ll choose to have the baby. That baby’s LIFE becomes it’s OWN when the umbilical cord is cut and it is separated from it’s HOST, the female. THEN it can be considered an idividual human.

But even then, it has no “rights”. If it is born in the United States of America it has LAWS that will protect it. But if it’s born in China and it’s female, no one would think twice if it got thrown off a mountain.

This concept of “inalienable rights” is just plain wrong. The only inalienable right you have is to respond to your circumstance to the best of your ability. If you haven’t evolved enough to defend yourself than you will, like TRILLIONS of other sentient beings before you, DIE.

Every day, the gazelle wakes up and knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or else it will die. Every day, the lion wakes up and knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle or else it will die. Which one is right or wrong? But in EACH CASE, when you wake up, you’d better be running! [/quote]

That all sounds great except that the first post I respond to of yours stated that abortion laws infringe on a woman’s liberty. So you talk about liberty and then say basically that it doesn’t exist, which is awful confusing?

The Jews weren’t able to protect their liberty from Nazi Germany, so if I’m following your logic right, then they had no right to it then, correct?
[/quote]

Anyone has the “right” to do what they want with their body. Since a fetus is attatched to a woman’s body, she can do what she wants. That’s what the “law” says. You are mixing up questions about INNATE “god” given rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (which I responded to) and then using that to imply that I was speaking of “god” given rights in my original post, when in fact I was referring to rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the current law of the land. Two very different ideas. Clever argument though, I’ll give you that.

As for Jews in Nazi Germany before WWII, what does that have to do with this discussion? They certainly FAILED to defend themselves effectively from Nazis and as a result of that failure, many Jews ended up dying horrible deaths. I don’t think anyone can dispute that.

But Jews are hardly the only group that has experienced attempted genocide. They are not even the most recent. So what does THAT tell you? If they had an “inalienable right” to life, then they wouldn’t have been rounded up and killed, now would they?

Speaking of genocide (since YOU brought it up), how about the genocide preached by Christianity. And, no I’m not talking about the Crusades, although you guys really out did yourselves there. I’m talking about Mathew.

13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Included in the wicked are people who don’t believe that Jesus is the Lord.

That’s from John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Right now, if the “second coming” was tomorrow, as a Christian, you’d be fine with the genocide of about 4 BILLION people.

So how about we get off our moral high horse, Mmmmkay?

See what I did there? I can change a subject too!

135

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Feel free to stop posting ANY TIME you want! :)[/quote]

If I stop posting will you discontinue your practice of drinking unborn babies blood for breakfast?! [/quote]

But unborn baby blood mixed with Chocolate Anabolic Drive is the most refreshing breakfast shake EVER![/quote]

I think you meant Metabolic Drive.

Anabolic Drive is a competitor’s test booster, and it doesn’t come in chocolate flavor. :wink:

And I don’t know about you, but I never start the day without my aborted fetus and placenta stem cell smoothie. [/quote]

Yep, you knew what I meant. And I thought we agreed to keep the placenta stem cell ingredient to ourselves? Now EVERYONE will be doing it! LOL

136

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.[/quote]

I thought everyone hated the government on here??

Was the Supreme Court okay with slavery? I don’t know. [/quote]

The burden is on the ones who want to change the current law. If everyone is happy with the current law then no one has to prove anything, it just remains until someone disagrees.

137

The goal posts are moving again. I never said a word that wasn’t true. Supporting abortion supports the slaughter of innocent children.

[quote]H factor wrote: In my discussions with all 4 of these people I can tell you they want nothing more than having innocent people die. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they are killing people when they aren’t posting. They ALL want that bad.

I also assume you are for the immediate abolition of the Department of Defense which kills innocent people at times for doing nothing other than existing. Well existing in a country we happen to be at war with.

We will save a lot of money with that plan though. We should do something with the murderers Karado, smh_23, Varqanir, and angry chicken though. I can’t believe I even post on a forum with such barbarians! [/quote]

138

You support abortion, you support the slaughter of innocent children.

139

Just simple information, Perpetuates Pedophiles does NOTHING other than kill children through either chemical or surgical abortions. Abort73.com will give awesome articles about the whole government funded business.

[quote]dmaddox wrote: The trend or regression line for the past 20 years . . . . but one of many causations.
[/quote]

140

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.