Abortion Discussion

[Archivist]

Come to think of it, you are right. My mistake! However, the mentality which she demonstrated is similar to that of women who purposefully abort. Agreed?

No. If the baby was born and she killed it that is homicide.

 

[thesopranopiano]

Well, in that case you have a personal and different definition for what constitutes abortion than the official one.

Since she actually gave birth, what you witnessed does not fit the official definition of abortion.

 

[AirPo]

Yep, I can
.....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,......

That doesn't say "Freedom of religion." Doesn't it have to say "Freedom of religion."

 

[redleghunter]

You haven't read the study have you?

I have. 37% participation rate of available samples. Of the 37%, 85% filled out first session questionnaires. The drop out rate increases from there.

Study conducted over a three year period. Other studies cited on this thread show women with regrets later than three years.

Also the source of your study is biased for the abortion lobby.

 

[Archivist]

Do I have the right to destroy what someone else is building? Suppose my friend is building a home, but the electrical wiring has not been installed yet. Do I have the right to come with a wrecking ball and destroy his house?

I have been addressing the subject of rape victims in this thread. Some have claimed that a rape victim should be forced to carry the fetus to term. However, what you have said supports what I have been saying: If you friend is building a house but it is on your property without your permission, yes you do have the right to remove it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That doesn't say "Freedom of religion." Doesn't it have to say "Freedom of religion."

So now you are reducted to semantics?

 

[AirPo]

Well, in that case you have a personal and different definition for what constitutes abortion than the official one.

Again, no.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That doesn't say "Freedom of religion." Doesn't it have to say "Freedom of religion."

The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.

It is designed to protect both. A government corrupted by religion is just as bad for everyone involved as a religion corrupted by government.

This should be obvious. It was after all, religious people who wanted to put a "wall of separation" between the institutions of government and religion.

 

[AirPo]

So now you are reducted to semantics?

Why no, I was just giving another example of the semantic game being played when it is implied that seperation is not part of the Constitution.

 

[AirPo]

The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.

No, the free exercise clause is designed to protect religion from government. That's the basic concept.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, the free exercise clause is designed to protect religion from government. That's the basic cncept.

That is what I said, thank you. (shaking head)

 

[Archivist]

See above.....unless you can quote from the constitution about your "separation".

Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

 

[Root of Jesse]

That study does exactly that.

So you believe that the study represents all abortion victims? I don't.

Argument from incredulity. What you choose to doubt has no bearing on reality.

Except the Ultimate reality.

And those anecdotal examples are very much in the minority.

Just a question here...how many, by percentage, priests in the Catholic Church are child molesters?

90% is hardly a "may be"!

I didn't doubt your stat, but I consider even one abortion a travesty on humanity, so it don't matter.

A few.

Even one is a travesty.

You've just lost all credibility.

You think your opinion matters to me?

Wrong. Consult the statistics, rather than your own prejudices please.

Statistics lie. When statistics say that unemployment is at 5.6%, yet there are 12-15% of the workforce unemployed, you cannot believe the statistics.

Poisoning the well, red herrings. You've got them all!




I've already explained why earlier. I don't feel inclined to waste my time on you.

Well, I'm not wasting time here. I'm advocating for the unborn.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

I don't believe that is in the constitution.....and please, you know that is not what I was asking, so don't go down that road.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which is irrelevant to the law.

God is irrelevant to the law....

 

[Archivist]

I don't believe that is in the constitution.....and please, you know that is not what I was asking, so don't go down that road.

The Supreme Court said that was the intent. Do Supreme Court decisions apply only when they support what you are saying?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yep, I think I'm the only one here that's bothered to actually read the study.

But then, you lot couldn't afford to read it, could you? Because it would clearly show how grossly wrong your position is.

Better to throw stones from a distance, right?

Lots of time on your hands, I see. One study. I'd bet there's studies out there, just as unbiased as yours, that refute your conclusion.

 

[AirPo]

That is what I said, thank you. (shaking head)

No, you said the establishment clause.

 

[KCfromNC]

Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

Come on. You know that 2+ generations of the best legal minds in the US are obviously consistently wrong on this issue. Luckily some random anonymous poster on the internet is here to fix that problem.