Archbishop Vigano

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
I genuinely don’t follow you. May I ask what the constitutional right to abortion means in America? What are the qualifications?
It was *tenuously* based on a woman's right to privacy, nothing more.

Even Justice Ruth B Ginsberg (a liberal darling) noted how tenuous Rowe was...of course, that isn't noted in the current furor.

This administration has done nothing right, so the only shiny object they have to hold out to distract from the reality of the nation disintegrating around us through their policies is to attempt an end run pointing at a "right" that never truly was, legally speaking. That is moral, that is scientific, that is fact and that is the legal reality.
 
Last edited:

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
Your moral argument is not a scientific one.
And your scientific argument is not a moral one. So? Given the choice, what is science without morals? Heartless. What are morals without science? Mindless. Neither stands alone.

There is much more to being human than science can begin to answer, and even when it tries sometimes those answers leave much to be desired. To wantonly and heartlessly kill a child...as so many abortion advocates DEMAND...is a position far less than human, in my eyes.

I used to say since I could not get pregnant I did not have a right to an opinion in this debate. But as we are so forcibly reminded now that men can get pregnant too, I guess I do have a right to an opinion. And that position is touted as "scientific," go figure. :rolleyes:

The current administration are baby killers, plain and simple. If they can't kill them in the womb, they'll starve them to death by cutting off the supply of baby formula. Baby killers, baby killers, baby killers. Infanticide on steroids. Those that advocate for such policies should be retroactively aborted. Afterall, it is what they advocate.

At the very least such advocates should be mercilessly spat on and jeered like their parents and grandparents did 50 years ago to those they branded as baby killers.

By the way, how old must an embryo be to feel pain? Do you understand the mechanics of aborting a fetus, how it is ripped limb from limb, or partial birth and the neck is severed, and the fetus removed in pieces. Watch an abortion sometime, and then try to eat your lunch. That's science.
 
Last edited:

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
As ever with moral questions, it's the reasoning.

The debate runs around a) the 'rights' of the particular woman, and b) the 'rights' of the unborn child.

As it stands today, a) over-rides b) up until a certain point in time, and then it switches and b) over-rides a) – with a sliding scale as to when that point is.
Yeah, I did a paper on Rowe v Wade in my Medical Law and Ethics class. My prof didn't like my conclusion, but she could not argue with my reasoning. She took me aside and asked me to tone down my paper before presenting in class.

I too, am sorry for your loss. It is a callous person who thinks of an unborn child as "merely" a lump of undifferentiated flesh. It is a dastardly person who peddles in such flesh to the highest bidder.

Rowe in its initial formula allowed for abortion until the embryo "quickened," that is - it begins moving in the womb of its own, approx the beginning of the second trimester. The Supreme Court Justices at that time wrestled with the question of when exactly an embryo becomes an infant and settled on "quickening." Much as I still find it distasteful, I can reluctantly understand (with the oft cited examples of rape, incest, mother's health, etc) up to that point. Up to that point, per Rowe in its initial formulation, abortion was based on a Mother's / woman's right to privacy - nothing else. And according to Rowe v Wade, after the embryo quickened, abortion was still illegal where it was illegal...it has always been a State's rights issue that the Court superceded in 1970 whatever with Rowe. It was subsequent decisions based on Rowe or pointing to Rowe that led up to the point of last year I think it was a Governor (was it dingleberry in New York?, I don't remember but will happily find it if any challenge) that promoted abortion up until birth, even a few hours after, quote: "We'll make the baby comfortable and let the mother decide." Wrong answer, and I think anyone with a heart would agree. A viable baby is a baby, no mistake, at which point it is undeniably infanticide. Premies are saved at younger and younger ages, but these wretched people want to murder an infant well past viability. Nah, call it what it is - baby killers.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a known Eugenicist, and who openly promoted the culling of the Black Race. This is not hyperbole; the information is easily found but strangely not promoted....hmmmm. Also note that Black Mothers are disproportionately "served" by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was caught on tape by more than one organization selling fetal tissue, which in most circumstances is against Federal Law.
 
Last edited:

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
Rjm said
If Pence and Pelosi had been in the chamber on Jan 6th the crowd would have lynched them (without a trial)-- they invaded the Capitol with that intention, imo

Nicholas said
Not worthy of a thoughtful reply -- too silly and reveals ignorance of the actual event. Am reminded why I stopped visiting this site some time back

Really? Ignorance? Before you enlighten us I will add my 2 cents.

First and foremost the beating of the capitol police to forcibly enter the capitol (I have been at protests in DC with hundreds of thousands and not seen this level of violence or ever seen anyone with the hutzpah to attack our capitol)

But they were an unruly crowd of various groups each with their own agendas riled up by their own hate and perverted patriotism...had they gotten to occupied chambers our politicians would have surely been beaten or killed by the most aggressive folk.
Strange, the only person killed that day was a woman 12 year veteran of the US Air Force shot by a Capitol policeman, and the next day a policeman had a heart attack which somehow gets construed as part of Jan 6


But no mention whatsoever of the 500 plus RIOTS (mostly peaceful protests as the buildings in the background are fully engulfed in flames) that did in fact murder many people and injure hundreds of law enforcement, and instead of quelling the riots or supporting law enforcement the libs unified in supporting the "Summer of Love" "Potluck Dinner" RIOTS in Seattle, Portland, St Louis, Minneapolis, etc, etc, etc...

Where is the investigation of all of this? Hmmm?

And why doesn't the Jan 6 committee want to hear from the Secret Service Agents directly involved in the accusations from the recent hearsay "surprise!" witness? They have offered, openly, to testify under oath of their own free will to set the matter straight.

<cough Kangaroo Court cough>
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
But who has the right to FORCE a woman to give birth?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Abortion used to be dangerous and life threatening. It is now safe and painless. It’s a pill. It is no longer a desperate option. Can a woman not weigh up the options and decide for herself? It’s not a simple question for anyone
 
Top