| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Population control by abortion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 25 2012, 09:43 AM (1,323 Views) | |
| Mountainrivers | Feb 25 2012, 10:45 PM Post #11 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The solution to the anti-abortion crowd is to force those opposing abortion to adopt every unwanted child in the world and provide for them the same as if they were their own children. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 25 2012, 11:04 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ABORTION STATISTICS Fortunately the rate is going down... ![]() Still a shame for a people who value rights, but I forget, many here do not. |
![]() |
|
| campingken | Feb 26 2012, 02:32 AM Post #13 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chris, Do you value our right not to agree with your definition of "rights?" I am all for sterilization being a requirement for long term (generational) welfare. That is about the only way to break the chain. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 26 2012, 02:56 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure, so state what you disagree with and why. I disagree with your solution. Euthanasia in America was abandoned as Hitler took power. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 26 2012, 03:11 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is indeed ironic that liberals/progressives, based on emotionalism--emotional reaction to poverty, advocate welfare out one side their collective mouth, while out the other side they advocate as solution to the problem they created, the re-engineering of society by aborting and sterilizing the very people they intended to help in the first place. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Feb 26 2012, 03:13 AM Post #16 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't there a word for that? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 26 2012, 03:22 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
liberal |
![]() |
|
| campingken | Feb 26 2012, 03:38 AM Post #18 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you consider birth control Euthanisa? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 26 2012, 03:57 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In a way, yes, but you were talking about sterilization, and that definitely is. Do you really think you can re-engineer the human race? |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Feb 26 2012, 04:08 AM Post #20 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know this a a contentious topic, but shouldn't we try to apply some logic to the formula? In my opinion, I don't believe we should be extending rights to class of cells that from all the research I have done, were never so intended. If the cells become viable, then they are already protected under current law, but prior to that point, a human being does not exist. This is not my opinion but rather the knowledge of the times our founding fathers lived in and as you can see from the material I included, the opinion of the most learned at the time. If you want to protect cells that have not "quickened", then it will take an amendment to the constitution. On the topic of abortion as population control, I'm not a woman so don't have a dog in the fight. It's none of my business what a woman and her doctor decides is best for her and her body. As far a logic and reason comes into the mix, how can you honestly expect uninformed people to grasp the role that hormones play in their life. The urging from the primal brain to reproduce the species. They get the urge and act. And we have literally millions of irresponsible people among us. They don't think before they act. The bigger question in my mind is why the government or tax dollars are even in this conversation and debate. It's not the role of government to tell people what to do with their bodies, nor is it a role for government to feed, clothes and nurture the offspring from the loins of this dimwits. Yet i admit that is what has come to pass. For guys talking about abortion, maybe a prerequisite is to have yourselves fixed. Most of the guys I know did just that decades ago. We knew our hormones were more powerful than our will. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html But what about Roe vs. Wade? Does a “penumbra,” or shadow, of the 14th Amendment guarantee a right to privacy that includes the right to an abortion? The fact is, as Justice Byron White’s dissenting opinion in Roe vs. Wade concluded, there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” Indeed, just as the logical development of the Declaration’s recognition of man’s inherent liberty required federal intervention to abolish slavery, the Declaration’s acknowledgment of the inalienable right to life would seem to favor federal intervention to end abortion. 3 James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life? Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”4 Given Wilson’s exegesis, one cannot doubt that the Founders recognized that unborn infants are owed the full protection of the law. The key question thus becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child. Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….” One of the sources of both Wilson’s and Bouvier’s opinion is William Blackstone’s widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone’s discussion of the quickening observes: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…" The ancient law referred to by Blackstone is best articulated by Henry Bracton (1216-1272), the renowned “Father of the Common Law.”5 As Roe reluctantly admits, Bracton categorized the abortion of a “formed or quickened” fetus as a form of homicide, “the slaying of man by man.” Wilson seems to agree with Bracton on this issue, and thus affirmed that the inalienable right to life applies just as much to unborn, quickened human beings as it does to any other human beings. The fact that Blackstone emphatically characterizes abortion as “a very heinous” crime suggests he may sympathize with the ancient law on this matter. Needless to say, the Founders undoubtedly recognized that unborn infants older than 15 weeks possess a constitutionally protected and inalienable right to life. Given that, according to Planned Parenthood, at least 90 percent of all abortions occur in the first trimester, this conclusion seems almost irrelevant. To begin with, however, the obvious intentions of the Founders as well as the weight of the common law compel the Congress and the courts to prohibit abortion—for any reason—in the second and third trimesters. Abortions performed during these late stages are clearly murder—and cannot be justified by a penumbra of the 14th Amendment, the mother’s health or a woman’s “right to choose.” Edited by Pat, Feb 26 2012, 04:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






10:14 PM Jul 11
