Abortion

[Undead Cheese]

-Yes I must be ignoring your posts when I have quoted and responded to each of them. Gj in showing that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You are the one without a clue. You never responded to my point on genetics. Is it too scary for you? Huh? Can't counter it so you might as well ignore it!

Your arguments are that the constitution says that it is illegal to kill a fetus right.

You are showing, again, that you have no clue what you're talking about. That's Tipsy's argument, not mine.

The rest of your post is just stuff we've already gone over about how wrong you were. Oh well.

The irony is that you completely ignored my post.

It looked like your post was directed at Tipsy.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Just because it has the same genes doesn't mean it is entitled to pre-natal rights. Where in the constitution does it say it gives rights too you before you are even born or brought into this world? Nowhere. You can say you believe it they SHOULD be entitled to it. But according to the constitution (which is what the supreme court lies upon to makes its decision regarding whether or not a law is constitutional) you cannot.

Edit: And you missed my last 2 posts I posted against tipsy's arguments of the fourteenth...the ninth....all 3 of the court cases he cited and his U.N Argument.

another thing:
You stated Undead Cheese: (FUN FACT: OUR LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT SOLEY PROTECT ACTUAL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY).
Yes you are right, there are certain human rights given to illegal immigrants/Diplomats/ammbassadors/prisoners of war/etc.

Read what I posted which CLEARLY states that the court case plesy vs. Doe dealt with the issues of illegal immigrants. Thats it. Nothing too do with abortion or pre-natal rights. NOTHING.

Further,
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

Just for more fun to disprove your argument Plyer vs. Doe was based against illegal immigrants. Not Prenatal rights in the least bit.

In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. It also found that while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Finally, the court noted that under current laws and practices "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that without an education, these undocumented children, "[already] disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that § 21.031 violated that Clause. Suggesting that "the state's exclusion of undocumented children from its public schools . . . may well be the type of invidiously motivated state action for which the suspect classification doctrine was designed," the court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the statute would survive a "strict scrutiny" analysis because, in any event, the discrimination embodied in the statute was not supported by a rational basis.
(http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bjordan/PlylervDoe.html)


SO NOW THAT I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR ARGUMENT I MUST HAVE WON THE DEBATE BECAUSE I CAN TYPE IN ALL BIG LETTERS AND DECLARE WHETHER I WIN OR LOSE A DEBATE BY DOING SO.

But just because I showed each and every one of the faults of his arguments regarding the court cases and his arguments with the constitution via showing the meaning of why each of them were written and their purpose. I must be COMPLETELY wrong. Get a clue undead cheese

 

[Tipsy]

When the word fetus is not even mentioned in the constitution.

It does not say adolescent or adult either, but we assume that it covers the rights of all humans.

then when I cite sources from the constitution and the U.N. Document that you provide and provide backup via the english dictionary to disprove/approve my argument. You counter with "OMFG YOU DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE MY POST SAID THE OPPOSITE!!!!"

Undead Cheese is right on this. You blatantly skipped the exact definition I used, which I didn’t even get from the dictionary, but from various government sites, where all my definitions have come from. I think the United States government considers what it says is a definition of a word more than what a private company says it means.

When, in fact, your post completely stretches documents that were written for the sake of people after childbirth

This argument has no back up, you are assuming that when it says person, it doesn’t include unborn babies. An unborn baby is definitely a human as has been pointed out and this is discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

Not before, otherwise it would have been written "we hold these truths too be self-evident that all people/unborn fetus's are created equal"

An unborn baby is a human, which makes it a person. If it needs to say people/fetus, it needs to be people/fetus/adult/adolescent/etc.

when it is not ever written. As I have said it is an infringement of a women's right too force her to go through labor.

The government has the right to infringe on our liberty with due process, and that is exactly that is being done with making abortion legal/illegal.

And where does it say you can't discriminate something that has no legal rights in the first place Tipsy?

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.†It says right there that no State shall deprive any person, of rights. An unborn baby is a human and a person and it is unconstitutional to not give them these rights.

Counter against Griswold vs.Connetticuct…

So basically what you are saying is that the unmentioned rights of the constitution take precedence over the inalienable right of life.

Just for more fun to disprove your argument Plyer vs. Doe was based against illegal immigrants. Not Prenatal rights in the least bit.

What would you consider an unborn baby. If you consider it an illegal immigrant, I can give you reason they have rights, if it is a legal immigrant, then I can give you proof of that, and if it is a citizen, I can give you proof of that. It has no be one of these because there is not anything else it could be.

Further,
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

Looks like you are just copying and pasting now. There isn’t much to say against this, just simply that if court cases (and documents for where it applies since I added in citizen) give the rights to legal immigrants, immigrants, or citizens, then guess what, they have it. No matter how many people you take work from, they still have it.

In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact…The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Thank you for pointing out that the Distrcit Court held that illegal aliens were protected, it doesn’t matter the circumstance.

And again I will further scrutinize some more of your defense.

The fourth ammendment was protection from unneccessary searches...nothing at all too do with this particular issue. Read.

I don’t see anywhere that I said anything about the fourth amendment other than that is one of the places privacy rights come from.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Same thing as with the fourth amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This ammendment was included to insure that any powers not given to the government were then given to the people. Thus controlling the amount of power the federal government had to regulate.

You are right, so are you telling me the government has the right to take away life without due process?

Again Might I emphasize my use of sources/constitutional arguments/supreme court decisions.

Again I must emphasize your faulty use of sources/constitutional arguments/supreme court decisions.

Edit:I will also further ask if you are going to site a court case that you actually fully read what the case is about instead of deciding on your own based on a one paragraph description you got out of some book. Do the research and back it up with real facts. Don't stretch the truth too something it is not. As I have clearly stated in the above arguments all of your ammendment issues/court cases which you have brought up have been shot down and will now be considered null and void. Thank you. Have a nice day.

If you are talking about my court cases, they do in fact support what I have been saying, if you are talking about someone else then so be it.

Don't stretch the truth too something it is not. As I have clearly stated in the above arguments all of your ammendment issues/court cases which you have brought up have been shot down and will now be considered null and void.

So don’t say all humans have the right to life. Don’t say that the constitution is exactly what it is. You have yet to even beat a portion of my argument. Everyone has pointed out your faulty logic.

I stress again, read and comprehend, you have lacked this for three pages.

 

[CelestialBadger]

It looked like your post was directed at Tipsy.

I was refering to the part that said "Undead: Okay, well avoiding..." But you can cross-apply my arguments with Tipsy about liberty while you're responding to it.

And Tipsy has his own post to respond to when he finishes arguing with Lizardbreath...

 

[Lights]

When, in fact, your post completely stretches documents that were written for the sake of people after childbirth. Not before, otherwise it would have been written "we hold these truths too be self-evident that all people/unborn fetus's are created equal" when it is not ever written.

If I am not mistaken, you are "created" as an embryo, and you go from there. So, according to your quote, embryo's and fetus' do have said Rights. Right? Otherwise, it would have said "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all people who have already been born...".


Just a side note, I realize what's in the Declaration of Independence isn't law. ~_~

 

[Lizardbreath]

Tipsy you astound me. I posted everything I can in regards to arguments against your court cases/ammendments/U.N Documents. And yet you still think that you are completely 100% correct in your notion. This is no longer a debate on your behalf. You take all my information that I clearly wrote against your argument and say that I fail to attack your argument. Your post before my 3 other posts was based on Roe vs. Wade/Plyer vs. Doe/Griswold vs. Conneticut/ The Ninth ammendment/John Locke (which is not a real legal source)/ the fourteenth ammendment/ and whatever U.N Document it is that you posted. And posted in the last two Pages (of this debate) References as too the general origin of the cases/ammendments and the wording which clearly depicts nothing too the vacinity of abortion. Especially in the case of Plyer vs. Doe where it was just talking about illegal immigrants. Then I even edited it too please Undead Cheese and post against his argument (which he has so clearly in huge bolded green letters. If you fail to see this then there is no longer a point in debating here. I am putting fourth legal information in front of you and reasoning(both legal and social) and you seem to not care in the least bit.

 

[Sogeking]

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States."

What about the children of US citizens who chose to go outside of the US and have a child in a foriegn country? Will the child be american or not? What im mainly trying to get at is, if an american couple go out to japan and had a child in tokyo, would the child be an american citizen?

 

[Lizardbreath]

What about the children of US citizens who chose to go outside of the US and have a child in a foriegn country? Will the child be american or not? What im mainly trying to get at is, if an american couple go out to japan and had a child in tokyo, would the child be an american citizen?

-If he is born from American citizens then I believe he does get legal status in the U.S when he comes back. It depends on the laws in Japan if he becomes a citizen in japan from being born their. That I am unsure of. If they are permanent residents of japan then I believe he gets dual citizenship between the two countries.
Edit: Tipsy did you even see the post on the other pages? It states the original intent of the ammendments. Your logic is " I construe them to be against abortion and here is why" When they have absolutely nothing to do on the matter. Again as I pointed out in your Doe vs Plyer/ the original meaning of the Ninth ammendment and whatever else I posted in rebuttal/ and the right to privacy which is stated in the first/fourth/ and fifth ammendment. You can't construe them to be against abortion when they never EVER were against abortion. If you were a lawyer in front of the supreme court you probably would lose your case the moment you brought up plyer vs. Doe and the U.N documentation. The justices would shoot that down in literally two seconds (provided they even let you finish because you only get around 30 minutes too give your case and the justices are allowed to interrupt you as much as they want).

 

[Tipsy]

Tipsy you astound me. I posted everything I can in regards to arguments against your court cases/ammendments/U.N Documents.

And you have yet to take any ground on my argument, everyone can see it, why can't you?

And yet you still think that you are completely 100% correct in your notion.

I don't think anything you have posted has hurt my argument, I know nothing you have posted has hurt my argument.

This is no longer a debate on your behalf.

You are right, I repeat myself over and over again to try to get you to read and comprehend.

You take all my information that I clearly wrote against your argument and say that I fail to attack your argument.

Because you have?

And posted in the last two Pages (of this debate) References as too the general origin of the cases/ammendments and the wording which clearly depicts nothing too the vacinity of abortion.

Well, the last two - three pages of this thread has just been me repeating myself with nearly the same responses that were in the first five pages, you just can't seem to soak it in.

Especially in the case of Plyer vs. Doe where it was just talking about illegal immigrants.

The unborn babies can only be one of three things. Citizens of the country, meaning they are protected under the law by the literal letters on the constitution. They can be legal aliens, which I have another court case to show you they are protected. Or they can be illegal aliens, which the Plyer case shows they are protected. It doesn't matter what it was about, the outcome of the case was that they were in fact protected. That is a fact, not an interpretation, not an opinion, a fact.

(which he has so clearly in huge bolded green letters. If you fail to see this then there is no longer a point in debating here. I am putting fourth legal information in front of you and reasoning(both legal and social) and you seem to not care in the least bit.

You are putting forth legal information and you disregard everything that could even remotely hurt your argument.

You see, whether you are a citizen, legal alien, or illegal alien, you are still protected by the Equal Protection Clause. That is a fact, not an interpretation. It has been decided by our legal system.

The only possible way that an unborn baby would not be protected would be if it is not considered a full human or person. You try to say a unborn baby isn't a human because you compare it to your dog, and other things which simply do not matter.

both legal and social

I really don't see the point of arguing anything other than legal issues. Because, if my argument is correct, you can post any soical thing you want, but it won't justify murder, which would be the case if an unborn baby was recognized as a 'full' human or person.

Again as I pointed out in your Doe vs Plyer

No matter which way you turn the facts, it is legally sound. It is a direct quote from the court that said they were protected under the Equal Protection Clause. This is an undisputable fact.

the original meaning of the Ninth ammendment and whatever else I posted in rebuttal/ and the right to privacy which is stated in the first/fourth/ and fifth ammendment.

This is where your lack of reading and comprehension comes in. I only even talked about these amendments when I was talking about where the unwritten rights come from. You immediately through your lack of either reading by skimming the post, or your lack of comprehension by not seeing that I was just pointing out, for lack of a better word, historical background.

You can't construe them to be against abortion when they never EVER were against abortion.

Your right! Guess what? I never did, it is you lack of comprehension or reading that brings this out.

If you were a lawyer in front of the supreme court you probably would lose your case the moment you brought up plyer vs. Doe

Plyer is a legally sound thing. It is a direct quote saying they are protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

the U.N documentation

This was a completely different part of the argument, I haven't even pointed out any major points on this, the only reason I even pointed out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was because you asked what TBS' point about the United Nations was. This was just a matter of you getting ahead of yourself.

The justices would shoot that down in literally two seconds (provided they even let you finish because you only get around 30 minutes too give your case and the justices are allowed to interrupt you as much as they want).

You can go ahead and think that in your own little world.

 

[Lizardbreath]

There is no point in arguing this further. We both believe we are correct and are both stubborn as hell. If you are going to argue something you have to also argue its social status. Whats the point of forcing a women to have a baby and bring it into this world when she can make the baby's life miserable? Cause it emotional problems? Whats too stop you from making her do that? Maybe we should make proper parenting laws?

 

[DeathRingerTheSilent]

I have not had the time to read all of this maybe I will read it all tomorrow in school but as for now my opinion stands as thus:
Wiether your pro-life or pro-choice you should have some way to accomodate the children wiether through abortion or adoption it doesn't matter. however, I if I were to have the choice as a foetus to either be born to someone who does not want me and will forever drop me in an orphanage or to be aborted I would choose to be aborted since that way I would atleast avoid the pain of rebuke by many of people made of my parents and all of those who come to adopt but don't choose me... I don't know if I conflict or support anyones arguments but I will stand by my belief of pro-choice until I see it best otherwise...

 

[Sogeking]

Whats the point of forcing a women to have a baby and bring it into this world when she can make the baby's life miserable? Cause it emotional problems? Whats too stop you from making her do that? Maybe we should make proper parenting laws?

adoption? ever hear of that?

and how much do you know about adoption?

 

[Lizardbreath]

What if she chooses not too? What if she decides to keep the baby? Whats too stop it from having emotional problems because it was originally not wanted? Yes. I have heard about adoption. And they don't have too give it up for adoption. The child as it grows could develop emotional/psychological problems and stuff like that. Also, what is too keep a women from drinking lots of beer and killing it that way. Ultimately. If the women does not want the baby. She will find a way too get rid of it. So you might as well have a safe option for her to get rid of it. Instead of having her poison it too death.


Edit: Too tipsy: You do realize that I was agreeing that plyer vs. Doe was about illegal immigrants right? But I am saying that it has NOTHING too do with abortion.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Let me give my 5cents for this discussion...
1st an abortion is made when there is no sentient being. It's only an extra group of staminal cells.
2nd death penalty is worse than abortion cause you're lkilling a full sentient being (who isn't always guilty aight??) so, if you're one of those extreme right wing fascists so called 'defenders of life' then you must be against death penalty as well.
3rd USA Bush Administration (or should I say Cheney??) is clearly against abortion but, it puts a price on human life wich is (currently) the oil on Iraque (and if you start telling shit like 'OMG Saddam was a dictator yada yada yada' five words for you: North Corea and Saudi Arabia). I believe there is a contradition in terms yes??
So I say abortion at least gives us a choice about how will we bring our descendants to the world I mean if a kid is likely to grow up in a violent environment with no conditions for a sane development, wouldn't it be better for the child simply to have never existed??...
Think about it...

 

[CelestialBadger]

So yeah, Tipsy and Undead Cheese should answer my posts sometime...In the mean time:

adoption? ever hear of that?

and how much do you know about adoption?

In 2000 there were less than 130,000 adoptions. The CDC estimates there were about 1 million abortions that year. That's a lot of kids not getting adopted. But I'm sure you have a solution for that right?

 

[Lizardbreath]

So yeah, Tipsy and Undead Cheese should answer my posts sometime...In the mean time:

-It doesn't matter celestial. You can present them with the most highest of legal documents and they still will say that their interpretation is correct. Even if it is not even mentioned in the source they claimed.

In 2000 there were less than 130,000 adoptions. The CDC estimates there were about 1 million abortions that year. That's a lot of kids not getting adopted. But I'm sure you have a solution for that right?

-The problem with being against abortion is that, no matter what, in the long run. The kid loses out. So even if you outlaw it. Their is a higher probability that the kid will have social/emotional issue. Its like a double edged sword.

 

[Sogeking]

-The problem with being against abortion is that, no matter what, in the long run. The kid loses out. So even if you outlaw it. Their is a higher probability that the kid will have social/emotional issue. Its like a double edged sword.

how many adopted children/orphans do you know? I only know like 3 or 4 and thats because the people that adopted them are brilliant wonderful humanitarians.

the best way to solve the situation is to not have premarital sex, period.

to Homem mAIOR(whats your name, i dont get it...:/):

i know a kid that is about 13, he has a disease where his body lacks the ability to grow larger than a baby that cannot walk. Yet, he is one of the brightest kids i know, he's even influential in some ways where a regular person wouldnt be. His parents were told that they should abort and not deal with this disease, they didnt believe in it and they had the child anyways.

Do you think that they should have aborted the child and just not try? or do you think he deserved a chance at living? Thats one of mans "god given" rights, to live, and the parents were given the choice to allow the child to either live or die, which is taking away its right to live. I dont feel that we are allowed to make that descision, much like the woman in florida who's feeding tube might be removed, she shouldnt die because you dont want to provide for her anymore, she should die when she dies. Why do you think that convicted killers are sentanced to life in prison or better yet, the death penalty? because they have infringed on the rights of others and must be punished. Now it might seem like a contradiction to kill someone because they took the life of someone, but similary saying that you dont support terrorism yet pay the families of those that spent their lives in the sake of terrorism seems kind of a contradiction does it not?

Also, lets go further with bush taking saddam out of office. Are you aware of the lebonon(sp?) and syrian conflict ATM?(

 

[Lizardbreath]

You are arguing the same thing though. You say it is wrong to kill in one stance, but alright too kill in another. They both clearly contradict themselves.

 

[Tipsy]

There is no point in arguing this further. We both believe we are correct and are both stubborn as hell.

You see, the thing is, you have basically said that all humans, only 'citizens' were guarenteed the rights under the fourteenth amendment. Everything in my entire argument has been legally sound, and the only argument that is actually considered valid in the United States was posted by someone's first post was is a baby really a human being, which you have only responded to by comparing it to your dog. It has taken 3 pages, and hopefully it will only take that to show you that my argument is completely sound. Yet for some reason you have completely avoided this and attacked the only thing that you could really win with, is an unborn baby fetus really a 'human'. That is all you would have had to say, eight words, but you have wasted the last three pages trying to attack what isn't there in my argument. The only thing there was left to post in this thread three pages ago was is it really okay to consider an unborn baby not a 'full person' because it is the only thing that could go through my argument. To put it simply enough, your argument the whole time has been roughly 'it doesn't say unborn babies', which if you are going to say it, is nowhere close to 'should an unborn baby be considered a 'full' person'. There is no other reasoning that could ever make my argument wrong, yet you try to say that since it doesn't specificall say one group of people, then it does not apply to them. And you are right, you are 'stubborn as hell' because you have only been attacking what is not there to attack, what is there in fact, instead of the only thing actually attackable in my argument.

To whether a baby is really 'alive', I have yet to have anything other than comparing a fetus to a dog, when responding to three simple reasons why I believe that it is 'human' and deserves 'human rights'.
"1) It is alive, the unborn baby can reproduce his own cells and develop them - meaning if it is alive, it is not dead, 2) It is completely human in its characteristics, including the well pointed out 46 human chromosomes, and 3) Nothing new will be added to the unborn baby from the time the sperm enters the egg to the time the unborn baby dies as an old man/woman"

Onto politics:

3rd USA Bush Administration (or should I say Cheney??) is clearly against abortion but, it puts a price on human life wich is (currently) the oil on Iraque (and if you start telling shit like 'OMG Saddam was a dictator yada yada yada' five words for you: North Corea and Saudi Arabia). I believe there is a contradition in terms yes??

I posted this in the United Nations thread, but I will put it here too. It was Bush who first said the 'Saddam is a dictator' thing, even before the war in his list of reasons, to quote his 2002 State of the Union:
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world"
Keep in mind this was said in 2002, before the war. This is his reasoning, even though I may not support it.

As for a 'contradiction' in terms, what better would have come by voting Kerry? We would still be in the war in Iraq, and we would have a pro-choice president. Abortion legally murders between 1.2 and 1.7 million unborn babies in the United States alone, tell me has Bush come anywhere near this? Iraq was invaded on March 20, 2003, and today is March 9, 2005. This is roughly a two year period where the numbers on abortions would be estimated between 2.4 and 3.4 million. Has Bush come anywhere near the death of that many people in the war in Iraq? And for the reason why Iraq got picked, as it was put in the other thread, the phrase 'we've got to start somewhere' should take care of that.

Do I personally agree with Bush's stance on the war on terror, not at all, but he does have his own reasoning behind it that has been distorted.

So I say abortion at least gives us a choice about how will we bring our descendants to the world I mean if a kid is likely to grow up in a violent environment with no conditions for a sane development, wouldn't it be better for the child simply to have never existed??...

The point is, abortion has taken away the rights (unless someone disproves my argument) of roughly 43 million humans. The point isn't giving a choice of how to bring our decendants into the world; it is we need to not take away the inalienable rights of human beings from unborn babies.

And, to respond to and and all social issues:
How can any social issue justify the taking away of the inalienable right to life, especially without the guarenteed without due process?

 

[Lizardbreath]

and, to respond to and and all social issues:
How can any social issue justify the taking away of the inalienable right to life,
- So your saying its wrong for us to take away lifes. But it is right for us to go to war and kill thousands? What am I missing in this logic?

especially without the guarenteed without due process?
-The people we go too war with and kill both soldiers and civilians get niether of these. But yet you say everybody is entitled to these "inaliable rights" what right do we have to go in and kill thousands of people then they do?

I chose this time not too respond too the rest of the post because I have found it hopeless to argue with you on legal grounds. You accept nothing I put fourth as evidence in that regard so I will move on too the social issues.