Jolt Country

The so-called conservatives who think that judges legislate from the bench, should reaize that fetuses are not citizens and do not have rights, per the constitution's 14th Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

A fetus has not been born, thus it is not a citizen, and further, if it was a citizen, a state could not make any laws at all allowing abortion for any reason at all because it would allow the deprivation of their right to life without due process. I doubt even the hardest and most vicious anti-abortion people want to prohibit abortion even in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Oh the other hand, I could be wrong and some of them, if they could have their way, would send the mother and the doctor to the electric chair.

Tdarcos wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:14 am The so-called...

Go back to eating your apples you old horse.

Billy Mays wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:03 pm Wasn't she responsible for the murder of a ludicrous amount babies?

Under-rated post. I am glad we don't have a +1 thing or "Likes" here but this did make me laugh out loud.

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:02 am

Casual Observer wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:19 amEmbryos aren't babies.

Yeah, little lungs and feet and other parts in a bloody pile of dead baby, totally not babies you sicko. I'd post a picture of it but ICJ and others here hate seeing the actual consequences of their beliefs.

You can post that in a thread that notes what it contains - I am all for the freedom of expression. Thank-you for considering the feelings of others by not inlining it here. Reading the thread, we all try to do that unless the "others" in this case are the unborn.

Huh, so Billy is really running out of things to troll with? He's going to pretend to care about abortions. Maybe next he can do something with Satanism and D&D. This bit DEFINITELY isn't stale!

But he -is- drinking and reviewing whiskey. Can't harsh a guy totally, right?

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:19 amYou can post that in a thread that notes what it contains - I am all for the freedom of expression. Thank-you for considering the feelings of others by not inlining it here. Reading the thread, we all try to do that unless the "others" in this case are the unborn.

This is a reasonable stance to take. I respect you for it.

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:02 am

Casual Observer wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:19 amEmbryos aren't babies.

Yeah, little lungs and feet and other parts in a bloody pile of dead baby, totally not babies you sicko. I'd post a picture of it but ICJ and others here hate seeing the actual consequences of their beliefs.

A fetus is not a "baby," it i a collection of cells that could, given he right circumstances, become one.

If you wanted to do something about stopping abortions, you'd push for mandatory non-abstinence-based birth control. Because the use of abstinence only training has resulted in the largest increase in teen pregnancy and repeat teen pregnancy. 5,000 years of trying to encourage abstinence hasn't stopped horny teenagers from fucking, it's just caused lots of way-too-young kids to become parents.

Beyond that, you fool, until one of the people here has a wife or girlfriend who got pregnant and they decide she should have an abortion, what they believe in has no consequences to them, or anyone else.

If you do not drive drunk, your opinions about the relative dangers of drunk drivers or the punishment given then has no consequences whatsoever on what a drunk driver does. And blaming people for the actions of others is the hallmark of lunacy.

Billy Mays wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:22 am

Tdarcos wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:14 am The so-called...

Go back to eating your apples you old horse.

Obviously you know I'm right, since all you can do is insult me instead of making even ONE point of where I've said something wrong.

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:52 amA fetus is not a "baby," it i a collection of cells that could, given he right circumstances, become one.

If you wanted to do something about stopping abortions, you'd push for mandatory non-abstinence-based birth control. Because the use of abstinence only training has resulted in the largest increase in teen pregnancy and repeat teen pregnancy. 5,000 years of trying to encourage abstinence hasn't stopped horny teenagers from fucking, it's just caused lots of way-too-young kids to become parents.

Beyond that, you fool, until one of the people here has a wife or girlfriend who got pregnant and they decide she should have an abortion, what they believe in has no consequences to them, or anyone else.

If you do not drive drunk, your opinions about the relative dangers of drunk drivers or the punishment given then has no consequences whatsoever on what a drunk driver does. And blaming people for the actions of others is the hallmark of lunacy.

This is all insane and none of it is backed up by actual science. I think the problem here is that the last two cards you have left to play are stem cells and robots, and all the robot tech is going towards sex robots which makes the prior more appealing to you.

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:56 aminstead of making even ONE point of where I've said something wrong.

Ok, we'll have a formal discussion going point by point, make your one point and I will counter it with one of my own.

Can we do that in a separate thread? Gotta leave room for the deaders.

So I'm just going to take the opportunity granted by the lull in notable deaths to assume I won the abortion is obviously murder debate given the lack of opposition here.

Billy Mays wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm So I'm just going to take the opportunity granted by the lull in notable deaths to assume I won the abortion is obviously murder debate given the lack of opposition here.

Nope, not a chance. "Murder" is generally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, or where the proximate cause of the death was the commission of a felony." The latter covers the "felony murder rule," if someone dies as a result of the commission of a felony anyone involved can be charged with capital murder in jurisdictions where the death penalty is in effect or 1st Degree murder where it isn't. If a customer has a heart attack while you're robbing a bank, or the bank manager kills one of the robbers, the manager's killing is justified, but the other members of the crew can be charged with murder.

But that's not what we're dealing with here. The killing of a fetus has never been considered murder until recently. Consider the following: a woman decides to hire a doctor to kill her 3-day-old child. Both of them could be charged with felony murder. But no matter how harsh the punishment is for a doctor performing one, I've never heard of any place wanting to charge the mother with murder for procuring an abortion, in fact every place that has an anti-abortion law exempts the mother from any criminal penalties for procuring an abortion. For a good reason: While committing infanticide clearly is murder, nobody seriously considered abortion to be murder. But that might be changing.

So much for the belief that abortion is murder. At least now, according to this article in The Guardian, Texas is being consistent, it does want to declare abortion to be murder, thus allowing women who procure abortions to be subject to the death penalty.

As the article points out, even before Roe v. Wade, abortions were never considered murder. This is a radical departure from hundreds of years of legal precedent, because there weren't even laws against abortions until the 1800s. If we go by original intent as the Founding Fathers had written the Constitution, there should be no laws against abortion since there were none then, and the ability to cause women to have abortions was known since the original Hypocratic Oath was established in the 5th Century B.C.E.

As this article points out, back in 1992, legislators in Utah were pissed off because the ACLU ran advertisements pointing out under the state's laws, a woman procuring an abortion could be charged with the death penalty and executed by firing squad (unless she chose lethal injection). Pissed off because it was true, and they had to make changes to the law so doctors could only be charged with a felony and women could not be charged at all.

Why? Because you people know in your heart of hearts that abortion is not murder. Your Bible even says forcing a woman to have an abortion is right and good (Numbers 5:11-31), and injuring a woman such that she has to abort her fetus only requires paying compensation to her husband for the value of the property destroyed (Exodus 21:22-25), meaning a fetus is just property, even your God doesn't consider it a 'baby' until it is born.

Bible verses and abortion debate.

I can't believe Tdarcos outlived... this thread.

Tdarcos wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:17 amNope, not a chance...

I'm going to have to politely request that you start a new thread and post this there for our debate.

Billy Mays wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:36 am

Tdarcos wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:17 amNope, not a chance...

I'm going to have to politely request that you start a new thread and post this there for our debate.

I'm done, there's nothing to debate about.

Please, someone famous die so we can get this back on track.

Celebrities clearly don't care about us regular folk.

Tdarcos wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:12 am

Billy Mays wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:36 am

Tdarcos wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:17 amNope, not a chance...

I'm going to have to politely request that you start a new thread and post this there for our debate.

I'm done, there's nothing to debate about.

Then I will add this up in the win column for me.