On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:20:33 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaOn Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:17:17 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by AttilaOn Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:10:44 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by Scrape and suckMore than 2,400 fetuses found last year in the Illinois home of
one of the Midwest's most prolific abortion doctors will be
buried in Indiana Wednesday, officials said.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill will preside over the mass
burial at Southlawn Cemetery in South Bend and later give an
update on the investigation into Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, and whether
anyone assisted him in moving the remains to his home in Crete,
Ill.
The service comes five months after relatives sorting through
Klopfer's belongings after his Sept. 3, 2019, death came across
2,246 sets of preserved fetal remains stacked floor to ceiling
in his garage. Later, 165 more were found in the trunk of a car
at a business where Klopfer kept several vehicles.
Klopfer, who was 79, performed tens of thousands of abortions
over 40 years, mainly in Indiana and often as the only abortion
doctor serving South Bend, Gary and Fort Wayne.
All the women that used his services must be dealing with the new
horror that their abortion has become. I wonder if the Liberals
are supplying those women with counseling and a safe space and a
blanket and warm cocoa and a puppy to pet.....? You know, like
they do when those same women are voting for Hillary and Hillary
loses? Or do you suppose learning that your abortion doctor was a
doctor Frankenstein and your baby a victim that lingering,
preserved in some jar in a garage somewhere in Indiana.
Democrats must be so proud.
BTW, I am a Republican.
I didn't say any different..... but Republicans in office didn't vote
to kill human life inside the uterus.
All human beings have been born alive.
Actually Babies are born dead when the umbilical gets wrapped around
heir neck. As I have said being born isn't what makes a human life
because it would NOT be born dead if it was not first alive in the uterus.
It wasn't a baby. It was a stillborn fetus.
This is a semantics argument - the term baby is so general it is
useless. Thanks to years of Gerber baby food ads it's use brings up a
mental picture of the label they use but a baby can be any age.
A 70 year old man can be a baby to his 90 year old mother.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaCan you give a reference to a
definition of human being that includes a fetus?
The unique DNA of a fetus decides if it's a human being.
Please give a reference to where that is so defined.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyThe fact it's
gestating makes no difference to science....
As far as the species is concerned (which is all that science can
determine) you are correct. But we are not talking about species
here. Science will make exactly the same determination of a wart, a
blood sample, a fetus, a 10 year old boy, a 50 year old man, or a 300
year old corpse. All are species human.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyThose were Democrats, right or wrong
they decided to do it regardless.
Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
to person and over time.
Then why make laws?
To govern the interaction of individuals in a society.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyJust wait until there is a disagreement and have a
vote for that moment of the consensus at that moment in time to see if
one side of the fluid values that are changing too fast to put those
concepts down on paper, should have their freedom restricted to an 8x5
room that is locked for, the outside.
That might work for a few individuals but it quickly becomes too
cumbersome for very many people. Should we have a national referendum
for ever item considered by Congress?
I can think of many things which were considered right a few
generations ago but are considered wrong today. And vice versa. I
bet you can too.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyIf you think you can justify your beliefs you can call yourself what
ever you want. I have no problem with you believing you're a
Republican but you have to know that just as believing that a human
life is disposable, you may be just as wrong believing you're a
Republican.
Or not. I support Trump, voted fro him, and have voted for
Republicans for over half a century but that does not mean I agree
with or support all of their positions. I have supported the Freedom
of Choice since long before 1973.
SO you support the human life inside the uterus, having a choice..... ;)
It is generally understood that the definition of the word
'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or to terminate it. Any attempt to expand the
usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
because no argument can be sustained within the original and
correct usage.
If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
the word 'bug' no one will assume you are speaking of
termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
transparent and pathetic ploy.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyBecause most I have met, actually respect human life, and tend to
protect it.
Are humans an endangered species?
NOT the issue is it? Excuses for killing is NOT the issue because
according to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we
all have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of free
stuff from the government, if that makes them happy.
Exactly where does it say that in the Constitution? What the D of I
says is irrelevant since that was a political statement that outlined
the reasons for separation from England and is not the basis for any
law.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyI don't say you have to be religious or believe everything that every
Republican believes, since I'm a QUASI Libertarian and I have no god,
or God has no interest in me. But I do believe in life, all of it.
As a Libertarian I don't agree with everything LIBERTARIAN so I tend
to be a Constitutional-Libertarian where I use what is Libertarian
that will work under this United States Constitution, and murdering a
human life just isn't Constitutional.
Only illegally killing a person is murder. It is not murder to kill
a fetus (except under certain restrictions) or any human tissue
sample.
The legalization of killing a fetus (human life) is unconstitutional and
grants permission that the United States doesn't have the DELEGATED
POWER to engage in. The JOB of the Government is to protect our RIGHTS.
Our laws don't legalize anything because we start from the position
that all actions are legal unless specifically prohibited by law. The
federal position on abortion resulted from the existence of a variety
of state laws that the Supreme Court held collectively restricted a
fundamental right held by every pregnant woman.
Laws can be passed placing conditional restrictions as outlined in R v
W but no general law banning all abortions can be passed.
Note that laws against homicide and murder do not prohibit killing but
restrict the conditions under which killing is allowed. I am free to
kill a burglar in my home at any time under the laws of my state.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyTo kill or allow a human life to be killed violates that constitutional
mandate to protect the rights of Americans, and our posterity are
recognized as Americans.
Wrong, as outlined above.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyBeing born makes someone a citizen NOT a human
life. Because they were a human life from the point of conception.
We are not talking about a human life. A fetus is obviously alive and
is species human. A tissue sample can be alive and species human. Is
a wart a person?
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyFreedom and RIGHTS can only extend to a
point where they infringe on other people's freedom and RIGHTS.
How about the freedom and rights of the woman involved? After all she
is hers now and there is nothing potential or developing about that.
And she has an equal right to life and liberty.
Is she required to provide her body against her will to be a life
support system fro what you call another person? Is she required to
risk her health and her life against her will?
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyAnd the
RIGHT to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS/Property are very
clearly what the Revolutionary War and the resulting Constitution were
based on.
That phrase was in the D of C and they were not included in the
Constitution at the obvious option of those who wrote the
Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says that they are in the Constitution.
Give a specific reference to a specific section of the Constitution
that addresses "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness".
The exact amendment and the exact portion of that amendment.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyAmendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb;
Addresses double jeopardy.
Post by BeamMeUpScottynor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property* ,
*without due process of law*
Due process clause. It does not say anyone has those rights, it
restricts the loss of those rights where they may exist.
Is a prison inmate guaranteed the right to liberty?
; nor shall private property be taken for
Post by BeamMeUpScottypublic use, without just compensation.
Due process would require that the fetus committed a crime or violated
someone's RIGHTS, otherwise the government has no due process to to
visit on the subject.
Does a cow have a right not to be eaten? A fetus is not a legal
individual and can take no independent action of any kind. Your
argument is silly.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyWhile there is no guarantee of wealth or property, the guarantee that
LIFE and LIBERTY are ours is pretty clear, as long as ours doesn't
infringe on others.
Oh? our laws are based on the Constitution and none at all are based
upon the D of I. Where in the Constitution are life and liberty
guaranteed?
*nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property* , *without due process
of law*
That does not establish them as rights. It says if they exist there
are restrictions on removing them.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyLife and Liberty are NOT infringed without due process, where is the due
process in an abortion? What crime was committed, who's rights are being
violated?
A fetus has no rights. It is not a legal individual and is physically
incapable of taking any independent action of any kind.
How about the rights of the woman involved, who does exist legally and
can take independent action and make personal decisions?
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyAnd the baby in a uterus isn't infringing on the
life of the mother until she is dying.
: Death
: Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
: Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
: former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers,
: associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and
: reduced quality of life)
: Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
: Increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
: Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
: Temporary and permanent injury to back
: Embolism
: Temporary adverse effects
: Exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
: altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
: Nausea and vomiting
: Dizziness and light-headedness
: Bloating and attendant discomfort
: Hemmorhoids
: Cramps
: Acne and mild skin disorders
: Skin discoloration, particularly face and abdomen
: Mild to severe backache and strain
: Increased headaches
: Difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
: Increased urination and incontinence
: Breast pain and discharge
: Swelling of joints, and attendant discomfort or pain
: Difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
: Inability to take regular medications
: Shortness of breath
: Higher blood pressure
: Hair loss
: Tendency to anemia
: Infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
: (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant
: women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
: Curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
: Hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
: Extreme pain on delivery
: Continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period, exacerbated if
: c-section (major surgery) is required, sometimes taking up to a full
: year to fully recover
: Occasional complications and side effects
: Temporary and permanent injury to back
: Severe scarring requiring later surgery, esp. after additional
: pregnancies
: Dropped uterus, esp. with additional pregnancies
: Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication
: of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of
: pregnancies)
: Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of
: death)
: Gestational diabetes
: Placenta previa
: Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
: Thrombocytopenic purpura
: Severe cramping
: Embolism (blood clots)
: Medical disability requiring full bed rest, frequently ordered during
: part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of
: either mother or baby
: Torn abdominal muscles
: Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
: Serious infection and disease, e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis
: Hormonal imbalance
: Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
: Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
: Hemorrhage
: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
: Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions, e.g. epilepsy
: is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug
: metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the
: number and frequency of seizures
: Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
: Some less common (and serious) complications
: Peripartum cardiomyopathy
: Cardiopulmonary arrest
: Magnesium toxicity
: Severe hypoxemia/acidosis
: Massive embolism
: increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
: Molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a
: pregnancy-induced cancer)
: Malignant arrhythmia
: Circulatory collapse
: Placental abruption
The same kind of risk as sex and crossing a road.
If you are hit by a car when crossing a road should you be allowed
medical care?
Sex is a legal act that does not always result in pregnancy and
frequently is not intended to result in pregnancy.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyAnd as for Liberty, it's the same
as life, neither has more RIGHT to it than the other and since they
will be free of one another in 9 months it's a stalemate until the
birth allows them to go in different directions.
The issue exists now and will totally change if the pregnancy no
longer exists for any reason whatsoever.
The abortion is a whole set of risks that can cause death....
It is the PREGNANCY that is the source of the medical risk, not the
abortion.
Post by BeamMeUpScottywhy is
death or any of the rest bad when it's the baby but good when it's the
abortion doctor doing it?
If the woman voluntarily chooses to accept the risk that is an
entirely different situation from one in which she is forced to take
the risk because she is prevented from getting an abortion.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistWhy should we give some stupid people a free pass on personal
responsibility?
Post by AttilaIt is much like a criminal trial when the defendant dies before the
trial concludes. Do you continue to try a corpse?
If you want to put it that way, the first abortion is free, the second is
too as long as both parties submit to sterilization and are ineligible for
welfare and drug rehab funds for 12 months following the abortion.
Post by AttilaPost by BeamMeUpScottyIt's NOT perfect, but then what is?
Blocking a simple and safe medical procedure
Abortion is neither simple or safe.
Of course it is. It is an outpatient procedure and while no medical
procedure is totally safe it is safe enough not to require
hospitalization.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistPost by Attilais not the answer to much
of anything other than blind obstinance.
There are condoms and pills and IUD's all work different ways and in
combinations they can be 99% effective. There is no need for murder
when you can prevent the reason for the murder.
We are not talking about was to prevent a pregnancy. That is a
different conversation and seldom a point of controversy except for
some religious lunatics that are control freaks. The discussion is
about a woman who is ALREADY pregnant.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyIf you believe that you
can prevent murders by banning guns then you should be abl to prevent
abortions by preventing the pregnancy. Perhaps women need to be
licensed in order to NOT be on at least two forms of birth control.
Again, that is not the subject.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyPost by atheistIt's not a medical procedure. It's mass murder on a scale far above gun
violence. Abortion is a crime against humanity.
YES USING LIBERAL-DEMOCRAT LOGIC it's akin to owning a gun because if
you don't have a uterus, no one can be killed in it just as Democrats
believe that if you don't have a gun no one can be killed with it.
That was not my comment and I fail to see how a political party can be
a component of the situation.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyBut we know that Uterus' kill more human lives than guns do.... Nearly
a million 1,000,000 a year for 50 years.... while guns in America kill
around 30,000 and the bulk of those are accidents and suicides.
Disease and age related problems will kill a lot more than that. Yet
humans do not appear to be an endangered species.
Post by BeamMeUpScottyThe obvious thing to do is use the Liberals logic to ban uterus' by
making them non operational and then licensing those who want to have a
child, along with a background check and a waiting period of 9 months
and a limit on how many kids can be loaded into a uterus....
I fail to see how politics is any pare of this issue.
Perhaps you would prefer laws requiring every woman to have as many
children as possible and make it illegal for a woman who is physically
capable of being pregnant not to be pregnant at any time, regardless
of any other considerations?
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
There are three despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democratic Party.
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.