An abortion doctor speaks out about decades of threats and violence [W:254]

[JayDubya]

Abortion does not have to be named in the Const. for women to have a right to choose that medical procedure.

For abortion to be a constitutional right it must be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right. It is not.

 

[Lursa]

Something tells me you'll actually be very unhappy if that happens. You've racked up 9114 posts in this section of DP alone. What would you obsess about next?

It wont be stopped. Ever. Women have done it to preserve their lives and families since the dawn of time. Now, they can do it in a more safe manner, which sadly, many object to and some even say that we deserve the suffering, even death, that unsafe/illegal abortion often meant.

Today, women are protected. Our rights, our place as equals in society, our lives. When the unborn are born, they will receive the same protections and respect.

 

[JayDubya]

Recognizing rights for the unborn

Is not at all part of what we were talking about at the moment.

Urethra was busy doing that thing you say pro-aborts never do.

 

[Lursa]

For abortion to be a constitutional right it must be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right. It is not.

And no one has ever claimed it to be a 'Constitutional' right. It is a right that people are entitled to. I used medical procedures as an example and you ignored it. That is all abortion is, as much as you like to dramatize it.

You have been provided the passages in the amendments and the court decisions many times that prove you are wrong. Why you continue to to post a lie is a fascinating view into anti-abortion extremism but does not further discussion.

 

[JayDubya]

The idea that pro-choicers deny reality is

Demonstrably true.

Case in point, Urethra claiming the unborn are not alive, not human, and that killing them is not killing. It is absurdity at odds with reality in every case.

You keep using ridiculous accusations like "contract killer"

Yes, I note accurately that abortionists are contract killers by definition since they are contracted agents who are hired by a client to kill other human beings; as a group, you don't want their work to be illegal because you don't care about and / or actively deny the rights of their victims.

You may hold the subjective opinion that their work is justified; what you are not welcome to is the delusion that they are not contract killers.

And he does deserve sympathy because as we know terrorism is illegal and immoral and that is what violent pro-life extremists do (terrorism that is).

As already noted, I do not support vigilantism, but his whiny little complaints about people saying mean things to him fall on deaf ears.

 

[Peter King]

For abortion to be a constitutional right it must be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right. It is not.

For all rights to be in the Constitution, the constitution would be many thousands of pages of explicitly mentioned rights. Not going to work IMHO especially because that is why the founding fathers said that rights exist that are not explicitly mentioned.

 

[JayDubya]

And no one has ever claimed it to be a 'Constitutional' right.

You are now quizzically claiming Justice Blackmun never existed and Roe v. Wade never happened.

While that would certainly make this world a better place right now, it is a lie.

 

[JayDubya]

For all rights to be in the Constitution

They don't have to be.

But the states can act in those areas where the Constitution is silent. This is a federal republic; the states are supposed to have broad powers, the national government is not.

 

[Peter King]

Demonstrably true.

Case in point, Urethra claiming the unborn are not alive, not human, and that killing them is not killing. It is absurdity at odds with reality in every case.

No, actually not true. I have seen pro-lifers constantly deny reality, don't get me wrong there are some pro-choicers who have that inclination too, but that does not mean that loads of pro-lifers are not ignoring reality.

Case in point, the unborn are just that, unborn. They are not equipped with rights, and aborting them is precisely that, abortion, not killing. Sure, they no longer grow/the growth is ended due to lack of oxygen and nutrients, but that is not the same thing as "killing".

Yes, I note accurately that abortionists are contract killers by definition since they are contracted agents who are hired by a client to kill other human beings; as a group, you don't want their work to be illegal because you don't care about and / or actively deny the rights of their victims.

You may hold the subjective opinion that their work is justified; what you are not welcome to is the delusion that they are not contract killers.

No, you inaccurately say a lot of things in this sentence. For example, they are not contract killers because your definition is lacking in the precise thing that makes them contract killing, the illegal agreement between contract killer and client. Also contract killers kill people and as a zygote is not a person, aborting that zygote does not constitute the illegal taking of a life. Again, that is the ignoring of reality that makes this discussion so hard for most reasonable people to follow.

I accept and to a degree respect some people choosing to be pro-life and never considering an abortion, that is their right to choose that path in life. I do not accept or respect/agree with pro-lifers thinking they then also have the right to deny other people their right to choose. And that discussion is hear enough to discuss without people taking this discussion to the extremes, and let's be honest, with people proclaiming doctors to be contract killers and that birth control (and I know that is another poster but it is the same kind of attitude) should be punished by death, makes the discussing thing almost impossible because discussing with totally unreasonable premises (like it being contract killing) is just almost impossible.

And I am just going to say it, your definition of what a contract killer is is bogus nonsense and thus discussing that point is ludicrous to even, sorry but that is how I feel about it. Because there is no reasonable argument to be made for calling them contract killers, sorry, but that is the truth IMO.

As already noted, I do not support vigilantism, but his whiny little complaints about people saying mean things to him fall on deaf ears.

Well, that is your point of view, I disagree with that.

 

[JayDubya]

No, actually not true.

No, demonstrably true.

Case in point, the unborn are just that, unborn. They are not equipped with rights

Some basic human rights are natural and unalienable. You don't need to "equip" what is innate. You do need a civilized society that protects these rights, however.

abortion, not killing

I'm sorry I forgot you share in her abject delusion. A deliberate killing act is not killing to you because you hate the victims. Of course. Of course.

the growth is ended

I've seen you pro-aborts say some perverse things but this one really takes the cake. Your hatred is just off the charts.

the precise thing that makes them contract killing, the illegal agreement between contract killer and client

Absurdity - that is not part of the definition. The law could theoretically say all contract killing of anyone is legal; this change would not make the act not contract killing.

Also contract killers kill people

I am not interested in your useless semantics about personhood.

And I am just going to say it, your definition of what a contract killer is is bogus nonsense

No, your denial of reality is what is bogus nonsense. When an agent is hired as a contractor by a client to perform a killing act, there is a term for that.

 

[AGENT J]

No, demonstrably true.



Some basic human rights are natural and unalienable. You don't need to "equip" what is innate. You do need a civilized society that protects these rights, however.



I'm sorry I forgot you share in her abject delusion. A deliberate killing act is not killing to you because you hate the victims. Of course. Of course.



I've seen you pro-aborts say some perverse things but this one really takes the cake. Your hatred is just off the charts.



Absurdity - that is not part of the definition. The law could theoretically say all contract killing of anyone is legal; this change would not make the act not contract killing.



I am not interested in your useless semantics about personhood.



No, your denial of reality is what is bogus nonsense. When an agent is hired as a contractor by a client to perform a killing act, there is a term for that.

These lies above have already been factually proven wrong many times by many posters using links, dictionaries, facts and English
abortion =/= to killing
abortionist =/=- hired killer
these facts will not change, theres nothing on your side that makes those lies quoted above true . . .nothing :shrug:

 

[Peter King]

They don't have to be.

But the states can act in those areas where the Constitution is silent. This is a federal republic; the states are supposed to have broad powers, the national government is not.

But the supreme court is there to rule on whether things are or are not part of the constitutional rights that people have.

 

[Lursa]

They don't have to be.

But the states can act in those areas where the Constitution is silent. This is a federal republic; the states are supposed to have broad powers, the national government is not.

But they still cannot violate rights recognized at the federal level in order to do so. So they are **** outta luck with abortion before ~viability.

 

[JayDubya]

But they still cannot violate rights recognized at the federal level in order to do so. So they are **** outta luck with abortion before ~viability.

See those words "supposed to?"

And of course in this case the federal government has acted lawlessly.

 

[AGENT J]

See those words "supposed to?"

And of course in this case the federal government has acted lawlessly.

Laws, rights, precedence nor the constitution supports your false claims, in fact they all prove its wrong.

 

[RamFel]

Laws, rights, precedence nor the constitution supports your false claims, in fact they all prove its wrong.

Actually the laws, rights, precedent or constitution are all wrong if they are used to defend abortion

 

[RamFel]

These lies above have already been factually proven wrong many times by many posters using links, dictionaries, facts and English
abortion =/= to killing
abortionist =/=- hired killer
these facts will not change, theres nothing on your side that makes those lies quoted above true . . .nothing :shrug:

Those things don't change the truth, that abortion has killed and will continue to kill millions. Americas horror and dishonor. Americas shame.

 

[AGENT J]

Actually the laws, rights, precedent or constitution are all wrong if they are used to defend abortion

You are welcome to have that opinion all you want but that has zero impact on the facts i posted.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Those things don't change the truth
2.) that abortion has killed and will continue to kill millions. Americas horror and dishonor. Americas shame.

1.) correct and i posted the truth, you are catching on good job!
2.) more opinion that just like you said doesn't impact truth and facts . . .but you are free to feel how ever you want. Lucky law, rights and facts dont care about your feelings.