Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Carly Fiorina Was Right About The Live, Fully Formed Aborted Fetus

An aborted baby is denied all three.

Apparently....in the eyes of some.... the bundle of Constitutional protections doesn't kick in until your head is outside the birth canal. Or your handlers decide to leave you to rot in a SS tub.You're "born",but your protections are denied by some doctor. What twisted minds dream this stuff up?

This country is morally bankrupt.People who believe this sort of thing is OK are animals.

One only need to read the founders statements to put this in perspective:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams

You answered your own question.

Paddler is a strong argument FOR abortion...

Two issues that I do not even toy with the proposition that someone experience them.

One is Hell.

The other is abortion.

Shame on you for suggesting that...even in sarcasm.

Are you really that stupid, or is it just that you can't think of anything intelligent to add?

Those aren't laws.
You have no right to dictate what others do
It's that simple

That's what EVERY law does...it dictates what others do or do not do.

Try to order your next firearm from a distributor without having a FFL. The law dictates that you cannot do it.

It's that simple.

Is there a point there somewhere?
YOU don't get to dictate
YOU , not "laws"

Civil diobediance has proved to be a successful tool when the courts get it wrong. It has been used thoughout our nation's history.

It will be interesting what your response will be to sheriffs who refuse to enforce an exective order on guns/ammo.

You are the one in denial.You spit foolishness out one side of your mouth about not telling people how to live then you turn around and and say its stupid not to tell people how to live.The reason for laws is to control peoples actions.We dont allow molesting children,we dont allow driving drunk ect.You claim abortion is legal,that does not make it acceptable any more than gassing millions of Jews was acceptable just because it was the law of the land.If you take just a few seconds to think about what you are saying you would shut up.

So you can protest by not having an abortion.

Sheriffs have nothing to do with Executive Orders

They deal with laws, and EO's are for for Federal Govt employees

But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread

So, none of the vehement Fiorina supporters have addressed this bit yet?

Snyper, you say no one has the right to tell others what to do,right.So any behavior is acceptable to you,right.Everybody should be able to live their life the way they choose.Is this what you are saying.

Protesting by not having an abortion does nothing to change bad law...a law that nullifies the first principle of our Republic.

Eric Holder refused to argue before the SCOTUS for a LAW passed by congress (DOMA). He even forbade his subordinates to defend it. Did you feel the same outrage toward him?

Something to concider:

Roe v. Wade — which ruled that the U.S. Constitution effectively mandates a nationwide policy of abortion on demand — is one of the most widely criticized Supreme Court decisions in America history. As Villanova law professor Joseph W. Dellapenna writes,

“The opinion [in Roe] is replete with irrelevancies, non-sequiturs, and unsubstantiated assertions. The Court decides matters it disavows any intention of deciding—thereby avoiding any need to defend its conclusion. In the process the opinion simply fails to convince.”

Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” He wrote:

“What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded … a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe … is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General

“[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

“[O]verturning [Roe] would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary. … Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” — Jeffrey Rosen, legal commentator, George Washington University law professor

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” — William Saletan, Slate columnist, writing in Legal Affairs

“In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky. … [Roe] is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” — Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution fellow

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” — Michael Kinsley, columnist, writing in the Washington Post.

Paul Stark is a Communications Associate for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.

I think that Snyper believes in something. I believe he has a moral code.

I have, however, come to the conclusion that the first and governing code is: "reject Christianity...outright."

Moral code:

1. Take an anti-Christian stance by default.

2. Repeat anti-Christian stance in any discussion.

3. When confronted by a well articulated argument for Judeo-Christian ethics...repeat 1 and 2 with more veracity.

4. Continue with 1, 2, 3, and 4 until the discussion digresses to disrespect...on either side. At that point, no common ground will be found, the topic becomes unproductive, and at that point victory can be claimed by default.

If you need more; I got plenty...

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was right when she said an undercover video shows an intact baby's leg twitching after an abortion, according to the pro-life group that shot the video.

The former Hewlett-Packard CEO has come under fire since saying at the last presidential debate, "I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” Numerous outlets accuse her of lying, some going so far as to say none of the footage she described exists.
Fiorina is referring to a scene included in the seventh video released by the Center for Medical Progress.

The baby seen in the footage at the 5:56 mark was indeed taken from inside an abortion clinic, according to the owner of the footage. Gregg Cunningham, executive director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization that obtained the footage and provided it to CMP, said “The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic."

At another point in the video, CMP included a clip of a baby who was stillborn at about the same gestational age, for a means of comparison. Some pro-abortion activists had accused Fiorina of falsely claiming that this baby was aborted.
However, she was actually referring to footage of the baby whose leg was kicking, who was indeed an abortion victim, according to Cunningham.

"It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry," he said.
[...]
Her Super PAC, Carly for America, released a video last week showing the CMP's outtake.

Nonetheless, the issue came roaring to the surface last Saturday, when a group of Planned Parenthood protesters pelted Carly Fiorina with condoms, chanting that she was a liar.
On Sunday, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Fiorina if she were ready to admit she "exaggerated" the scene, which "at best is a reenactment.

Instead, Fiorina tripled down.
“That scene absolutely does exist," she said, referring to the baby's twitching leg.
"And that voice saying what I said they were saying - ‘We're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain’ - exists, as well,” she said.

To date, none of the footage released shows a tech uttering that exact sentence. However, a former StemExpress employee Holly O'Donnell describes seeing a baby's heart beating outside its body sometime before she cut its face open to harvest its brain. It was her first day on the job.

[...]
Fiorina defended herself this week. "Many in the mainstream media have tried their best to pretend that these videos don't exist. They repeated the talking points from Planned Parenthood that told them there was no footage of an aborted baby at all. Now that it's clear the video is of an aborted baby left to die in a metal tray kicking for life, they are calling it...stock footage."

Gassing the Jews was never "legal" which is why it was kept hidden. All your rambling about "laws" has nothing at all with some trying to dictate morality and religion.

There are no laws forcing anyone to have an abortion if they don't want one, and it's none of your business who does it.

YOU don't get to decide what is "acceptable" for anyone other than yourself. It's a really simple concept you can't seem to grasp. I haven't made any laws at all.

Not one Jew was ever 'gassed' during WWII. It's been proven beyond ALL doubt to be nothing but bad Jewish propaganda in order to secure Palestine. Anyone with an iq above room temp and an open mind can figure it out in about two hours if they'd actually look into it. That's a subject for a different thread however.

You have been shot down so many times on this issue...