Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For All the Planned Parenthood Haters

The positive thing about these threads is that is shows us who is who on here.

Yep, it also shows just who are the BIG GOVERNMENT statists here, Ayn Rand would be disappointed.

At what point in a pregnancy do you, or the government, have a legitimate "compelling interest" in the pregnacy? Conception? Viability? Perhaps at the moment of "quickening"?

My support is less significant than the millions of women who have happily used PP. - - -

Millions of women have happily used fly swatters, nail polish and cocaine. So what?

So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money.
Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing.

Is the baby a human? Yes. Is that human a distinct individual? Yes, as they have unique DNA. Therefore, the baby is a "person". Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various laws concerning murder and self-defense. The answers you seek are right there.

If you are going to try to make a libertarian argument, please attempt to do so. It should be an interesting one as you twist around one individual being able to arbitrarily kill another for mere convenience.

The proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law.

Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion of early pregnancy was legal under common law.[22] Abortions were illegal only after "quickening," the point at which a pregnant woman could feel the movements of the fetus (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The common law's attitude toward pregnancy and abortion was based on an understanding of pregnancy and human development as a process rather than an absolute moment.

I see you did not answer the direct question as too at what point the state or yourself has compelling interest, very telling. I will infer your answer is "conception" due to your mention of unique DNA.

Like it or not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not grant rights or citizenship until birth, nor does include those in the womb for enumeration and representation.

Lets look at history and English common law and the claim that abortion is murder.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html



http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...0e195&toc.id=d0e71&brand=ucpress



If neither you or the State can demonstrate a compelling interest prior to the quickening, then any decision should be left up to individuals.

So, you old f'ers ain't ever going to need anything PP provides. Your tax dollars are not going for abortions. Even if they did, PP is saving the taxpayers money. real money.
Conservatives used to mind their own gd business. Keep on trying to regulate what women can and can't do, and the Republicans will keep on losing.

Exactly. Turns out women have gotten to be pretty uppity these days, and resent others, especially old, angry white men, telling them what they can do or cannot do with their uteri. Some call it the Republican war on women.

Bobby, you might be surprised how many people don't know the difference. I've explained it to gunsmiths and high end gun dealers a few times.

The woman's uterus is not in question; classic red herring. She is not deciding whether to keep or dispose of her uterus. The issue is whether the arbitrary murder of a distinct, individual human being for nothing more than mere convenience is a logical, moral, or philosophically defensible position. To date, none have been able to articulate why it would be.

That is exactly the argument that typifies the War on Women, and explains why our next president will be a Democrat. What part of MYOFB don't you understand? Again, Roe v Wade, 1973:


"The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[29]"