*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

Piddler ... boyfriend!

Its Awards season, Elks.

Yes - ALL lives matter!
I weep.

SPOT ON!

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

Not sure why you keep posting photos of guns. anything to do with phony videos? I had a 458 once, but it was out of Remington's custom shop. Sold it because there are no elephants in Utah. Except for Republicans, of course. 375 is a better caliber anyway. Should I post pictures of my Caprivi?

Not sure why you keep posting photos of guns. anything to do with phony videos? I had a 458 once, but it was out of Remington's custom shop. Sold it because there are no elephants in Utah. Except for Republicans, of course. 375 is a better caliber anyway. Should I post pictures of my Caprivi?

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

So, guys, nothing at all intelligent to say? I'm shocked!

So, guys, nothing at all intelligent to say? I'm shocked!

If it doesn't say Winchester on it keep it in the safe Dr kevorkian...

paddler's patients didn't refer to him as:
"perverse, perverted pervert with perversions
for nothing. He's got their pics to prove it.
He has me on ignore so he can't see this.

This is boring without girlie pics.

Here's a dose of reality:

I'm a fig pucker. I puck figs.
I'm the fastest fig pucker that ever pucked a fig.

This is boring without girlie pics.

Better?

Much better. Have the moderators repealed the girle pic abolishion act of 2015?

Much better. Have the moderators repealed the girle pic abolishion act of 2015?

When our dog had puppies we gave them to loving families. I didn't kill them like I did our children because I like puppies.

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

Like the devil who spurs them on, Jewry conceals its malicious intentions beneath grand sounding words, terms and phrases. One must decipher these in order to figure out the real story. Once this is done, like pieces in a puzzle coming together, the hidden picture begins to reveal itself.

Equality: Codespeak for the debasement of excellence, superiority, intelligence, competence, ethics, etc, in society by advocating the tolerance, then imposition, of lesser values and persons - but only in White society.

Tolerance: Code word for the acquiescence to, then forced acceptance of, perversity and neo-barbarism in the nations (White) of the world.

Freedom of speech: Shut up.

Hate crime: Any crime committed by a White Gentile, and only a White Gentile, against persons of another race.

Race: A concept Jewry vehemently denies - until a White person commits a crime against a Jew or dark skinned person.

Racist: A White person

Liberal: Someone who violently hates himself and wants to punish the world for it, but who can be made useful to Jewry, which provokes the liberal to project his own self-hate back on to White people, White history, traditions, mores, etc.

Liberalism: A mental disorder characterized by delusions of moral and intellectual superiority. Also a Jew code word concealing Jewry's broad front attack upon traditional White mores, social norms, history, etc, by empowering the "liberals" who seek to pervert or destroy them.

Multiculturalism: Code word for attacking the White power or financial structure using female and/or dark skinned proxies of Jewry.

Feminism: Code word for attacking male, specifically White male, authority in the home, workplace and society in general.

Civil rights: Jewish codespeak for the imposition, by government dictat, of non-White, homosexual, or female persons or groups upon Whites, particularly White men, for the express purpose of weakening and degrading the White power structure.

Gay rights: Jew code term for the multi-pronged attack on traditional, White, male, Christian societal norms.

Gay marriage: Codespeak for the attack on Christian values under the guise of civil rights.

Social justice: A society more congenial to the desires of Jews.

Antisemite: Code word for someone Jews hate.

Teenagers: Mobs of violent Black youths who attack White people.

Hater: Code word for anyone voicing opposition to the schemes of Jewry.

Racist: Code word for anyone who recognizes that White values are being derogated in favor of the dark skinned proxies of Jewry.

Right winger: Code term for someone Jews are having trouble controlling.

Conspiracy theorist: Code term for someone who's on to Jewry's grand game.

Extremist: Code word for someone who's committed to a cause, but not a cause Jewry deems useful.

Green revolution: Codespeak for Jews turning the environmental movement into a lucrative scam.

Freedom: Depravity.

Justice: Code word implying Jewish control of a nation's legal system.

Democracy: Codespeak for Jewish rule.

Zionism: Jewish scheme to (eventually) gain temporal and spiritual control over all the nations of the world. Zion (Israel) will be the premier nation of the world with Jerusalem as world capital; and a Jewish descendent of King David as world ruler.

Christian Zionist: Imbecile.

Do your patients like you?

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

Is paddler an abortion doctor?

Nope, I just embrace reality. Try it sometime, it feels really good to know what's really going on in the world. Y'all live in the world of conspiracy theories, ie, filled with hate, fear, bigotry, etc. No need to do that.

Nope, I just embrace reality. Try it sometime, it feels really good to know what's really going on in the world. Y'all live in the world of conspiracy theories, ie, filled with hate, fear, bigotry, etc. No need to do that.

I heard you embrace a few of your patients as well.

Same old fire kill the messenger. We the mob don't like what he's saying.

Nope, I just embrace MURDER OF THE INNOCENT. Try it sometime, it feels really good to know what's really going on in the world. Y'all live in the world of conspiracy theories, ie, filled with hate, fear, bigotry, etc. No need to do that.

This.

I read the article just out of innate curiosity. I don't see where they are refuting the video as a lie but they are prosecuting him based on the methods (illegal in their opinions) by which the video was obtained.

Can't deny the message so kill the messenger. Sounds about right.

Is paddler an abortion doctor?

Is paddler an abortion doctor?

Since paddler does not like gun pics,maybe this will be a bit better.

Since paddler does not like gun pics,maybe this will be a bit better.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Probably rake me over the coals for having fun also.

Since I have paddler on ignore,has he posted a pic of his Caprivi yet?

Nope, I just embrace reality. Try it sometime, it feels really good to know what's really going on in the world. Y'all live in the world of conspiracy theories, ie, filled with hate, fear, bigotry, etc. No need to do that.

Is paddler an abortion doctor?

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

Planned Parenthood should perform only 1 function...Distribute free condoms.

If your too stupid to use them.

Pay the consequences... put your life on hold and raise the child or give it to someone who wants to.

Planned Parenthood Board Member Works in Office of D.A. Who Indicted David Daleiden



http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/26/...fice-of-d-a-who-indicted-david-daleiden/

If they are found guilty of buying body parts then isn't Planed Parenthood automatically guilty of selling them?? I can't imagine any lawyer worth his salt not winning that argument. Seems a slam dunk.

Planned Parenthood Board Member Works in Office of D.A. Who Indicted David Daleiden



http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/26/...fice-of-d-a-who-indicted-david-daleiden/

We prolly don't wanna see that pic.
My guess is it has a condom over the barrel and is inserted somewhere.

They weren't charged with buying anything.
They were charged with offering to buy.

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

Bombshell: Houston Grand Jury Never Voted on Planned Parenthood Charges

Houston, TX - Operation Rescue has learned new information, some published in a report today by the Associate Press, which indicates the grand jury indictments against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were likely in retaliation against Operation Rescue for filing a complaint against Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen, which led to a grand jury investigation of him in 2013.

Josh Schaffer, attorney for Planned Parenthood, informed the news organization that "the grand jury never even voted on possible criminal charges" against Planned Parenthood, according to the AP report.

"No vote means no investigation," said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President of Operation Rescue. "The people are entitled to an unbiased investigation into the serious allegations of illegal conduct by Planned Parenthood. That does not appear to have happened."

Based on Operation Rescue's 2013 complaint, a grand jury investigated allegations that Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen had murdered babies born alive during shoddy abortions by twisting their heads nearly off their bodies. Photographic evidence supported those allegations.

Chip Lewis, Karpen's attorney, falsely accused Operation Rescue of paying three former Karpen employees to testify against him and of "doctoring" grisly photographs of babies Karpen had allegedly murdered, according to witnesses. Lewis threatened Operation Rescue after no true bill was returned against Karpen. Lewis told the Houston Chronicle, "Those responsible for bringing these wholly unfounded allegations against Dr. Karpen will be held responsible for their crimes." He further threatened an investigation of Operation Rescue, which never materialized.

Lewis has tight connections to District Attorney Devon Anderson. He is a long time personal friend of hers and her now deceased husband, former D.A. Mike Anderson, and is the largest political donor to the Anderson family. It could be assumed that Anderson owes Lewis for his friendship and political favors.

Lewis told the AP that after the Karpen grand jury, he helped "soften the fallout" for Anderson in "Republican circles" by telling them falsehoods about Operation Rescue, who he wrongly accused of paying witnesses to testify against Karpen.

The AP article also noted that the same female Assistant District Attorney that handled the Karpen investigation also directed the grand jury that indicted Daleiden and Merritt.

Of that prosecutor, Lewis said, "I don't think she forgot what she uncovered," referring to bogus allegations against Operation Rescue during the Karpen grand jury.

Her bias, based at least in part on Lewis' falsehoods, likely tainted the grand jury process, turning it against Daleiden because of his association with Newman.
Because the grand jury was contaminated by bias, Operation Rescue is calling for three specific remedies:

1. Drop all charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt or appoint a special prosecutor that is in no way affiliated with Devon Anderson, the Harris County District Attorney's office or Chip Lewis.

2. Empanel a new, untainted grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood criminality under the direction of a separate special prosecutor also unaffiliated with Devon Anderson, the Harris County District Attorney's office or Chip Lewis.

3. Reopen the murder investigation against Douglas Karpen, with a new grand jury directed by another special prosecutor who is not affiliated with Devon Anderson, the Harris County District Attorney's office or Chip Lewis.

"Anderson said that she would let the evidence take her where it would, and we say the evidence reveals an agenda in the District Attorney's office, under the influence of Chip Lewis, to get even with pro-life whistleblowers who have reported evidence against abortion providers of serious crimes, including murder," said Sullenger. "In order for there to be justice, we need to stop dipping from a poisoned well and seek unbiased people to push forward with investigations against the real culprits."

Here's a dose of reality:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cr...-indicted-in-texas/ar-BBoGuwi?li=BBnb7Kz

This just in from Operation Rescue:

The prosecution will never get a "guilty" in this case. Wait until defense counsel hits discovery mode and and all the dirty laundry comes out.

This won't be a one way street. PP thinks it's "won" this one? LMAO. It's only going to get worse from here.

In other words, this isn't over and the prosecutor is now going to be facing some very uncomfortable questions (starting with failing to recuse due to conflict of interest, at a minimum).

Is this a federal grand jury?

otherwise, IIRC, the videos were shot on the east and west coast, not Houston, and the fake ID's were obtained in CA, so how would a jury in Houston find any standing?

Only under this administration! Piddler must have found a new boyfriend!

The one of the clinics talked about in a video was in Texas

If you people are going to discuss these topics you should at least learn a little bit about them, and not just the crap from the anti-abortion groups, because they will lie.

Planned Parenthood's legal strategy was in some ways similar to how corporations facing major white-collar criminal investigations often cooperate closely with prosecutors to try to influence the outcome.

A Republican who has been the Houston area's prosecutor since 2013, Anderson last summer pledged a "thorough investigation" and a prosecution to the full extent of the law "should we find that laws were broken." Campaign material from her 2014 race for district attorney described her as a "proud, pro-life Texan mother of two."

Planned Parenthood said that Daleiden and Merritt used fake driver's licenses in April 2015 when they posed as executives from a fictitious company to secretly film conversations at the Houston facility. That led to the charges they used fake government documents with the intent to defraud.

One critical juncture in the case may have occurred when Planned Parenthood gave law enforcement an important tip: Merritt's true name, according to Schaffer.

Her identity remained unknown from the time she visited Planned Parenthood with a fake California driver's license until about December when Daleiden revealed it during a deposition as part of a separate civil lawsuit in state court in Los Angeles, Schaffer said.

As part of his strategy, Schaffer said he explicitly pushed prosecutors to charge Daleiden and Merritt.

"I made the argument regarding the charges that the grand jury returned," Schaffer said in the interview, "but I did not have to make them very forcefully because it was self-evident to the prosecutors that they engaged in this conduct."

That's just because they've got nothing else. No facts, no truth, no integrity.

The one of the clinics talked about in a video was in Texas

If you people are going to discuss these topics you should at least learn a little bit about them, and not just the crap from the anti-abortion groups, because they will lie.

"First, at a press conference today, the defense attorneys asked me re-present the investigation to another grand jury. I am not going to do that. We have a long standing policy against grand jury shopping. That means when a grand jury comes back with a decision we don't like we don't go and find another one to get the result we want. That violates the integrity of the whole system. The only time we re-present is if new evidence comes to light. Twelve Harris County citizens have spoken and I respect their decision even if it conflicts with my personal beliefs.

"The defense attorneys also said today that the "Tampering with a Governmental Record cases should not have been charged as a felony since young people who are caught with fake ID's typically face misdemeanor charges. But under Texas Law, if a person uses a fake ID from another state, it is a felony charge. That's the law."

However, legal experts say that even if the activists are convicted, it's unlikely they will face any prison time.

Hey Paddler, I don't hate Planned Parenthood. I hate the fact that it simply a money washing operation, where it is given my tax money to be given, in turn, back to Politicians.

That, and the fact your mother wasn't a customer.

PP provides a wide variety of much needed healthcare services to women, especially low income women. Anti-abortion groups lie about PP to further their agenda of undermining a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

The far right doesn't care about the truth, and weak politicians cave to prejudice and stupidity. In this morning's Trib, our Governor Herbert said he'll not change his position on cutting funding to PP now that the video makers have been indicted. Spineless dishrag, he is.

This is a really easy issue to understand, unless of course you're stupid, bigoted, sexist, and believe in forcing your values on others. Maybe if women incorporated their uteri Republicans would stop trying to regulate them. Worth a shot, don't you think?

Planned parenthood is nothing more than a political hoax, about the same as global warming. Just a dnc political operative. If I'm not mistaken pp has endorsed hillary for '16. WTF is that? Can NASA endorse Cruz? Can DOJ endorse Trump?

PP provides a wide variety of much needed healthcare services to women, especially low income women. Anti-abortion groups lie about PP to further their agenda of undermining a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

The far right doesn't care about the truth, and weak politicians cave to prejudice and stupidity. In this morning's Trib, our Governor Herbert said he'll not change his position on cutting funding to PP now that the video makers have been indicted. Spineless dishrag, he is.

This is a really easy issue to understand, unless of course you're stupid, bigoted, sexist, and believe in forcing your values on others. Maybe if women incorporated their uteri Republicans would stop trying to regulate them. Worth a shot, don't you think?

That's why I asked you arrogant ass.

Given your statement, I learned a little bit more about them, and it turns out one of the videos was shot in Texas. That's where the technician was taught how to do partial birth abortions - as opposed to being a clinic that was just "talked about".

Not surprising that you come out of the woodwork to defend abortion.

Again.

You're connected to the greatest source of information known to man, and you ask about things HERE?

Partial birth abortions are illegal, so no one was being "taught" to do them, and technicians don't perform abortions at all



Do some research at credible sources

Think whatever you like.
It makes no difference to me.
I just find it hypocritical when y'all talk about "freedom" and "rights" but you only want those for the people you agree with

He's not defending abortion, he's just a "mind my own business" type of guy according to his own words in the other thread.

Which is why he pops in to categorically refer to others as "you people" and explain how everyone else is stupid.

"Here are the facts," she said in the debate. "Planned Parenthood engages in partial birth abortion, in late-term abortion. They alter those abortion techniques to harvest and sell body parts."

To be clear: There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit. But the video at the center of the grand jury's investigation has proved a useful piece of evidence for Fiorina over the course of this campaign

You are omitting someone's rights.

The unborn baby's.

Thank you for the fine example of hypocrisy.

Unborn fetuses have no rights.
That's the law, whether you happen to agree or not.

It's also not your right to tell anyone else how to live.
You get to make those choices for yourself alone

Unborn fetuses have no rights.
That's the law, whether you happen to agree or not.

It's also not your right to tell anyone else how to live.
You get to make those choices for yourself alone

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

"Correct, most of the stuff posted here is crazy crap, completely unbelievable to sane folks. I come here just to provide accurate information from the world of reality. Sometimes I get the impression that people don't appreciate my efforts."

How in the hell did I make it 50+ years without your insight???

.


Damn those facts!!! Looking for traction please!

I didn't call anyone stupid, but if you can't admit many of the comments made here on this and many other topics are moronic then you're not being honest with yourself.

"You people" isn't derogatory. It's descriptive

When people start talking about "rip the baby out and make the mother kill it" or "lets kill 5 year olds if they aren't convenient", then stupid is a fitting adjective for their ideas. It also shows they don't really want to have a rational discussion

At least you do make an effort sometimes
Why is it surprising I tend to say the same things in these threads when that's what everyone else does?

Are you going to pretend it's not the pattern?

Look at ArcherHunter's stupid crap for a good example, then watch him throw a tantrum over me pointing out the truth

You wanna cut down abortion numbers have the doc extract the infant live and make the mother kill it.

Her choice:
Chopping block.
Stab repeatedly with a butcher knife.
Electrocution.
Lethal injection.
One gun firing squad.
Hang from the gallows.
Drowning.
Strangulation.
Smother with a pillow.
Slit its throat.
Baby seal it with a ball bat.
Explosives.

Whatever, it's her choice.
And she gets to do the deed.
Hands on wet work...

Has paddler ever post a pic of his Caprivi?

How many little necks have you wrung?
Throats slit?
Stabbings and chopping blocks?

I'm gonna continue hold back the tantrum because I'm sure it was difficult growing up a momma's boy with 2 dads.

But I'm a real dad.
One who accepts his gender and his role.

You baby killers don't want to meet me.
And you God damned sure don't want to experience a tantrum.

Go jump in a lake.
Lake of fire...

Did I post more "stupid crap"?

Did I post more "stupid crap"?

Blacks and women once had no rights under the law. Was that right just because it was legal?

Oh, and you're not exactly correct. An unborn baby does have rights and legal status of it is injured or killed by anyone other than the mother.

You're a total dumbass and a liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

What truth?
I'll hold the tantrum for someone deserving.

They can't deal in facts, reason, or logic; so they prey on the emotional responses.

To pro-abortion advocates in unwanted pregnancies, the yet to be born child is simply referred to in cold clinical sounding medical terms, but then when a pregnancy is wanted by the very same pro-abortion advocates, the unborn child all of a sudden becomes my sweet little baby, my precious little bundle of joy, followed by, "will it be a boy or girl", and "what to name".

I'll never understand that kind of twisted, self-serving thinking.

Any pro-abortionist is as bad as a nazi, saying a baby isn't human is no different than saying a Jew or a Gypsy isn't human. The nazi death camps were as legal according to German law as abortion clinics are according to our law.

Wow, that's a novel opinion. Best you keep it to yourself, because people will think you're crazy. Rightfully so, I might add.

The fact that it's a crime to terminate a pregnancy by means other than a legal abortion doesn't mean the fetus has rights.
It's illegal to kill a dog, but the dog doesn't have rights

Any pro-abortionist is as bad as a nazi, saying a baby isn't human is no different than saying a Jew or a Gypsy isn't human. The nazi death camps were as legal according to German law as abortion clinics are according to our law.

That's not true at all.
You wanted to make irrational comparisons as soon as I started trying to have any real discussion.

The "facts" remain if it's not yours, you have no say so in the matter

Thanks!

When you resort to Nazi comparisons, you're admitting you aren't capable of thinking of a logical, original reply.
No one said the fetus wasn't human.
It's just not yours, so you have no say in the matter

You keep repeating yourself

The father has no choice because he's not the one taking all the risk.

The unborn child still has no rights, just like the dog example I used.

The Nazi crap is exactly that....crap

Slavery was legal, but now it's not

Abortion was illegal and now it is

Both are improvements, whether you happen to agree or not

So,paddler how come you will not post pics of your Caprivi?

Apparently, life grades on the curve. Somebody has to fall two standard deviations below the mean. Congrats!

Speaking of curves, you just joined Safariman as being one of the most hated people on the fire....Uber congrats???

He reloads his cartridges for maximized performance.

And has BDC and ft/lb impact charts out to 4000 yards/meters.
In English and German.

Yup.

ya mean you guys don't????

Mine are both in sophisticated English ( like the Rich in London Speak)... and in HochDeutsch.. Plus Parisian French...

I deleted the Espanole Option...hear enough of that in line at Walmart.. whether its good Spanish or Bad Spanish.... its an irritating language to my ear...

You did know that paddler uses bullets that return if they don't hit the target,paper or game.

Snyper - clearly 4ager has completely dismantled your position.

You say the fetus is human. If, as you also say, no one other than the mother has any right to decide the fate of this human being through possible abortion, why then is it not the sole "right" of any mother to kill a child once it is outside the womb?

P.S. - it already has been established that legality alone is not a substitute for morality or ethical behavior.

Margaret Sanger was part and parcel of the Nazi planning, and the creator of Planned Parenthood for the same reasons; eugenics. This is historical fact.

The dog analogy fails because the child is, as you admit, human.

Because something is legal, or illegal, does not make it morally or ethically right. This is entirely the case in point, and thus the references to blacks and women formerly having no rights is accurate. You cannot simply dismiss those points as they are pertinent to the issue at hand.

The father is, in fact, taking substantial risks in the case of the child. However, that is irrelevant to the discussion as it is illegal to discriminate between the sexes, illegal to give rights and privileges differently between the sexes, and if under your concept the child is mere property of the mother then it is equally so property of the father based upon biology and the anti-discrimination laws.

In light of this, please continue.

I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly

It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others.

That job has been taken by ISIS

Why should I continue when all you do is parrot the same things endlessly?

The father isn't risking anything because a a pregnancy, and to even suggest that shows you're not serious, or not smart.

Sanger died before abortions were legal, and she didn't support them at all, showing you know the buzzwords but not the details

We don't have to buy boomerang bullets.
We can make our own by smashing them with a hammer before chambering them.

Nope,I just gotta kill stuff with peon scopes,rifles and bullets. Some scopes speak Span-gish to me though.

You did know that paddler uses bullets that return if they don't hit the target,paper or game.

wadda ya wanna bet that Padidler has a $50K gun with a $48.85 Tasco on top... the some quick thinking clerk told him it was a $5000.00 scope....

I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly

It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others.

That job has been taken by ISIS

You own Tasco's?

Hey Seafire - be careful. You can point out all of the weird and stupid things about Padidler you wish - until the cows come home - but don't start insinuating anything about those Tasco scopes. Padidler may not have normal emotional responses, but other folks do. I sure don't have any high-priced and fancy rifles, but have some Tascos that work as good as anything else - for me. Now, cut it out.

You keep repeating yourself

The father has no choice because he's not the one taking all the risk.

The unborn child still has no rights, just like the dog example I used.

The Nazi crap is exactly that....crap

Slavery was legal, but now it's not

Abortion was illegal and now it is

Both are improvements, whether you happen to agree or not

Irrational? The argument presented to you is entirely logical and rational. There is no hyperbole, no ad hominem, and only a very logical, legal, and rational progression from accepted fact (state of baby being human through a discussion of humans as property to law, etc).

I've very much be interested in your refutation of the argument presented. Please do continue.

Let's sum this up, Snyper.

You're making a dual argument of property rights and of risk. It's really the only two arguments available to the pro-abortion side.

The property rights argument fails miserably once the biological and logical concession must be made that the baby is in fact human, and a distinct individual human. From there, the only property rights argument (the "it's hers to do with it as she sees fit" argument) falls due the illegality and immorality of slavery, which is the only means of one human reducing another to property. To defend abortion on these grounds would necessitate defending slavery.

To the risk argument, the mother is not the only person taking a risk. The father clearly has a financial risk involved. The child is literally risking it's life. When balancing those risks, the risk of one's life outweighs any other risks involved. Only when the life of the mother is at risk, medically, are those risks balanced and does the maxim of self-defense come into play, or in the case of rape/incest the causation of a violent bodily harm causing the pregnancy, and this easily negated in the earliest days for the same self-defense rationale.

So, there is no irrational argument made here. There is no illogical argument made here. Please address each, as they sum up and attack your two positions quite discretely. I await your answers.

So,paddler how come you will not post pics of your Caprivi?

Snyper are you saying we get rid of all laws and have a free for all.Thats insane.

Nope.
You're the one talking about property rights
I'm talking about freedom of choice as to how to live ones life without someone else choosing for them.

That's the whole thing, and hasn't changed no matter how many rabbit trails you want to circle.

The father's "financial risk" doesn't override the physical health risks, which is why the decision is up to the woman alone.

The child isn't "risking" anything since it's not a viable entity at the age of 99% of abortions, and that's just an emotional argument anyway.

You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not trying to change yours. I'm just telling you it's really none of your business unless it's your child

Nobody's offered to pay my time, as I said above. I also said above that it has a Leupold Vari X III, 1.75x-6x, in some kind of fancy rings, like Talley or something. It's a 375 H&H, which Taylor said is "Undoubtedly one of the deadliest weapons in existence." I killed a mule deer with that caliber in a Ruger #1 once. Dropped at the shot and no real meat damage.

I do have some photos of other guns, though. Here's a Browning 1886 SRC High Grade with some of the most perfectly quarter sawn wood you'll ever see on a factory gun. Note how the two sides are nearly identical:











The Caprivi really isn't anything special, so don't worry about it. Nowhere near as good as my original Argentine 1909. One of the finest military rifles ever made. I bought it new in 1979, in the original factory cosmoline.

Church and State..Seperate.

It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others.

The morals and ethics of others aren't your concern either

Nobody's offered to pay my time, as I said above. I also said above that it has a Leupold Vari X III, 1.75x-6x, in some kind of fancy rings, like Talley or something. It's a 375 H&H, which Taylor said is "Undoubtedly one of the deadliest weapons in existence." I killed a mule deer with that caliber in a Ruger #1 once. Dropped at the shot and no real meat damage.

I do have some photos of other guns, though. Here's a Browning 1886 SRC High Grade with some of the most perfectly quarter sawn wood you'll ever see on a factory gun. Note how the two sides are nearly identical:











The Caprivi really isn't anything special, so don't worry about it. Nowhere near as good as my original Argentine 1909. One of the finest military rifles ever made. I bought it new in 1979, in the original factory cosmoline.

The summation is the positions is accurate and it is no surprise that you have no rebuttal. There is none, at least none that has been presented cogently, logically, and rationally. I realize that this will fall, at least now, on deaf ears (yours). However, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you owe yourself the contemplation of these arguments as they are (not as you wish they were).

Once again you parrot the same tired lines and arbitrarily declare your position the only logical one, just like "common sense gun control"

I told you before we started this would be the outcome.

You just want to control others and force your beliefs on them when it's none of your business

It's not your decision

Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?

And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.

Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.

Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.

You own Tasco's?

It's not rational to ask why someone can't murder a child after it's born.
Abortions are done before the child is viable.
The "argument presented" is the argument parroted since the first post, and the repetition is pointless.
It's none of your business what others do as long as it's legal and it doesn't affect you directly
The morals and ethics of others aren't your concern either

Yeah - I've never been a "brand" worshipper and they made some good ones along the way. If it is clear, shoots tight and is dependable it's usually good enough for my tired old eyes. The dead game seems not to care - neither do the targets.

Maybe you are different in real life, but you come across as one sick, screwed-up person. So - to you some determination of "viable" is the pivotal criterion for moral/legal killing of a child. And whom do you identify as the all-knowing power that decides such viability in life??

That inability on your part makes the posed question regarding murder after birth even more cogent. How and why would/could you hold reponsible a parent who murdered a post-partum child whom the parent had decided was not sufficiently viable?

If you would hold it legal/moral/ethical murder such a questionable child before birth, why would you not murder one after birth? See - there it is again - your dilemma - and it has nothing to do with another person attempting to force morals or ethics upon you.

I'm not going to bother arguing with irrational crap such as that since it's been used repeatedly

It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others.

That job has been taken by ISIS

You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think.

I already answered you, so any "inability" is yours, in not understanding it's really none of your business

You come across as an arrogant, holier-than-thou legend in your own mind. But that's another topic altoghether

You just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric

Yes you're on ignore. I'm asking you questions,otherwise I wouldn't bother with your dribble.

Oh,you want classic and nice wood.

Dakota M 76 7mm Dakota.






Here's Winchester M 70 Featherweight .270 Win.

Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?

And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.

Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.

Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.

Snyper read the highlighted part and please tell the audience how laws against theft, murder, rape, etc are not dictating ethics and morality for others. I'm just a dumb hillbilly, but it sure seems like those laws are dictating morality and ethics to others.

There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning.

You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you.

You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent

Not simply different. Asinine is closer to the mark. Easy call. Called Roe v Wade, look it up.

There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning.

You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you.

You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent

The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality?
If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it.

Or, owning them. That was legal once as well. Was it then also moral?

How about genital mutilation? That's legal in some places; is it therefore moral?

Legality does not mean morality, any more so than the reverse is true.

You're comparing illegal acts to something which is legal.
That was addressed several pages back. If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one. Just don't tell anyone else what to do as long as it's legal

Nope.
You're the one talking about property rights
I'm talking about freedom of choice as to how to live ones life without someone else choosing for them.

Abortions are done before the child is viable.

You never seem to tire of pounding sand. Continue, Governor.

The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality?
If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it.

That's not a logical extreme, that's allowing mentally ill people and their lifestyle choices to be considered rational as a society fashions laws to govern the behavior of everyone in that society.

I have a riddle for you. What is the difference in extraction between the Mauser 98 and the Model 70? Why is the 98 better?

Everyone knows the answer to that....I think.

I cannot change your mind because your refuse to think and to even begin to logically, morally, or philosophically defend your indefensible position.

I can, and have, defended my opinions on all those fronts. You, have not, cannot, and will not. Therein lies the difference. You've been granted ample opportunity to do so, and have failed or refused ( or been incapable) of doing so.

I offered you a debate on the merits of the differing positions. Regrettably, you were incapable of rising to the task. You may try again, but this time please do try. The arguments and positions remain the same.

It's "been established" you don't get to dictate ethics and morals for others.



You're comparing illegal acts to something which is legal.
That was addressed several pages back. If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one. Just don't tell anyone else what to do as long as it's legal

(Red text is what Snyper said) He's the one that said as long as it's legal it's okay to do.

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.

Same old same old

I told you when we started what you would say and you've repeated it 20 times.

You're a slow learner, because I told you I don't care what you think about it. You won't change anyone's mind with your tired rhetoric.

Declaring your view superior doesn't make it so.

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.

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

Mostly it's the same liberal twats playing their broken records, but occasionally a new player is added to spin the hits...

PP are professionals at what they do,

My support is less significant than the millions of women who have happily used PP.
We should also realize that millions of happily served women by PP, essentially amounts to millions of happier men
So, there's the narcisisstic argument, the one that flies best here.

PP are professionals at what they do, providing healthcare.
Let them do their job.

The videos were total BS and I certainly would expect more discerning behavior from a bunch that get all holier than thou about their pea-shooters.

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]"

two anti gun d-bags agree with each other

wow - amazing

You talkin' to me? Anti-gun? Don't think so. I was going to post photos of my collection but don't think that's wise. Suffice it to say it's above average with some really interesting items. Nothing to see here, just move along now.

Elk, are you trying to impress? Not working.

Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue.

Am I?

"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."

To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review. 558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559

Let's look at what has been adjudicated. Like it or not, here is what the Court ruled in Roe V. Wade.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.html

The SCOTUS has also previously ruled (until it overturned itself) that blacks and women were not "persons" under the Constitution either. Were they right then, morally, ethically, logically, and philosophically, simply because they decreed themselves "right" legally? The same analysis of Dred Scott applies to Roe v. Wade. If you'd care to take this to a simplistic legal argument and avoid all the ethical, logical, and moral problems your position faces then I'm fine with that. Your call, and you're welcome to concede the ethical, logical, moral, and philosophical to rely only on the current legal if you wish. Say when...

Snyper, I asked you a specific question.
Does society pass laws that govern ethics and morality? You completely ignored that question.
I was merely trying to understand your argument better because from what I can see it mostly consists of if it's legal it's okay to do.

Snyper,

Do you vote? Or do you trust your fellow abortionists to keep the necessary Presidents and Senators in office to insure that no USSC justices that are pro-life are appointed to the court?

Just for the record, I take the only logical position on this for a pro-lifer - how would we (society) enforce an abortion ban? Are we going to tie these women to a bed until the child is born? No, we can't. In the final analysis, the choice has to rest with the mother-to-be. She can explain her decision(s) to God when she passes.

That's the definition of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it, as well as the protection of laws, is not limited to citizens. Is the baby a person (I.e., a distinct individual human being)? The answer is "yes". Go back and try again.

Show (Copy and paste) the exact part of the Constitution that "grants" any rights to a fetus, or even mentions one at all.

Otherwise you're just parroting the same lines over and over because you have no logical reason why you think it's any of your business

Snyper the point is that society can and does impose rules/laws on the people in that society. Those rules/laws do take the shared ethics/morality of society into account.

Basically I'm saying your argument of "you don't get to impose your morality or ethics on others" is pretty weak. Because within the limits of the Constitution the majority seems to do a pretty effective job of pushing their morality/ethics on others who don't necessarily agree.

As always, you're missing - intentionally - the point. The baby is, biologically and rationally, a "person". Read the Constitution and applicable laws for the applicability to "persons" or "people" and try again.

You continue to use the word "fetus" to place the distinct, individual human being into a separate category. That is biologically and logically invalid, for exactly those (biological and logical) reasons.

And there it is again
No proof, just opinion
It's not "a person" under the law, but you keep claiming the law says it is.

Snyper the point is that society can and does impose rules/laws on the people in that society. Those rules/laws do take the shared ethics/morality of society into account.

Basically I'm saying your argument of "you don't get to impose your morality or ethics on others" is pretty weak. Because within the limits of the Constitution the majority seems to do a pretty effective job of pushing their morality/ethics on others who don't necessarily agree.

Prove me wrong. You've not done so yet. Prove how the child it not a distinct, individual human being that is NOT therefore a "person".

You've not yet engaged to any degree on any logical, moral, or philosophical level. The ball remains in your court, and you've got MUCH ground to cover in order to catch up. I'm not holding my breath on your ability to do so, but please feel free to try.

I've proven you're a mindless parrot who can only repeat lame rhetoric.

I told you that before all this started, and you have shown it to be reality.

I told you this was pointless in the first post I made.

I really don't care if you agree or disagree
Why does that confuse you so?

I'm not interested in seeing who can be the most stupid for the longest time.

It's still true that it's none of your business

I'm not an "abortionist"

I don't worry about "explaining to God" any more than most here would worry about making Allah happy. If I did, that's not anyone's business either

I just believe in people minding their own business.
And yes, I vote

I've proven you're a mindless parrot who can only repeat lame rhetoric.

I told you that before all this started, and you have shown it to be reality.

I told you this was pointless in the first post I made.

I really don't care if you agree or disagree
Why does that confuse you so?

I'm not interested in seeing who can be the most stupid for the longest time.

Snyper, you sound like a one phrase parrot here - one of the many things you apparently don't understand is that your saying something does not make it true. If someone decides to critique your behavior, or contest your moral structures (or lack thereof), or comment on the density of your cranial bones - it easily becomes their business. There is nothing you can say or do to change that. Time for the parrot again?

I'm reasonably certain I have not stated any preference for either side of the argument. Nor have I said anything about religion. I merely pointed out what I thought was a weakness in your argument and asked you to address it.

Sure you are.


There are no atheists in fox holes.


Me too. Killing unborn children is my business as much as pedophilia is my business. Neither is acceptable to me, so I vote for the pro-life candidates. No one besides pedophiles believe it's moral...and some of those know it's immoral, but can't control their urges. I arrested pedophiles. That's how I make it MY business - I vote. I vote in the hope of getting a USSC that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Show (Copy and paste) the exact part of the Constitution that "grants" any rights to a fetus, or even mentions one at all.

Show me the portion of the Constitution that grants a woman the right to a late term abortion. I'd be interested in reading that.

I'm fascinated by the delusion of people who can look squarely at what obviously is a human being and refuse to recognize it for what it is,in the interest of justification to kill it.....remarkable.

I always knew that Roe v Wade was a slippery slope and they'd be killing them at will in no time at all,the humans with degrees playing god. Roe v Wade is among those things that condones conduct that, while "legal", is simply reprehensible,and cheapens life.

I was right. We have become no better than animals.

Cool beans, her deer I'm assuming and even if not, spending time hunting with dad is great!

Geno

PS NO, I don't feel bad if this is considered hijacking.

Ken,

I do hope that Featherweight is a 7mm Mauser....

otherwise that photo is TOTALLY OFF TOPIC!!!

but congrats to your daughter if she is the one who dropped it...

on topic, I heard Paddler got arrested for molesting the neighbor lady's cat? anyone verify that?

if so, I think we need to start a RElief fund to bail him out...

I mean, you can imagine his chances of surviving an LA County Lock Up.... he'll never break wind again....and there will be a low tone whistle ever time a breeze pops up...

It's still none of your business, and in fact the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, but not any "rights to a fetus", although some object to using the proper medical terminology
You can vote for anyone you want, but you cant tell others what to do.

You're just refusing to admit that we (society as a whole) tell people what to do all the time. I.e., the war on drugs. We tell people what they can't do in their own homes. How do we do that you ask? We passed legislation prohibiting anyone besides medical professionals from having in their possession a list of chemicals. That's how I make it MY business. Like it or not that's the truth. The USSC can reverse itself and has done so in the past. I make it my business by writing my Senators and Congressmen, and by voting for pro-life Presidential candidates. I make it my business by speaking up whenever the subject comes up no matter the forum. You can't tell me it's not my business and to leave the subject alone, and if you did I'd tell you to go pound sand.

Go pound sand.

You are absolutely correct that you can make abortion your business. You can say anything you like to your congressmen, you can post anything you like on any forum, you can vote for anybody you choose. What you cannot do is tell a woman what to do with regards to her body until and unless the law of the land changes. In the interim you may pound sand, however, and with great energy matched only by the futility of your efforts.

Kenny, I think you should buy the young lady the same gun in a 257 Roberts. Nice caliber, same family, low recoil and excellent on deer sized game.

Nobody is telling her what to do with her body.PROLIFE FOLKS ARE TALKING ABOUT KILLING HER CHILD.She shouldnt do it.Its wrong.

Get over it.

Well, its good to know a 7 x 57 featherweight is at a good home...

you should let your daughter kill something tho sometime...

They are talking about telling others what to do when it's none of their business

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still not your choice

You shouldn't do it

Many want to talk about "society" making laws
"Society" made abortion legal
Get over it.

You are absolutely correct that you can make abortion your business. You can say anything you like to your congressmen, you can post anything you like on any forum, you can vote for anybody you choose.

They are talking about telling others what to do when it's none of their business

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still not your choice

You shouldn't do it

Many want to talk about "society" making laws
"Society" made abortion legal
Get over it.

"Society" did not make abortion legal. The SCOTUS created a "right to privacy" out of whole cloth in the Constitution where none exists, and then ruled that said same right included infanticide but only on a gender discriminatory basis. The SCOTUS has also ruled that blacks were not humans (Dred Scott), the gov't has the right to send citizens convicted of no wrongs to concentration camps (Korematsu), and that corporations were people (Santa Fe Railroad; Citizens United).

At this point, it is very clear that you are more adolescent than adult, and you have no logical, moral, or philosophical basis for your position; this is based entirely on regurgitation of political ideology that is indefensible and upon baseless emotion. Perhaps when you (if you) finally mature, you'll have the intellectual honesty to re-examine your own argument for the fundamental and fatal flaws that exist within it.

Like I need the permission of an abortionist to make abortion my business. You are among the group that I don't give a pphuck about. You condone murder, and you rely on semantics to do it. You should be ashamed.

Paddler
If ever there was a excusable reason for abortion
You would be it.

What do you mean by that? I'm a well-educated, thoughtful, productive, tax paying member of society. Responsible gun owner, ethical hunter, too. And, I obey the laws of the land and mind my own business. You should follow my lead.

Nope, not ashamed. Just amused at your impotence. You sound very unhappy. Overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness, discussed above.

It's amusing that the people that can't stand any govt. on their guns, want more govt. on a woman's body. You might want to keep that pro life, anti choice horseshit to yourselves, unless you want to be dismissed as a self serving hypocrite.

Amendment XIV

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Where, exactly, in the 14th Amendment is a gender discriminatory right to infanticide for convenience spelled out?

Here's the text of the 14th Amendment; please show EXACTLY where that right is enumerated.

Kind of a weak argument.

why is this a women's rights issue when it takes a woman and a man to conceive?

Why isn't the man allowed to participate, or waive his rights, to the issue of terminating a "fetus"?

why is the man subject to servitude in the way of support if the woman chooses to have the baby?

Isn't that is kind of like arguing "where in the second amendment is it spelled out that concealed carry is allowed for convenience?"

Kind of a weak argument.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You're more than welcome to start on these as well: