I see the globalist Marxist cabal has fooled the Irish into supporting their own genocide in a vote that went 66% to 33% in favor of self-genocide.

Give it 100 years and the Irish won't be recognizable as a people and Ireland won't be Irish.

That's the plan all right.

'They' are destroying the western world right in front of our very eyes and nobody has the balls to just come right out and say it.

100 years from now, I wont be worrying about the Irish, nor about most anything at that point.

What I find remarkable is the language used by the pro-genocide side, the use of non-sequitur and using an instance of unrelated malpractice to promote infanticide. A lot of Marxist, homosexual influence. I guess further proof of the Satanic nature of sodomy and sexual libertinism.

Oh, and of course, Soros funded it heavily. Go figure.

Herein lies the unspoken issue of abortion. Abortion has taught young people that human life is not important. The result is young people not valuing human life. Hence abortion is a factor in school shootings and the emergence of gangs like m13.

The EU began ruining that country in the early 90s. I guess it's complete now.

Perhaps some have recognized that the addition of more people to an already overpopulated world is not the best answer. Abortion has not taught young people that human life is not important; the sheer volume of human life is doing that. Indeed, a large portion of people who are, in theory, pro-life, are vociferously in favor of the elimination of some human life if said humans are of the wrong color, wrong social standing, or profess belief in the wrong god. I do not necessarily like the idea of abortion and I think pro-active birth control is much more desirable but this is where we are. GD

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ised-this-hasnt-come-up-yet#Post12883245

Abortion is not a solution for birth control. It is the killing of a human for convenience' sake.

If there are "too many people" in the world, then those people can use forms of birth control and self-control to not propagate more people. Killing a person after the fact is ridiculous.

Britain is already further along the track of losing its identity...

catering to foreigners that want to destroy their nation and culture...

western society needs a major uprising of nationalism...

these foreigners aren't going home on their own...

I'm 100% for abortion when its some Raghead impregnating a European, Canadian, American, Australian
woman....and then the woman needs mental help for mating with the goat fuddker in the first place...

As I tell a liberal nephew - "Abortion is killing, an act of war. You must ask yourself who is at war with whom."

Not everyone agree's with your religious definition of person. Nothing in this change says a person must get an abortion, just that government can't make the choice for you.

It's interesting how you support government interference in peoples lives when it furthers your religious beliefs.

And likewise.

Nothing gets you guys cranked up more than religion, abortion or pit bulls....

And I have to bite my tongue on threads involving all three...

The western world is dumb enough to go along with their own elimination.

Let women decide what to do with their bodies, not a bunch of meddling men thumping a bible.

What a great idea. Terrific post. And I agree 100%. More if possible.

Of course, let them get a tatoo, smoke crack, eat mushrooms, cook naked, piece their eyelids. Take birth control, munch on chicks, or get their tubes tied. I could GAF what others do, so long as its not impacting other humans.

It is a very libertarian mindset, and one I think everyone should consider, at least in part.

Of course, that stops at causing harm or taking another's property, life, or ability to make their own decisions. A little fetus, often a perfectly developed little human, is not the woman. You get that, right? Sort of like, the tadpole isnt the momma frog, even though its not a frog itself yet.

So, ya see, there's that.

Just another sign of the collapse of Roman Catholic values. It took longer in strongly Catholic societies, i.e., you had to wait till the pre-Vatican II Catholics mostly died off. Vatican II constituted the official surrender of the Catholic Church to the coup that had been seeking its overthrow for a few centuries.

Something else replaced it, calling itself by the same name, but it was in fact a changeling institution, which essentially promoted the opposite of what the Catholic Church promoted. But many Catholics themselves simply ignored the values that the changeling Church was promoting. Since the newer generations were receiving their values from the changeling institution, however, they eventually became the majority of Catholics, and the changeling values became the values within what had been strongly Catholic nations. That's where we are, at this time in history, in Ireland. It was only a matter of time.

I agree, but also make sure they pay for it. Not one penny of my tax dollars should go toward funding any of it.

You're right, but if born here we're going to pay a lot more in welfare, food stamps, health care, housing.

There's that. No tax money funding. Period.

A couple of other points...

~ I'll quit messing with their abortion rights if they quit messing with my gun rights.

~ I do see a glimmer of a silver lining. How many less liberals are there because of abortion? Not to mention the obvious ethnic break down of the numbers?

Trouble is, what others do ALWAYS impacts the rest of society. Make pot legal and you get the crop that Colorado is now sowing. Help the homeless stay homeless and you get what Portland now has to deal with as seen in the daily news. Invite in the illegals and you get millions of them in califronia now voting and taking over the state and swinging national elections. Abortion? Make it legal to kill your babies and the value of life will plumet as it has in America. Women will be psycologically wrecked. And that will affect them all. Just as it has here. Society draws a line, or there is no line. Stand for something, or it will fall for everything. To think anything else is just pure stupidity.

I don't need arbitrary women voting on my right to guns, vasectomy, peenis tattoos, anal bleaching, nose job,,,,or anything else I might decide is my business.

And yet Backpage et al go away. Not sure I understand why prostitution is illegal, but abortion isn't.

It's not 'her' body, it has different DNA.

It's someone else's body.

Somehow it's just plain wrong NOT to protect the most defenseless and most innocent among us.

Maybe it's just me and other 1.2 billion Catholics who see it that way.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have a lot of company

kd

Don't worry.

Your Pope will change that directly.

The last time the Catholic Church had a Pope was 1958.

Concerned about abortion, but not concerned about the pandemic sexual abuse of helpless children...

More than not concerned, actually. Covering for it, and doing it for centuries.

It's a fallacy to pin pro-life stance on religiosity. Im sure it plays a part in some, but not me. I'm not a particular religious person, can't remember the last time I was in church. But murdering an unborn child is something I am rabidly opposed to. Call it by any other name if you must, but that is what it is.

I'm telling you boys, you need to push the 'make prostitution legal' drum, often and loud.

If they want to use 'It's a woman's body' when it comes to abortion, it should apply to taking 3 cocks in a 19 year old's ass for a century note.

I'd vote often and early for legal prostitution.

Every woman sitting on a gold mine...

I've yet to meet a 'feminist' that was for prostitution, and it always pissed them off when I brought up 'It's a woman's body to do with as she wishes'

So the govt has no legitimate role in protecting humans (their citizens)?

You need to come up with a different schtick than the silly "religious" angle that you always pull, as it has grown old long ago. A person has the right to protection. You would agree on that, I assume. So the only difference is defining when does the embryo/fetus become a human person. That has nothing to do with religion.

Biology, genetics, human experience, and yes religion, all point in the direction of personhood at conception. Stop letting your anti-religious bias color your view of what is the legitimate role of govt in protecting its citizens.

I'm not Catholic, but I'm with you.

you mean like children ?...….for a catholic to talk about protecting ( most innocent among us ) is laughable at best, completely disgusting...….
when the church cleans up their mess.....than Catholics can talk without looking like hypocrites...…..bob

Thanks for the tip.

John XXIII 1958-1963 is known around the world as "The Good Pope"
He was one of the best. Saved countless Jews from the Holocaust.
Simply tried to do what Jesus would have done.

What has changed since 1973 that justifies this conversation ?...be careful what you ask for.

You mean like some people on this site?

No.

Earlier, or perhaps in the other related thread I mentioned how not everyone agrees on the definition of "person-hood". As for you claim of a universal agreement upon personhood at conception, that claim was thoroughly rebuffed by the recent Irish vote and polls in the U.S demonstrating a wide majority of Americans disagree with you as well.

I never said there's not place for government in the protection of life, just that your definition is in the minority.

Yeah, murder is a great method of population control. SMH.

Again,

Not everyone accepts your religious inspired definition.

Murder goes on by the 100's everyday in America, nobody cares about that fact....think of it like shooting button bucks.

I don’t think it’s gonna take 100 years.

The only consolation to me is that the vote IIRC was 2:1.

30% opposed to the murder for convenience of the unborn ain’t a trifling minority.

Its amazing how easy it is for women to be able to find a man to help them out or relieve stress or frustration, compared to how many women are as helpful and accomodating to frustrated men. Women dont care if men live in misery and they are the ones who spend their life bitching as if they had something that had them miserable and itching.

In the same thread, we have old white men bitching about women getting pregnant, and in the same breath, bitching about them giving it up.

What a bunch of hypocrites. All that's left if for this bunch of hypocrites to head down to the basement for a little visual gratification on their way to bed.

You had better check out your local public school. The rates of abuse by teachers is much higher, and we don't know what has been covered up like the abuse in the UK that we just now are getting a glimpse of.

You don't have to be religious to understand the damage abortion does to a society.

I know, "society" is a word the 24/7 me-me libertarian libertines don't get, but maybe when the 3rd World replacement is complete, they'll fondly remember how much they enjoyed things like plumbing, public highways and justice systems.

You do of course realize that the RKBA depends upon having an orderly, moral society that values their neighbor, right?

If you support the breakup of the family through things like consequence-free termination of family members, you are asking for a police state to be it's replacement.

I'd like to see some of those numbers for comparison.

Where would I find that?

Teachers DO do that. And go to jail for it, too. There's one difference, right there. Teachers don't have the Pope covering it up for them either.

Religion has very little to do with my beliefs about killing babies.

Luckily my belief that killing a baby in the womb is murder isn't inspired by religion.

Who gives a flying fugg about so called 'minority'. If you think majority is the litmus for right, then Hillary should be president.

Since you say it is the minority, then aren't minorities the new ruling class?

As one article I read concluded, nearly ALL organizations try to cover up child abuse. That includes officials like principals and school boards.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-times-worse-than-by-priests

Gotta love statists/commie/Marxists.

Definitions in arguments change on a whim, self-service rules the day.
The only thing I see here is responsibility (the topic does not matter), needs to be funded by others (its definition called theft), to fund bad decisions and bad behavior. Dilly dilly....

Spoken like a Nazi. Good job!

The next step is to make others PAY for these "medical procedures"....not everyone accepts the statist definition; some people still consider it theft.

Really...you had to resort to "Nazi".

You have a better example of statists [bleep] on definitions?

I really get a kick out of some missing the elephant in the room, and its not the threat of missionaries in Uganda....

I'm outta this thread.

Those that condone the hypocrisy of the church covering up sex abuse for centuries and running a red herring up the pole to focus attention on other institutes are the reason it gets covered up by anyone.

It's wrong no matter who does it, or who covers it up.

I'm not condoning it. It should have been adjudicated long ago. That is, if you could have even found a public official who cared enough about it even 60 years ago to press charges. If you think this is/was limited to the Catholic church, you need to wake up. It's every church, every organization that involves youth. ALL of them have covered it up.

The Catholic church has made great strides in child protection while at least one institution locks people up for pointing out abuse.

Yea, I find it pretty interesting that just acknowledging that his is not the universal view, as demonstrated in this election, is enough to brand a person a Nazi.

Remind me of the Left branding everyone who disagrees with them a Racist.

Violent crime has dropped since Roe v. Wade, if anything, it's lead to a more orderly, not a less orderly society.

This goes right along with the Irish being encouraged to take in Afreakin!/muslim immigrants into their spare bedrooms.

Did anyone notice this baseless and deliberately misleading attempt to state "cause and effect" !!

That's 1 way of twisting the truth, abortions directly effect my 2nd amendment rights...interesting logic lol

I'm not Catholic, I'm not a woman, it's none of my concern...the SCOTUS has decided, that makes it the law of the land to me. Whether we pay for it is another conversation all together.

Kinda like Pirates and Global Warming

For some whom others label as "religious" and whose tenets are challenged on the basis of that label, the fundament of their beliefs and practices are not related to a "church" organization and/or a human codified religious doctrine. Their tenets and practices are based on a personal relationship with a God and Savior. Build a case - and related accusations - against that fact, if you will.

The moral tenets of some are derived from such a relationship - while the same or similar moral tenets of others are based on other factors. Nonetheless, those moral tenets are applied to the conduct of lives, and are important. One of those tenets pertains to the murder of defenseless other beings.

There has been a lot of obfuscatory and PC rhetoric applied by those who wish to avoid or deflect from the obvious - like the vapid "right to choose". Of course a woman has the right to control her own body. So be it. That includes the choice keeping it clean and healthy, or being filthy and abusing herself with all sorts of harmful stuff, or doing things somewhere in between. So be it. That includes her decisions about whether or not to enable her pregnancy - or avoid it. So be it. It's her choice

But - does the woman have a right to murder an individual living being she chose to enable - a being that is not herself? For convenience, Hitler murdered many, many Jews - and others. For convenience, Stalin murdered a whole bunch of folks. Pol Pot did much the same - and so have many other powerful figures. Yes - those murders are grand-scale events of murder for convenience. Is a single murder for convenience any less egregious?

Given the current legal frameworks, pregnant women in many places can choose to murder for convenience. How is her convenience any different or more significant than that of Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or ??? It appears that the act of willful abortion is as much a mark of destruction for the woman as it is for the child she murders. As a society, we have become complicit. Anyone care to try to form that into "religiosity"?

Say someone walks up to a pregnant woman on the street and punches them in the stomach.

Woman loses the baby.

What is the charge the pin on him?

If the intent were to kill the unborn child, that's murder.

Nope, I just hold certain truths to be "self-evident". The fact that some view it as a religious persecution and not universal is either a commie, someone with an agenda, a Nazi or someone with a guilty conscience. If it doesnt apply to you, you dont have a problem with it.

I realize this is about Ireland, but I dont have any delusions that plenty have a problem with it even in my town.

Assault with bodily harm.

Not just wrong, but very wrong. I've already mentioned the study, the economist and university in this discussion.

No,

Kind of like a peer reviewed journal article:

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/116/2/379/1904158

If your position was so "self evident" it wouldn't be the minority position in Ireland and the U.S.

Okay, now explain how you can justify forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want...it is not your body.

That is the problem here, some still see women as chattel.


I personally do not want to see abortion become common place and most definitely do not want it to raise it's ugly head in my family...but it is NOT MY choice to make.

And all of you that rant about the left and the anti-2nd mobs that infringe your freedom...take a good hard look in a mirror.

And if you still feel a need to infringe the right of women and force them to bear children then you are not conservative and you do not value personal freedom, you are a control freak just like the rest of the filth.

Exactly, we ALL expect our freedoms & liberties not be infringed upon,,,but some choose hypocritically to control others choices.

Those who oppose the killing of children in the womb are rights advocates. This position is therefore 100% consistent with being a rights advocate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Yours is the inconsistent collection of positions.

Exactly the same could be said of those that wish to ban firearms ownership. "If it will save one child", I have seen that repeatedly lambasted here and now you use the exact same argument.
It is disingenuous and deceitful.

Mainly to yourself.

You are just another control freak that cannot stand not getting your own way, and for those that chant "religious conviction" then know that your religious convictions are the same as your personal freedoms in that they end at the tip of your nose...after all, you lot would be very upset if you were forced to acquiesces to the Muslim belief system.

What you are doing here is forcing your personal agenda on others, and doing your level best to bring the full force of the law down on them...I thought you lot abolished slavery, or is that only for men.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of something.

Yep, the unborn are subhuman just like the Jews, isn't that right JSTUART?

I do not recall EVER calling Jews "subhuman" so please do not lie and put words in my mouth.

Unlike yourself I know well what my convictions are, and I damn well make sure I live by them...I do not however feel the need to make others do as I want.

Oh gotcha, unless we're talking unborn Jews right? You do realize to be pro-abortion you have to consider the unborn to be less than human right? That's the same logic the Nazis used to justify their murder as well. It is morally wrong to kill someone because they inconvenience you, period.

Unless they're unable to protest what's being done to them.

Still the same argument the left spruiks when they want your firearms, and I notice that you steadfastly defend against that which affects you personally.

No I don't...what I do have to realise is that my opinion and the opinion of everyone else has absolutely no relevance or bearing upon the decision as it is in the hands of the woman whose body it is.

Not yours, not mine, not the woman next door...SOLELY in the hands of the woman making the decision about her body and future.

Let's just go back to old Roman law, birth is irrelevant. Don't like your kid? Just kill him and try again. Or keep him and sell him as a slave.

Its not my "position", its THE basis for independence; something I believe in and something yourself uses as a cloak for self-service.

The law will take exception to you doing that...and rightfully so.


But since you hold the law in such high regard you will be pleased to know that abortion is legal.

Question, how is the man's argument "self serving"?

Rightfully so? Why? Why does popping out of a hole make such a difference. Here we have it down to what parts can pop out and what parts have to stay in to kill it legally. No rational argument for that. Sophistry a-plenty but no rational argument.

Legal doesn't make it right. Never did, never will.

You are dissembling and attempting to be cute, you are very well aware that abortion is about the woman's right to govern her own body. And like it or not any that oppose that right to self-governance are treating women as chattel.

Slavery was abolished.

I don't wanna work, but I sure as hell won't use it as an excuse to kill someone. Of course if I don't wanna work, I will have repercussions. I would EXPECT them.
Being responsible/cause/effect 101....

Everyone out there in La-La land breaking windows, dindunuffins, someone gimme a short term fix for my decisions, so I don't have to deal with the repercussions.
If it was some dude driving drunk and running over a preschool class for what he did with his body, I would suspect we'd be looking for a short rope and his wallet. They might not even be religious zealots....

Sorry, amidst a sea of prophylactics and pills, designated drivers, I fail to see the whole "chattel" connection.

I don't know if you heard this or not, it's pretty hi-tek stuff, but we figured out what causes pregnancy!

It's called "sex" and every woman knows about it. They know it causes pregnancy. So, unless a woman was raped, she invited a child to form in her womb.

Tying the 2nd to abortion is,,,,, well as liberal as it gets...by definition.

Refusing to allow women control over their own bodies is treating them as chattel/property.

And as for the rest of that...it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a woman's right to control over her own body.

That is it period.

Funny how nothing is ever said about the men that put it there...it always the woman's fault and it is always the woman that has to bear the burden, well guess what, not all of them want to.

Yes, I noticed that. As if violent crime is the only measure of societal well being. All the while ignoring these instances of murder. How about we add those to the numbers and see where we are at?

This might be an interesting time to check the crime stats in Ireland over the same period. My guess is they mirrored the trends AS's study pointed to, except for, of course, the number of abortions.

How does a person accept the Bill Of Rights or the Declaration of Independence when he doesn't believe in their foundation?

Of course his comment of "your position" pretty much gives it away, at least to me.

But when she has the baby guess who is on the hook!! You can't have it both ways, if the man is responsible after birth then he needs a say before birth also.
Just saying . Cheers NC

Is someone keeping them "off their backs" that I don't know about?

The fact is there is about 100 "choices" no government has anything to do with before the killing of offspring, as far as I know.

I do know I have every right to lop off my hand, but damned if it would keep me out of the asylum....

So, you genuinely believe that gives you the right to dictate what she can or can not do with her body?

Now you're dissembling. Does a woman have a right to shoot heroine on the steps of the Capitol? It's her own body, right? Plenty of examples where law restricts what a person can do with his body. And the argument is fallacious anyway because it assumes the fetus has no human status or it would be a woman's right to choose what to do with someone else's body.

The point is at what point do human rights accrue and on what basis. When is that thing a person. The answer I don't know. But I wouldn't want to take a chance of killing a person just because I guessed wrong. Here if I fire a shot in the air in the general direction of downtown and managed to kill someone (small town, infinitesimal chance of that happening) the charge is homicide.

A pregnant woman has already said what she is doing with her body.

Irrelevant, you are still insisting on your right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her own body.

Odd, I took his meaning to be your stance on abortion and your inability to allow that women have a right to self-governance of their own bodies.


And that second bit is as fundamental as you can possibly be.

Irrelevant?

First, I don't have a right to dictate to anyone, and a woman who wants ten thousand choices and one more to kill doesn't either, capiche?

You have just contradicted your second point with your first.

And the eye-tie stuff is sort of wasted on me.

Well goodnight gentlemen I am off to bed.

JSTUART, please tell me what my (or your) government would do to a "self-governing" individual who chooses to lop off a body part here and there.....or smoke crack while pregnant.

Pure B.S.. GMAFB.

Yeah, its my inability to appreciate "freedom".....

Contradiction?
Not really. I'm not petitioning killing anyone...but then in the U.S., for now, we have God given rights, not granted by men, or if it makes you feel better, women either.

It's really nice to see the ole' white folks worried about minority children, and the health of the Mom possibly turning tricks to supply her heroine addiction lol.

May as well start on them running shoes for the lil' Mexicans crossing the border next,,,,sweet bunch of guys.

Show me where God grants you 2nd amendment rights in the bible...please.

What a canard.

No, the leader of other Christian churces followed His Word and told their church leaders to get married, make woopi, and multiply, as opposed to a gay pope 600 years ago.

It's not just her body. Someone else's body is there, too.

The Bible?

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution states as much.

It's [bleep] Memorial Day and you need a [bleep] history lesson?

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

North Carolina
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts
John Hancock
Maryland
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

New York
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton

Don't sound like God to me, he does it in far fewer words.

Amen!

This is an important point that's often, conveniently, overlooked.

This helpful?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sure sounds like grounds for killing offspring and gun confiscation doesn't it?

Well said, my ersatz namesake.

Actually "self-evident" makes it pretty clear, unless the bible blocks your view.

On this issue, the Irish got more freedom then the US does.

They voted on the issue.

Assumin the votes was counted correctly, somethin ya can't do here in the US, the voters exercised their freedom, and voted to legalize it.

Lotta anti-freedom posters here, it bein Memorial Day and all.

What about the freedoms of the victims?

How one gets freedom out of legalizing murder is beyond me. (There I go "dictating" what people do with their bodies again)!

The German people wanted Jews rounded up and put into railcars. Freedom? Democracy?

Maybe we could fire a few furnaces with the unwanted babes....oops, that's happening too.....

But hey, small price to pay to prevent the word "chattel" being tossed around. That would be egregious...

The death penalty is legalized murder.

People had the freedom ta vote whether or not they wanted the death penalty.

Some states voted for it, some not. Freedom.

None of the "victims", i.e., those on death row, voted for it, amazingly.

If you are against abortion, you have the freedom to try and convince others to agree with you.

Same way if you feel a person should be able to terminate.

Freedom.

Awesome.

(Not really)

Just dropped in before I finally get to bed.

Well the news is that you have legalised abortion, we have legalised abortion, and the Irish have legalised abortion...so am guessing that your point of view is not only in the minority but also very unpopular.

Must suck to be you.


Now that the snide remarks and pointed jabs are out of the way (that is right, I can do that too), this whole thing boils down to one thing only...do you think women have the right to authority over their own bodies.

I think they do.

Apparently, you halo wearers ain't never wore a rubber.

Or got BJ or a handjob.

Or, banged a broad on her period.

Or one on the pill.

Cause if ya did, you aborted a lil' baby, same as if it happened later.

Every time.

But, let me guess, that's "different".

Remember, conception begins at life.

All those little wigglers was alive, wasn't they?

Another example of an old white guy wanting to usurp a women's control of their bodies, as he's headed down to the basement for some visual stimulation.

And you would be wrong:

That's great.

A smokestack in England is probably fueled with your superiority. I'm so happy you've joined the ranks of modern liberalism.

It's really more than snide comments; I'm sure it won't directly effect either one of us. But it does matter.

Never answered my question on lopping off body parts as a "self-governing" individual....

Great post Sir

The unborn had their trial! Kill em...

Damn unborn criminals anyway.

No wonder the Second Amendment is under attack. Many of you think Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness doesn't matter.

Apparently, you would have it read: "Life and the pursuit of Happiness."

Awesome job!

"Conception begins at life".....

Jesus.

Separation of church and state.

You must be Catholic, that makes you a minority in the United Sates...your vote doesn't count anymore.

No, I wouldn't.

Our point of no return is having the "Liberty" to "off" my [bleep]....no matter how much it would benefit me.
Maybe you need to ask those who did how happy they are.

Why, you a Jew?

Now we're makin progress.

You are in favor of *some* liberties, but not others.

Does everybody get to decide their own set of liberties?

Like, maybe, by votin for em?

Or are you the guy that decides it for everybody?

Yeah, I'm the guy standing on the big chair harping for genocide and calling it freedom....

One step forward, two back..

You ever come up with an reply that's not a hysterical cliche, the thread will still be here.

No I'm not, why would it matter ?

Catholics have been surpassed by the "unaffiliated" sector in this country(atheists & agnostics), how does that feel as self righteous judgemental nobody ?

You ever get serious about killing people beyond socialist clichés and I'll cease being funny.

It wouldn't. I had no problem smelling the "secular" anyhow.

I can't think of anything more self-righteous than clamoring for the death of other people, especially ones that have no voice. Bravo?

edit: The only other thing that might be more self-righteous is an advertised Second Amendment supporter who doesn't give two [bleep] about the Declaration of Independence or anyone else's Bill of Rights. But no doubt they aren't mutually exclusive.

You have quite an opinion of yourself.

But hey, at least that's one person.

Bet the cover charge for onea your comedy shows is *way* up there.

Right? With any luck, prostitution will be legal by the time a bunch of daughters turn 18. It's the only right move, and I hope you champion it.

18?

Why not 12?

Keep making this more complicated than it really is.

I'm not Colbert, I assure you....

No kidding.

(Just a joke amongst judgmental pricks)....

It appears so

If it's legalized in a new state, I suspect it will be Colorado.

The stupidity and ignorance displayed by some of the pro-abortion crowd here is nothing less than stunning.

The stupidity and ignorance of somebody that doesn't understand the concept of "Pro-Choice" is comical.

Yeah, it's way over everyone's logic.....and funny. Don't forget the comical part.

It's way more complicated than not paying taxes or dancing on the freeway; forgetting to water the plants.

It is not my place to justify such an enforcement, nor have I ever even attempted to so force a woman. If a person obtains a pair of pants and then decides they don't want the pants, they can do away with the pants. Same for a lampshade. Same for a defenseless child?

Suppose that you are the father of a young son and, for reasons of convenience, decide that you no longer want that son - should it be legal, and justifiable, for you to kill that boy? The woman has the choice about whether or not to conceive the child. If she decides to do and then decides that the child is inconvenient for her, some seem to think that she should be able to deal with her bad decision by killing the child. This decision process has nothing to do with whether or not some dolts see women as movable items of personal property - it has to do with moral decision-making by a human being.

No, it seems the problem here is that you are sick. And, try to get well enough to straighten out this mess. i did not post what you have attributed above.

Hey - I don't want to control what any woman does with her body - she must have full control of that. Likewise, I have full control of mine. If that "control of her body" gives her the right to kill a child she does no want, do I have that same right?

Did you knock her up?

Here is what I understand about your "Pro-Choice". You support the concept that a woman can choose to murder a child she does not want. In supporting that, you also - by default - support the practice of abortion. If the practice of abortion did not exist, she would not have the "choice" you support.
Did I get it right? Where is the comedy in this killing field?

Hey - Tyrone - I did not post that. Kindly correct it.

Suspicions confirmed - you ARE sick.

I believe in the right to bear arms, I can defend my property and family...by your definition that means I want to kill people that enter my space, because I legally can.

Does that mean that I do kill these "said" people ?...no, it means I have the right.

A woman has the right to make all decisions having to do with her body, whether abortion or taking a shiit....is that clear enough for you ?

Abortion=taking a [bleep]

Pretty clear.

Missed that in the founding documents, but clear...

I will support a woman's right to choose just as soon as they promise not mess with my freedoms.



See? Simple.


Will it ever happen? Fug no.

No, what you wrote there is not clear at all - or relevant - it is muddled. Are you drinking this evening?

So, my clear explanation of your "Pro-Choice" concept is not so comical, eh? Maybe difficult to feel comedy when you are smarting over the truth. And, get real - I said and think nothing about whether or not you want to kill people simply because you bear arms. It's your "choice". What is it like to be promoting abortion?

Its okay.

Bwana should be in a Conway vs. George Jones debate, not haggling over laws that were never passed or offing the unborn like punching a subway pass because "its a right", like taking a [bleep] is a right.

Give him a break. Hell, I think its a right to get a break; if it isnt at least the majority thinks it should be....

I will try to be more popular with my views on freedom and liberty henceforth.

Actually, I don't support human trafficking in any way. Not by being a customer, not even by mere clicks.

Doing a little Democrat projection there? The old "You always know what Democrats are doing because that's what they accuse you of"?