Interesting column on anti-abortion laws and where they have "success"

Read over at "National Review Online".....the author noted “Another important lesson is the great success that pro-lifers have had in the South."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...sses-pro-life-progress-michael-j-new#comments


Ironic thing about that statement, as a poster noted....is how the South has a history of "success" when it comes to denying people their rights, doesn't it?

 

Interesting how the Democratic Party has a long history of refusing to recognize personhood and denying human rights...

In the infamous Dred Scott case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a slave, although a human, was not a person, at least not a 100% person.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2106.html

 

Just like the Republicans. Some supposedly "pro life" Republicans have even funded Planned Parenthood.

 

Care to show me where in that article it states that Dred Scott was not a person, it does say he wasn't a citizen . .do you know the difference?

Comparing a 156 year old ruling with a 40 year old ruling doesn't really mean very much at all.

 

I can prove somebody is holding a person as a slave.....tell me EXACTLY how you prove a woman had an abortion?

If you can't do that....then EVERY "abortion=slavery" analogy you make...falls apart.

 

No, in many cases you can't.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/girl-32024-egypt-ibrahim.html

Tell me exactly how you prove a child was abused. Tell me exactly how you prove a murder took place when the criminal got rid of the body.
No, it just takes a little detective work, like any other type of case. Will there be women who get away with it? Yes. But some will get caught, and that alone is a deterrence.

 

Everyone who is pro-life should support Planned Parenthood, as their work prevents abortions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.
So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health.

 

Detective finds a woman who has visited an abortion clinic....how does that detective PROVE that she had an abortion???

BTW, when abortion was illegal in many states...women still got them. So your "deterrance" argument falls flat too.

 

If "pro-lifers" were REALLY about preventing abortions....they'd supporter cheaper and easier access to contraception.

They don't...because they aren't. It's about controlling women. Period.

Look at most of the one s we have here....they invariabily talk about women "having to pay the piper" for having sex. From the misogynist males to their co-dependent self-guilt females.

 

Your question is too broad to attempt to answer in depth, but I imagine it might be similar to prostitution cases. How do detectives PROVE there was paid sexual intercourse between two consenting parties?

Just to answer part of your question, there would probably be sting operations.

 

It is not the Democratic Party, it is the Constitution.

 

What about Hitler's Constitution?

 

No, my question is too SPECIFIC for you to answer.

In a "prostitution case"....who testifies against whom that a case of prostitution occurs? Now....who will testify against a woman who went to a Canadian abortion clinic.....or who took RU-486?

"Sting operations"?....on EVERY doctor capable of performing a "therapeutic D&C for the control of uterine bleeding"...which would be easilly claimed rather than admitting it was an abortion?????

- - - Updated - - -

We have the same Constitution now...we had over 200 years ago. When did we replace it???

 

Sometimes the law condones evil stuff.

 

WHO decides what is "evil"?

 

That's not really relevant to my statements. All that matters it that legality does not equal=morally right.

 

Yes, at times that has been or is the case. I am sure it will also happen in the future too and in those instances it is upon those who feel that way to show reasons why. Mind you those reasons have to be based on reality, commonly accepted facts, rational reasoning and so forth. The unfortunate thing is that in the case of abortion you are simply not able to do any of that.

- - - Updated - - -

You forget that morality is not an absolute. What might be moral for you it may be immoral for others. Take for instance what you are trying to do, is force your morality on society. That in itself is immoral.

 

YOU said "Sometimes the law condones evil stuff".....relevant to that statement?

Who decides what is "evil"? Specifically?

 

It also does not equal morally wrong.

 

It is not the purpose of law to enforce what is morally right or to prevent what is morally wrong. The purpose of law in a secular nation is to maintain order in society. Of course it IS moral to maintain an orderly society, and immoral to disrupt order, but beyond that it is not the business of government. No one has ever shown how abortion disrupts order in society, and until that happens, it's just not government's business.

 

How would you define whether or not something disrupts society, or not?

Does what this woman did disrupt society, or not?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/f...ng-newborn-to-freeze-on-roadside-video-93382/

 

It is usually pretty clear when something will cause chaos in society, and yes, killing children or neglecting children does. Things that interfere with respecting other people's bodies, minds, or property eventually cause chaos.

 

I'm so sick of this lie.

For the purposes of exposing the lie, see the following equation.

1) Group has $100 from private donor.

2) Group has $50 from government.

3) Group has $150.

4) Group uses $75 for abortions.

5) Group claims none came from government.

6) Group uses government funds supposedly for "other purposes". Perhaps rent, cookies, tampons, etc.

7) Group's claim a fallacy developed between IT and Government, because...

Group can (and does) simply divert private funds away from "other than abortions" because government funds those "other things".

9) Money is fungible. Stop spreading bold faced lies in order to support arguments.

10) If people were explained this truthfully, they would not support government funding of PP by a majority.

 

How does your theory prove Planned Parenthood has diverted funds? You do know that Planned Parenthood has been regularly audited? Not only that but investigated by a House committee? No wrongdoing has been found.