Oklahoma court rejects personhood ballot initiative (because they aren't lunatics)

No. If one is for peace "at all cost" he or she will eventually be a subject, subordinate to the one he or she empowered by his/her acquiescence, sooner than later.

No. Contrary to popular propaganda most human beings do not want nor do they promote, or are for creating/consuming filthy water, air, food etc.

No to the health care the government pushed in the Obamacare "affordable health care act." It will be more expensive, reduced benefits, less patient/doctor control because really who can you appeal to after the government has decided an issue? On reflection I would say God but that is not an option for many who would deny His influence.

Slavery is, in my opinion an unnatural human state, having a child is not.

America will save the world...wait, sorry we are going broke and we have a president, politicians and other assorted characters who are taking this nation down the path of financial ruination. Looks like we're out for this hand.

After that all I can say about this study is "Go green!". Beware; Studies, especially those with a desired predetermined conclusion, can be made to promote a specific political position. Figures lie, liars figure

Medicare, Medicaid? We already have a public and private healthcare system, people from outside our national borders come and use it. I'll take ours over any others.

Personally know foreign nationals from government healthcare nations who had their elective surgery here in the USA when they were injured in their homeland. Came here for the corrective/final surgery. Know others who blame their government run health system for their loved one's deaths too.

Don't confuse healthcare with health insurance. Remember people without healthcare insurance are treated in this system too.

37th c'mon that's baloney, Is Cuba still ranked better than the USA in patient treatment? You want to be treated there?

We have billionaires who come here for surgery and treatment.

And possibly due to personal choices too? Why did the Democrats change the health care system for everyone instead of just creating another program for the uninsured?

I believe our stance on an issue depends not only on where or from what we individually draw our standard or model of behavior from but how we interpret the information from that source.

Should "do unto others" apply to developing human beings? Or should the rule be those who have greatest control at the moment decide for those they presently hold power over? It is the way of the world after all.

I thank you for this list and will spend sometime looking it over. When the hyphenated justice talk begins it loses credibility for me. Reproductive-justice? Code word for kill developing human beings.

Did you look at the chapter and verse that you quoted? I believe the cited Biblical quote carries quite a different meaning than your blogger would lead you to believe. If the child in the womb suffers injury/death than no more than an eye for an eye would be exercised against the injurer/life taker.

Not buying it. Even doctors of thousands of years ago in their physicians oath pledged not to cause or assist in abortion. They recognized that not interrupting this natural process was in mankind's best interest.

Anyone can start an organization and call it whatever they want (if not protected by copyright laws). They can claim to speak for another organization. How can one be sure that Catholics for Choice (for instance) is supported as an official representative of the Catholic Church? The YWCA promotes abortion? All the organizations are about providing abortion?

Your cited organization has a little disclaimer;

 

"medical treatment." Codeword for kill the developing human being.

A human being developing in a human mother's womb is distinct and has a separate identity. He or she has their own DNA pattern, form and future.

 

Why does the Right insist less on promoting infrastructure (and that form of the general welfare) in order to reduce any need for the medical procedure of abortion in modern times, while insisting more on the coercive use of force of the State instead.

It could be viewed as less ethical.

 

Define you infrastructure composition, please be specific.

 

Why not ensure women have access to contraception for the cost of an ounce instead of the coercive use of force of the State at the cost of a pound.

 

You are saying that the power of government is forcing these women to abort their children?

You've written of Angels and Intelligent Design regarding government, what kind of people was our constitution designed to serve? If you would answer "a moral and religious people" I would say start your approach in the manner that this type of citizen would understand.

 

I am referring to merely and only criminalizing the medical procedure instead of providing better access to forms of contraception which may preclude any need for an abortion of a potential fellow human being.

Why not be more ethical and provide the infrastructure which may improve our ethics if not some subjective Iron Age moral values which may not be worth what they once were in modern times?

 

The PLACENTA has it's own DNA pattern - as for the foetus - it is only a potential not an actual

 

BowerBird, don't we all have potential? Definitions are important but why do we dance around these terms, when in reality abortion stops the development/ends/terminates a human life, surely we can agree on that? I understand that for some using specific words can make the ending of or taking one's life more palatable for the taker but still there is a distinction.

True, the placenta has its function but you are not comparing its function as to be equal to that of the human life developing in the womb are you?