Skip to comments.
IS THIS A PERSON?
8/5/02
| jwalsh07
Posted on 08/05/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
AMENDMENT 14
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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.
GE 4D Image Of a Baby
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionismean; baby; catholiclist; constitution; halliburton; life; prolife; righttolife; unborn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 621-627 next last
To: Bowana
Fair enough. In fact, I would not want this mother anywhere near this child.
81
posted on
08/05/2002 6:35:39 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Sungirl
Thanks......I think this fetus is at least 24 weeks due to to this website:Is it a person yet? Because if it is, those babies are Constitutionally protected.
82
posted on
08/05/2002 6:35:53 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Mom is part of the baby and so is Dad, the baby is unique. Yes, but as long as the fetus is physically connected to the mother, it is not a person.
83
posted on
08/05/2002 6:36:03 PM PDT
by
Bowana
To: It's me
Can you spell? separate. I CAN NOW!
84
posted on
08/05/2002 6:37:14 PM PDT
by
Bowana
To: Bowana
Yes, but as long as the fetus is physically connected to the mother, it is not a person. Yep, that's pretty much the talking point used by people who desire cover for the act of murder.
To: jwalsh07
Yep....as soon as it comes out.
86
posted on
08/05/2002 6:38:23 PM PDT
by
Sungirl
To: jwalsh07
I am pro-life. People should realize that the doctors know they are murdering babies, persons. One doctor at a famous medical school said this to a conservative pro-life medical professor, "We know what we are doing. We know it is a life."
The pro-life people are not going to convince the abortion industry with photos and movies because abortion is designed to eliminate unwanted people, to serve as birth and gender control. That it kills people is a matter of indifference to them. The sainted Ann Landers said abortion was good because it saved money on welfare payments.
The continued progress of this abortion mentality is shown in that GOP leaders may endorse murder on the delivery table (once a sign of Communist Chinese brutality) and still be part of a conservative administration. Now we call it late-term abortion, but it isn't that at all. I really don't know which form of murder is less or more repulsive. But the GOP can get away with endorsing it, with being "moderate," and being "big tent" or nobrain Republicans.
The tender mercies of the abortion people are shown in their desire to kill all unborn babies suspected of being less than perfect. This bloodlust is not satiated with the seeking out and killing of potentially disabled babies. Now they must go after anyone who is less than perfect or taking too long to die. As one man said, his wife wanted to die, so he shot her with his gun. The wife could not be questioned, but the jury took the murderer at his word.
I hope the photos help the innocent who are misled by the medical people. I used to work in a pro-life counseling center. We showed videos to women while they waited for their test. (Good tests used to take a long time.) Many women and girls told me that they never realized how much was already happening inside them. For that reason the new technology will be a blessing. But I have little hope for the thousands of teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, and government officials who have hearts harder than flint about the unborn.
87
posted on
08/05/2002 6:39:20 PM PDT
by
Chemnitz
To: jwalsh07
What is an individual?For those arguing against personhood for unborn babies, don't take offense at the title of this article...read the whole thing and see if it doesn't help to clarify, legally, technically, and otherwise, that a baby is, indeed, an individual whether born yet or not.
88
posted on
08/05/2002 6:39:47 PM PDT
by
lsee
To: mamelukesabre
Is that true that 5 year olds must have a SS No. nowdays? As of a couple of years ago, for parents to claim a newborn as a deduction, they have to get an SSN within the child's first year (or before April 15). If they don't want to claim the deduction, the child won't need an SSN until they start to work, probably.
89
posted on
08/05/2002 6:40:00 PM PDT
by
serinde
To: MHGinTN
Actually, if the fetus were part of the mother, the mother's immune system would reject 'it' long before birth at nine months, but you can't be expected to be consistent when you wish to support sanctioned serial killing. The baby is CONNECTED to the mother and is surviving on the nutrients supplied by the mother's body! NOT SEPARATE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, and NOT A PERSON.
90
posted on
08/05/2002 6:40:38 PM PDT
by
Bowana
To: jwalsh07
Bowana just admitted that a mother should not be allowed to kill a 24 week fetus at will. Maybe we are moving towards some agreement on something here. That would be a first for an abortion thread.
91
posted on
08/05/2002 6:41:01 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: jwalsh07
You are the one who posted the 14th Ammendment outlining what rights citizens have. Then you discuss "rights". Under the description of citizens, a literal interpretation means fetuses have not "rights" at all until born.
My personal feelings are quite different. However, the way the 14th Ammendment was written using the word "born" makes it difficult to argue for the right to "life" under those terms mentioned in the Ammendment itself.
Personally, I don't think the Ammendment was written to specifically exclude fetuses. It was an oversight. However, we are stuck with it and there are many consequences. For example, a child born who's father is a US citizen but who is born outside the USA is not considered a citizen. However a child who is born to a mother who is a citizen, is considered a citizen no matter where he is born. Conversely a child born in the USA borders who's parents neither one are American citizens, is automatically an American citizen, but the child with the American father born outside the border is not.
There are many inequities with the "born" word even pertaining to children outside the womb.
92
posted on
08/05/2002 6:41:31 PM PDT
by
Lorianne
To: Bowana
Yes, but as long as the fetus is physically connected to the mother, it is not a person.Bowana, think about it. The baby is a person, we can all see that. Whether it gets nourishment through the umbilical cord or Moms teat can not be the definition of personhood. Nor can geography.
A 20 month old baby is not a person one second and it is a second later when delivered prematurely? Of course not.
Babys are just little people in life's continuum on the way to be big people paying big taxes and dreaming big dreams.
93
posted on
08/05/2002 6:41:35 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
you can't be expected to be consistent when you wish to support sanctioned serial killing. AND yes I do support sanctioned serial killing, especially those involved in and supporting terrorism!
94
posted on
08/05/2002 6:42:04 PM PDT
by
Bowana
To: It's me
What part of the mother is the fetus? The Fetus.
95
posted on
08/05/2002 6:43:32 PM PDT
by
Bowana
To: Chemnitz
For that reason the new technology will be a blessingYes, I think it will. It is why I posted the thread.
96
posted on
08/05/2002 6:44:10 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: hope
It is not only the "convenience" of mothers which is at issue in most abortions.
97
posted on
08/05/2002 6:44:53 PM PDT
by
Lorianne
To: jwalsh07
in person adj : an appearance carried out personally in someone else's physical presence; "he carried out the negotiations in person"; "a personal appearance is an appearance by a person in the flesh" [syn: in-person(a), in person(p), in the flesh(p)] adv : in the flesh; without involving anyone else; "I went there personally"; "he appeared in person"
[syn: personally] Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
98
posted on
08/05/2002 6:46:43 PM PDT
by
Sungirl
To: Bowana; jwalsh07
Of course it's a person! Ask my 3 year old, and she would say the same.
Walk into any ICU, and look at how many people are hooked to life-sustaining medical equipment. God-willing, many of those folks will eventually grow strong to the point the equipment isn't needed anymore. I don't see a difference, except that the "equipment" attached to the person comes from different sources. Oh, and maybe that one is in a hospital, and one is inside a human incubator.
Of course it's a person! I want to have one more, just to get to experience the 4D!!! Too fantastic, for oh, so many reasons!!!
To: jwalsh07; Bowana
Inseparable Siamese twins? 1 Person or 2?
100
posted on
08/05/2002 6:49:23 PM PDT
by
OHelix
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 621-627 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson