Judge Temporarily Blocks Mississippi Law That Could Shut Down State’s Only Abortion Clinic
- Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:05pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Anti-abortion advocates stand outside Mississippi's only abortion clinic. A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked a new law that could see it shut down. (AP)
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Mississippi law that could shut down the only abortion clinic in the state.
U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan in Jackson issued a temporary restraining order the day the new law took effect.
He set a July 11 hearing to determine whether to block the law for a longer time.
“Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow,” Jordan wrote.
The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state’s only clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there are OB-GYNs who travel from other states.
The clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the law. The suit says the admitting privileges requirement is not medically necessary and is designed to put the clinic out of business.
If Jackson Women’s Health Organization closes, Mississippi would be the only state without an abortion clinic.
When Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the law, House Bill 1390, he said he wants Mississippi to be “abortion-free.”
“Gov. Bryant believes HB 1390 is an important step in strengthening abortion regulations and protecting the health and safety of women,” Bryant spokesman Mick Bullock said in a statement Sunday night. “The federal judge’s decision is disappointing, and Gov. Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible.”
In the order, Jordan wrote: “Plaintiffs have offered evidence – including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers – that the Act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”
Jordan also wrote that Jackson Women’s Health Organization is “the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act’s effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, helped file the lawsuit for the Mississippi clinic. The center’s president and CEO, Nancy Northup, said in statement Sunday: “Today‘s decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women’s Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years.
“The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi,” Northup said. “Their hostility toward women, reproductive health care providers, and the rights of both would unquestionably put the lives and health of countless women at risk of grave harm.”
Republican Rep. Sam Mims of McComb, who sponsored the new law, said it is designed to protect the health of every woman who has an abortion.
“We know for a fact that this is a serious procedure,” Mims said in an interview Sunday. “Women can have complications.”
Mississippi physicians who perform fewer than 10 abortions a month can avoid having their offices regulated as an abortion clinic, and thus avoid restrictions in the new law. The Health Department said it doesn’t have a record of how many physicians perform fewer than 10 abortions a month. Clinic operators say almost all the abortions in the state are done in their building.
The clinic says if it closes, most women would have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy – something that could create financial problems for people in one of the poorest states in the nation. From Jackson, it’s about a 200-mile drive to clinics in New Orleans; Mobile, Ala.; or Memphis, Tenn.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 537 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 275 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (190)
sandrunner
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:31amplan parenthood murdered 40 million lives with a COAT HANGER far far far more than all the GUN in the America combined.
What is the most ruthless weapon in the WORLD?
Report Post »Answer: plan parenthoods coat hanger.
johnnycatt
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:28am1. If someone dies from ramming a coat-hanger into a bodily orifice and removing “tissue” of any kind, how is that anyone’s fault except the MORON who rammed a coat-hanger into themselves? and why is it ALWAYS A “rusty” coat-hanger? are they too poor to afford a clean coat-hanger? and how about “reproductive health” begins BEFORE they have something else VOLUNTERILY rammed into them?
Report Post »Hidden_Manna
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:52amCall it tissue/fetus/baby – whatever you like – it still has blood running through its veins.
When you shed innocent blood, it WILL cry out for JUSTICE. Blood is required for blood. It is a law. Whatever energy you put out will return to you. Call it Karma.
You sure are a bloodthirsty bunch – To feel you MUST HAVE LIBERTY to reach inside another human being to quench that thirst, you have crossed a line in humanity — and for you atheists – WITHOUT REMEDY. The blood you so freely shed is on your hands if stand on the side of injustice. For those who are hid in Him – Innocent blood was already shed… price paid.
Ask ANY woman who has caused innocent bloodshed, it cries out at night to her, for the rest of her life… and that cry will not be silenced with the word ‘choice’.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:42amVery graphic, very passionate. However, blatantly false. The point of medically performed abortions is to avoid the COAT HANGER abortions that women performed on themselves in the dark ages. Dark Ages in the US defined as pre Roe v. Wade. But like all Americans you have the right to your beliefs and opinions. You however, nor does the state, have the right to impose them on other Americans who have the same right. Your faith, beliefs, opinions, whatever end at the tip of the woman’s nose, as that‘s where her’s begin.
Report Post »SnowKalBebes
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:02pmMississippi is obese, uneducated, and poor…why not focus on those issues?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:18pmJRook
Your faith, beliefs, opinions, whatever end at the tip of the woman’s nose, as that‘s where her’s begin.
__
The baby/fetus has a nose too. That is where a woman’s privacy ends.
That is that why a sonogram of a baby is to a liberal like a mirror is to a vampire?
Liberals are empty inside.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:12amJohnLarson
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:56am
The Constitution says that when the Supreme Court rules something constitutional, it’s constitutional.
End. Of. Story.
The Constitution has the rules, and if you don’t like it, go live in an industrial country without universal health care…. wait, there is none. Even Singapore has it.
Report Post »____________________________________________________
… and those who live in those countries with universal health, come to the good old USA when the “wait list” for their cancer operation is too long. Also, the politically elite from those countries come to the USA for their important health needs, since they don’t trust the healthcare in their own countries. Gee, I wonder where they will go now?
sandrunner
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:46amYou are wrong.
Judical does not have the right too write in law.
If you accept this false judgement? Then why do we need a congress?
do I have to teach you that congress writes laws, then judical decides if it is constitutional. NOT to write law!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:25amWhat you are not willing to Fight for… you Lose! Americans have mostly become domesticated Wimps!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:48am@sandrunner Take the time to read the law of the land Roe v. Wade. The state has the right to regulate the medical practice as it relates to abortion in the second trimester. States do not have the constitutional right to eliminate or restrict access to abortions. Laws like this are a waste of money and time. While I appreciate the devote believers, freedom and liberty flow to all citizens and should never be restricted based on any groups faith or beliefs. That is the fundamental constitutional principle that should take precedence here.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:05pmJRook
The law does not seem that bad. Why should the doctor not be able to admit to a local hospital? I don;t know all what is involved in that, but it seems reasonable. However if the doctor wasn’t on an
abortion circuit
the profit for Planned Profithood would be cut.
Should doctors be on a circuit like a circuit judge of old?
What are they? Traveling abortionists? A 1 trick pony?
Report Post »JohnLarson
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:56amThe Constitution says that when the Supreme Court rules something constitutional, it’s constitutional.
End. Of. Story.
The Constitution has the rules, and if you don’t like it, go live in an industrial country without universal health care…. wait, there is none. Even Singapore has it.
Report Post »Anti_Spock
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:02amNote to self…. “invest in clothes hangars”
Report Post »SpoonFed
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:07amIf every country decided to jump off a cliff, should we?
Report Post »JohnLarson
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:00amEvery other Western nation is healthier. Not exactly a cliff jump.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 6:49amPerhaps a re-rereading of the Constitution
Art III – The Judicial Branch Section 1 – Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 ……. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
Report Post »johnnycatt
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:35am1. So is Plessy v. Ferguson or Bowers v. Hardwick Constitutional or not? One court says it was and one court says it wasn’t? are we governed by the Constitution or are we governed by the whim of 9 freaks in black robes? Are our laws clearly written and followed, or do we allow judges to just “pretend” the words mean whatever their political party tells them to SAY the law means? Because IF the court can change it’s mind, then we live in an oligarchy, not a republic!
Report Post »RGFROMTEXAS
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:40amWHO Health care Rankings:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:25am@Johnlarson
“The Constitution says that when the Supreme Court rules something constitutional, it’s constitutional.”
No, it does not. The correct wording is that since Marbury v. Madison at the beginning of the 19th century the government has operated in this manner. However, there is no specific wording in the Constitution outlining the SCotUS as the final arbiter; just the interpretation of the Constitution’s words.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:39amSCOTUS has gotten things wrong before. Precedence is to be respected but not worshiped as the Holy grail.
Talking about penumbras & emanations (right to privacy argument for abortion) is a mealy mouthed way of saying I can’t make a logical argument, don‘t want to take the time or you don’t want to consider it.
Logic does not have penumbras & emanations.
I am for allowing abortion centers (You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink). I am also for the mandatory ultrasounds prior to getting an abortion. You should have to look at the fetus/baby before you kill it. I am not sure about the transvaginal ultrasound. Providing a better picture makes you have to face that other being more.
There are more rights than just privacy involved. If the woman is married for instance. People should have prenuptials for such things. Mike Savages first wife aborted their kid (just because?).
Yes they should have abortion centers. But don’t expect us to say it is good or just.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:55amJohnLarson
Every other Western nation is healthier. Not exactly a cliff jump.
___
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Throw some stats. Any stat! Go ahead Make my day. Try to denigrate.
Have you controlled for population homogeneity?
No? Thought so!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:59amIf we wanted to adhere to the gold standard then we should have the same exact laws as Japan as they have the highest life expectancy.
They are a very homogenous & racist culture (in some respects). Try getting into some clubs as a white person, black person or just non Japanese.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:53amAdd your comments
Report Post »Dde13
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:09am@VERCEOFREASON
I wish you Atheist zealots would stop trying to infringe on my rights.
Report Post »By all means worship your Great pumpkins , I prefer the God as my savior
And that’s my right as an American citizens.
Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:15amWho is infringing upon your right to believe and worship as you choose?
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:11am@Bruce…let’s see where do I start: The government, the ACLU, Liberal Judges and stupid people like you that think nothing is being done to run God out of the country…
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:04pmJVLAG — how have the government and ACLU prevented you from believing and worshiping as you choose?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:09pmACLU lawsuits on Christmas displays. Government prohibiting prayer in public schools.
Report Post »aChameleon
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:51amThe right to bear arms is in the constitution. There is no mention of the right to murder babies in the constitution. Get real.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:13amThere is no mention of the government being able to restrict a woman from terminating a pregnancy either.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:42amThe Constitution doesn’t mention stop signs or speed limits either. Nor does the Constitution prohibit people from putting mecury or PCBs in your water supply. There‘s lot of things the Constitution doesn’t prohibit but could still kill you or give children birth deformities.
Report Post »ITSJESTTIM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:50amHalleluiah, me and my cousin J Z S have finally arrived back on Planet Earth from our vacations on Gog and Magog. We had the time of our lives. My Cousin gave the most wonder speeches on how to convert all the tiny Earthlings from a Republic to a Socialized Democracy. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after only 3 weeks of “being there”. My cousin will consume you for breakfast and poop you out before dinner. Three cheers for my mighty cousin (who married his 1st cousin) for his fortitude and general Deliverance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/) from his way of life.
Report Post »ITSJESTTIM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:53amYou can run but you can’t hide…… sonny boy.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:04amJZS — you are right. However, those laws do not conflict with either the Constitution nor federal laws. Though such powers cannot be found within the Constitution, a compelling case can be found to support the states’ ability (along with the federal ability) to write such laws. Can such a compelling case be made to restrict abortions? Perhaps. Has one been found yet that stands up to Constitutional scrutiny? Not yet. Though that is not to say it could not happen.
Report Post »Dde13
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:49amYou are a sick distorted low life if you think killing an unborn child is ok!!!!! Its a womens right to kill a baby here in the great USA….It‘s a women’s right to get free birth control….what is free? SOMBODY IS PAYING FOR IT!!!!!!!
Report Post »High schools can’t give students so much as an asprin without the parents consent but you want to kill your baby….no problem.
What has happened to ACCOUNTABILITY in the country????
hayesstephen
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:21amto moderationisbest. I notice you use the word ‘hate’ quite a bit. The people of Mississippi voted those pols in, they passed a law the people wanted, and now a force not of the Great State of Mississippi is tell them they can’t enact their own law. Wonderful, great. The Feds can’t wait to take over all the states rights.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:28amLeft wingers consider anything they don’t like to be hateful.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:15amThat force is called the Constitution.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:20am@Haye
If you read what I was responding to which was from @wake, was the statement, “I hate when people use cute or substitute terms for killing a baby.”
I was using the person’s own wording to show the counter point to their argument.
To say that I use the word “hate” a lot is silly as well. Out of my posts on here alone, I used the word “hate” twice and again, that was to use the other person’s own wording to counter their argument. You will have a hard time finding me use the word “hate” in any other article.
@Git-R-Done
“Left winger” Another baseless claim? I have voted Republican my entire life. Ironically it is the hypocrisy and cynical nature of the Republicans who are making it difficult for me to want to vote for them this coming election.
Suddenly after years of Republicans saying things like, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”-Cheney and “we have to abandon free market principles to save the free market”-W Bush, they are all touting limited government while abandoning the very same ideas that they supported(individual mandate/Mitt Romney and cap-n-trade/McCain).
Both were Republican created, market based fixes to healthcare and carbon emissions. Now they’re socialism?
Can you for once, actually deal in the factual realm Git-R-Done? Seriously, I don‘t think I’ve seen one of your posts where you actually make a coherent argument based on reason, fact and evidence.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:57pmModeration – Your claim that you‘ve voted Republican your whole life doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t make you a conservative.
Report Post »GulfCoastConservative
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:09amI am a Mississippi resident. I came here with my active duty husband. We love the Gulf Coast. I voted for these lawmakers. I am happy with their work to regulate this clinic. It is not impossible to obtain permission to admit patients to local hospitals, only difficult. If these abortion providers don’t want to abide by the laws of this state, they can go elsewhere- back to the states where they come from for starters. These providers aren’t even from MS. The voice of the people of MS elected these officials, the voice of the people is not supportive of abortions. I am tired of out of state interest groups trying silence that voice.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:07amI wish you religious zealots would stop trying to infringe on my rights.
Report Post »By all means worship your gods, i prefer the Great Pumpkin.
And that’s my right as an American citizens.
Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:27amOh how awful that you can’t murder your unborn baby.
You lefties have no problem with trampling on other people’s rights (which are actually in the Constitution).
Report Post »castuslonginus
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 6:21amIt doesn’t matter to some that the dr.performing a procedure can save a womans life if complications arise by admitting her to a hospital.Like maybe hemmoraging,hbp,stroke,or any number of things. JUST MAKE SURE THAT DAMN BABY IS DEAD! How dare these people (mississippians) expect a dr, to know what they”re doing.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 3:07amVReason,
Report Post »What provision of the constitution dictates that abortion is a fundamental right?
dontbotherme
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:06amI’m sick of activist judges. Ignore them. You know what? To all of you who have posted negative, demeaning comments about Christians, know this. You are not really mocking us. You are mocking God. Do you really want to go there.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:10amI’ve gone there, multiple times.
Are you going to come back at me with, “You’ll find out after you die.” or some other non-existent threat?
I wouldn‘t mock your God if he wasn’t so easy and so worthy of mocking.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:29amModeration – While you atheists have no morals that are based on anything. Only on if it feels good, do it.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:12am@GIT-R-DONE
Well that‘s a completely false statement if I’ve ever heard one.
Again, do you have facts to back that up? Oh right, as someone else on here said, The Blaze posters don’t need facts for their viewpoint to be legitimate.
By your childish understanding of atheism, someone could rape someone else because it “felt” good. Which completely ignores one of many reasons why that is illogical reasoning. One being that the person doesn’t have the right to force themselves upon someone else. Need I list other reasons why your understanding of Atheism is incorrect?
By your stance, the reason you don’t rape someone is because you fear punishment from God. You don‘t choose not to rape someone because it’s wrong(or you because you don’t want to inflict that trauma on someone), you just fear punishment for it. You have no morals, you only have obedience. It was perfectly moral for Abraham to attempt to kill his son, because he believed God commanded it. That’s not morality.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:17amMODERATIONISBEST — there is no need for that. We can argue with logic and reason without deriding someone’s personal religious beliefs.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:33am@BRUCE P.
That’s where you and I differ.
You can’t deal in reason and logic, when it comes to “beliefs.”
You can throw evidence, reason, logic and anything you want and it can always fall back on “well that’s what I believe.” I don’t care what anybody believes, I care what they think. I don’t use the word “believe” or “belief” to define my worldview.
At some point, the only thing left to do is to say how silly it is to “believe” things.
It is especially necessary to mock someone when they make claims with no evidence and then back it up with nonsense like, “well you’ll find out after you die.”
When someone threatens me with damnation and torture for mocking their God(and somehow suggest that i should be afraid of doing so), the only response I can give is to mock their God to show them how childish their threat is.
I had someone tell me that Christ is the gift of love. I then asked them what would be the result of someone who refused that gift? Their response?
“Accept God and he will accept you into his house eternally. The second that you deny his existence you send yourself to hell.”
My only response is to mock that kind of remark by saying,
Report Post »Exactly my point.
“Love me or go to hell”-God
Yup, that’s a message of “love” for sure.
RepentYe
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:36am@moderation… We have been down this path before. I am not sure if you read my post back then, after I found some time, but just in case you missed it here it is. I admit it was not in the Origin of Species, it was in Darwin’s new testament, the Descent of Man. Depending on the edition you will find it on p. 156, or 241. Darwin updated his views in the second edition removing all doubt. I never said I didn’t need evidence, I just asked you to have patience. Now, did you find that ball?
Report Post »RepentYe
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:39am@moderation… Now to your point you always return to, was it moral for Eugenists to decide who was a burden on society and who would limit man’s potential? You point to a single man as evidence to the failings of religion. So here is my one man choice, Chairman Mao. He directly or indirectly murdered nearly 100 million of his people. Is it moral for North Koreans to be starving under an Aetheist dictator? We are back to the same argument, with flexible moral standards and no solid “keel” the winds of ‘logic’ can blow you anywhere. You know crayons aren’t sharp, so you can use them to color with.
Report Post »RepentYe
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:45am@moderation… Now I know you will come back with some rambling retort, we’ve hashed this out plenty. So I am going to bed. I will catch up with you some other time. Have you read Mein Kampf yet, or are you still trying to keep your logic pure? So in the mean time Stay safe, don’t run with scisors or anything else that is sharp.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:48am@REPENTYE
What is this in response to again? Was it your claim that Darwin thought black people were “less evolved?” then white people? I think that was a claim you made and I will proceed with my point on the assumption that it was the original point you were trying to make. If my conclusion is wrong, you can disregard what I am saying below and then remind me what the original point is you were trying to make.
To make that claim, you have to have a faulty understanding of what evolution is.
Also, why are you making it seem so difficult to find a quote? Surely if there was proof positive that Darwin was a complete and utter racist, it would be easily accessible in the year 2012 Surely you would be able to do a simple Google search, something like “Darwin Racist” or even a more specific search like “Darwin descent of man racist” or “Darwin claimed black people less evolved” and that quote would be in the top 5 of reasons why Darwin was a racist.
Instead you’re giving me page numbers of editions of books? Come on now. At least be intellectually honest with me and give me the exact quote.
Here is how the events have transpired
Report Post »1. You make a claim about Darwin
2. I ask you for evidence of your claim
3. You tell me something along the lines that you’re busy, and will “find it” later(despite you responding to me about something else not 5 minutes later)
4. A week or so goes by(maybe longer?) and you still can’t give me the quote?
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:00am@repent
“Now to your point you always return to, was it moral for Eugenists to decide who was a burden on society and who would limit man’s potential?” I never said it was moral, dunno where this is coming from.
“You point to a single man as evidence to the failings of religion.” Who is this one man? I‘m not sure what you’re talking about here.
“So here is my one man choice, Chairman Mao. He directly or indirectly murdered nearly 100 million of his people” He is an evil man, so what? If you’re saying that Atheism is wrong because there was a murderer who was an Atheist? You can’t be motivated by Atheism. You don‘t think you’ll get a reward in the afterlife for killing for your atheism. Your atheism can’t tell you to kill somebody.
“Is it moral for North Koreans to be starving under an Aetheist dictator? ” Wait, did you just call the leaders of North Korean an Atheist? Have you ever seen the North Korean propaganda? Some of the things spread by the Korean government to the masses is that when Kim Jong Il was born, the mountains rumbled and the birds sang. It was reported that in his first round of golf he had 11 holes in one. The Government threatened to shoot people if they didn’t mourn his death. Does this sound like a guy/regime who doesn’t believe in some kind of supernatural world? They made themselves God.
I‘m sorry but you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:11am@Repent
If my “rambling retort” you meant quoting what you said to me, and then explaining why it’s illogical then I guess yes, my response was “rambling”.
“So I am going to bed. I will catch up with you some other time”
So wait, let me get this straight, you’re going to come back at me in a week with more non-evidence of what Darwin said?
“Have you read Mein Kampf yet, or are you still trying to keep your logic pure? ” No, I haven‘t read it but I’ve heard some crazy things about it. Things like how Hitler constantly mentions a Creator. “”Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”-Volume 1, End of chapter 2
and how Hitler said he was doing God’s work
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
See, when I make a claim that someone said something, I actually look and provide evidence for it. I don’t make a claim and then demand you refute it(as many do on here), or ask you to “wait”. I make a claim and then provide the evidence for it.
Farewell.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:11pmModeration – That’s assuming that you atheists are rational people in the first place, LOL.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 1:15am@GIT-R-DONE
Wow, great one there.
You sure did a good job refuting the claims I made with solid evidence.
Oh wait, I forgot, evidence isn’t in your vocabulary.
I provide evidence, you come back with, “MARXIST!”
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 2:31amMod,
“By your childish understanding of atheism, someone could rape someone else because it “felt” good. Which completely ignores one of many reasons why that is illogical reasoning. One being that the person doesn’t have the right to force themselves upon someone else.”
Why is that illogical? If atheism is true, the default position for morals would be the law of the jungle. Morals would be just a cultural construct and/ or part of evolutionary process. Under atheism, there would be no objective moral values at all. Animals rape each other all the time in nature, why should humans be any different, especially when all we are is more evolved chimps?
“Things like how Hitler constantly mentions a Creator. “”Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”-Volume 1, End of chapter 2″
If you are so logical, reasonable, and rational why are you insinuating that a belief in God caused Hitler’s actions. It shows that you have not bothered to simply open a history book and you are forming an opinion when you don’t know anything about the subject. Is that how intelligent people form an opinion? Is quote mining without knowing anything about the history of Nazi Germany an intelligent way to form an opinion?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 2:55amMod,
1. Who came up with the pseudoscientific theory of Eugenics?
2. Where did the person who came up with the idea of Eugenics get the idea from?
Can you actually make a coherent argument based on reason, fact and evidence? Using quote mining with Hitler is not indicative of someone using facts and evidence. Being ignorant on a subject and forming an opinion out of ignorance is not indicative of someone using reason……
I am going to guess that you are just as ignorant about Eugenics as you are with Hitler. Here is a hint: do not go to an atheist activist website to get your information
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 3:35amMod,
Seeing how you love facts so much, I thought I would share a historical fact that dovetails nicely in with the two subjects being discussed. Do you know where the idea of abortion came from? Wait for it……..wait for it….. It came from EUGENICISTS!
The idea of abortion was never about a constitutional right or a woman’s right to choose. It was actually a way to get rid of all the lesser evolved people’s babies. Eugenicists believed that the human race was evolving. White aristocrats were the higher evolved species of man. They wanted to help nature out by getting rid of the great unwashed races.
They ran into a problem after WW2. People associated eugenics with the Nazis and American eugenicists weren’t too popular. They changed their position from forced sterilization to voluntary sterilization and launched a massive propaganda campaign.
They didn’t want to murder the less evolved anymore, they were really concerned about the the population growth of the world. The world‘s population wasn’t sustainable and they needed people to volunteer to sterilize themselves.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 3:47amAfter the sterilization campaign, they launched another propaganda campaign with abortion. This is the best part: A woman’s right to choose was actually a slogan created to sell the idea to the public.
They actually laughed at the slogan and it worked. People are convinced that it‘s a woman’s right and the people who created the slogan never believed it was nor was it a motivating factor. It was a joke! It was probably the most successful propaganda campaign in American History.
When you people are on here arguing that abortion is a fundamental woman’s right to choose, you are actually arguing over a joke that was created as a slogan to sell the idea to the American public by eugenicists.
When arguing about abortion where do you get your stats from? The Guttmacher institute. Guess what? Alan Guttmacher was a eugenicist! I wonder why that fact was left of their website……
Report Post »bayougal2
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:03amThere will be justice in the end for the little innocent babies that are torn from limb to limb and crushed to be expelled from their own mother’s womb or starved so that they can not develop. It’s hard to imagine how anyone can feel that this is alright.
Report Post »JohnLarson
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:38pmAbortion is protected by the constitution.
You all want to marry the constitution, except when you disagree with it.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:53pmSo true.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:08amIt’s the hypocritical nature of the far right.
They oppose the healthcare bill using defenses like, “it puts politicians between patients and their doctors.” yet they have no problem doing it here.
They want a government so limited that it has the ability to get involved in every single woman’s pregnancy.
Glad to see some sane people actually posting here for once.
Report Post »GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:17amNo, you are wrong. Abortion is not protected in the Constitution. Some liberal Supreme Court justices in 1973 made-up a convoluted justification for it without any connection to the Constitution. Very similar to what Roberts did with Obamacare.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:26amGRINTSUM – Whether you agree with the judges ruling or not, the Supreme Court made a ruling and decided that it is indeed constitutional. You are wrong. Period.
Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:30amNJBarfly – That’s b/c people like you aren’t smart enough to read the Constitution on your own, so you need some judge to tell what what the Constitution says.
antitheist
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:35amApparently git r done hasn’t heard of the supremacy clause.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:40amApparently antitheist is trying to cherry pick the Constitution (and the Supremacy clause only applies to Federal legislation and no federal legislation has passed legalizing abortion) in order to pretend to be intelligent.
Typical dumb left wing Marxist atheist.
NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:44amGit-R-Done -
It‘s apparent that you don’t really understand how the three branches of our government works. Maybe you should have paid more attention in high school.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:49amNJ – I understand just fine and I don’t need government schools to tell me what to think unlike you idiotic Marxists who are incapable of thinking for yourselves unless some useless government bureaucrat tells you what to think.
GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:05amNJBarfly – In the past the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to own slaves. Were they wrong then? C’mon now, be consistent. Don’t wimp out like Roberts. If you say that no matter what the Supreme Court rules, that it’s constitutional, then you have to logically agree that slave ownership is acceptable.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:07amGrintsum – After the Civil War ended, slavery became Unconstitutional under the 13th amendment.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:15amGRINTSUM – We have a system of checks and balances. Yes, slavery was absolutely legal and constitutional as ruled by the Supreme court. So Congress AMENDED the Constitution. Thus it is today, UNConstitutional. Seriously, I honestly wonder how you folks passed high school.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:23amGIT-R-DONE — the Supremacy Clause does not only apply to state laws that conflict with federal laws but the Constitution as well. State laws may not conflict with the Constitution. The text is plain.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
From the Senate’s website (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm):
The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.
Report Post »GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:29amGit-R-Done – Thank you for bringing up the 13th Amendment. I’m trying to show NJBarFly that Supreme Court rulings are not always Constitutionally justified, and that sometimes they just make stuff up because of their individual preferences or outside pressure. In other words, if the judges issue a ruling that cannot be logically understood in reference to the Constitution, is NJBarFly saying that if it makes the liberals happy then everyone else should just shut-up and accept it? I have news for you NJBarFly, we’re not going to shut-up and we’re not going to accept it! Never!!!
Report Post »GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:41amNJBarFly – It is so good to see that you acknowledge that the Supreme Court can be mistaken in their rulings. This gives me confidence that you‘ll be just as logical and receptive when Robert’s judgement on Obamacare is made moot after it’s repealed next year (or perhaps sooner), and that the abominable practice of abortion will be ended in the U.S. either through an Amendment or it’s overturned by a future Supreme Court. It‘s very gratifying to know that you’ll be happy when both of these things occur, because it’ll be done according to the Constitution and not be some judges whim.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:42amGRINTSUM – Git-R-Done was trying to educate you because your comment was factually wrong. He was embarrassed by your ignorance. He was, surprisingly, defending me in that exchange. Maybe you should reread the thread.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:47amGRINTSUM — you are correct, we do (at rare times, fortunately) amend the Constitution to better reflect who we are or want to be as a nation. However, that is when the Constitution is AMENDED. Simply disagreeing with how the Constitution is currently interpreted does not give one carte-blance or the legal standing to conflict with the supreme law of the land.
Report Post »GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:40amBruce P. – I disagree with you. When the Constitution is so egregiously misintepreted by judicial rulings or ignored by tyrannical laws, then we have a Constitutional duty to resist any such oppression. If you say that we should stand mute and obedient regardless of the perpetuated outrage, then I believe you would be personally willing to surrender your unalienable rights as guaranteed in the Constitution at the first sign of tyranny. If this was 1776, I doubt someone with your mindset would be enlisting to wear a bluecoat. Perhaps the other color, but certainly not blue.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:57amGRINTSUM –
What unalienable rights in the Constitution are you talking about? There are none. Once again, you should really actually read the Constitution before commenting. You are woefully ignorant.
Report Post »GRINTSUM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 3:32amNJBarFly – To be more exact, I’m talking about the unalienable rights described in the first line of the Declaration of Independence and the natural rights recognized in the Bill of Rights. Is this specific enough for you? Do you need for it to be stated any plainer?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 2:42amMod,
“It’s the hypocritical nature of the far right……….They want a government so limited that it has the ability to get involved in every single woman’s pregnancy.”
Would you say that if a woman wanted to murder her children with a doctors assistance, that opposing the women murdering her children could accurately be described as the government interfering in a woman’s parenting style or her relationship with her doctor?
I am going to assume that you would answer no to that question. By answering no, you have conceded that at some point during a pregnancy a woman does not have “the fundamental right” to murder her baby.
The fundamental issue has to be when does the baby have personhood. When do you think that performing an abortion becomes murder, Mod?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 2:57amJohn,
Report Post »What provision of the constitution dictates that abortion is a fundamental right?
antitheist
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:36pmGod himself committed and commits abortion (by cursing unfaithful wives).
Hosea 13 16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
How are we to know that by committing an abortion, a woman is simply seeking to become closer to god by performing a godly act?
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:41amYour post about “people like you” seems to imply that you have read the American Constitution, yet you desire for something so antithetical to it?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:46amI’ve actually the read the Constitution unlike you Marxists.
And there’s nowhere in there that says you have the right to murder an unborn baby nor is there a right to a job nor a right to health care.
If you leftists weren’t such a threat to this country, then I’d be more respectful.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:43amGIT-R-DONE — if you have read the Constitution, you will also know that it does not say the government has the ability to restrict a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy. The Ninth Amendment says specifically, simply because a right is not found within the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. The Fourteenth ensures our personal liberties from government intrusion and well as freedom of contract.
You may not like it but it is the current law of the land therefore, it is the judge’s duty to uphold that law, striking down those laws that conflict. Conservatives cannot claim they do not like activist judges, then demand judges behave in an activist manner.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:59pmBruce – You‘re one of those dummies that thinks that thinks that if the Supreme Court says something that means it’s so.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:09pmBull! It’s about freedom, something that you so called conservatives and you Bible bangers don’t understand. You love to rail about the left being against freedom, but you are no better. The individual freedom of the individual is the most important freedom we have, and should not be compromised by conservative ideology or religious dogma.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:21pmSo murdering unborn children is freedom to you sickos?
RealLiibertarian
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:34pmIt’s not a baby until its born. Baby is just the post gestational stage. Until that point it is a non sentient fetus, and therefore part of the mother and her choice of what to do with it. I’m sure you think of free people as sickos. You would not know how to handle freedom.
Report Post »larryj1978
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:40pmWe care about the liberty and freedom of the baby too unlike pro death people. What’s wrong with saying a doctor needs admitting priveleges into a hospital if they are going to provide surgical “procedures?” Complications happen in surgery all the time. Libertarians believe in states’ rights and the constitution. You sir are no libertarian.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:49pmTrue libertarians put the rights of the people before the rights of the states, fed, religion, or society. States rights conservative think their ideology of controlling the people for their own good on a state level is somehow better than the fed doing it. On a state or federal level, it is wrong, and against freedom.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:54pmA few cells is not a baby.
Report Post »wakeus_com
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:01amMurder.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:09amThe terms child or baby used to describe a fetus is just silly and inflammatory.
Report Post »Grow up. You are not swaying anyone
Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:31amVerce – You‘ve never studied science before or else you’d know that an unborn baby has a lot more than just a clump of cells.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:50amYeah, it’s so controlling of the government to make murdering unborn babies illegal.
Report Post »Magyar
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:35pmRemember, the LEFTIES love Margaret Sanger‘s Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics because it’s about eugenics …population control— I bet Daniel P Jordan is an activist judge with an agenda!
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:27pmAnother Judge Blackmailed by Lawyers…….
Pray for Jett……..
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:14pmDo you have any evidence he was blackmailed?
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:34pmBruce –
Report Post »Ha! This is the Blaze. You don’t need things like facts or evidence. Just simply asserting that something is true, magically makes it so!
Verceofreason
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:57pmEvery woman in America has a guaranteed to right to control her own body.
Report Post »Religion has nothing to do with that woman’s freedom to exercise her constitutional rights.
And it‘s really none of anyone else’s business.
Millions of living children die of disease and starvation every year.
What are y’all doing about that?
Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:33amVerce – So it’s not our business if someone murders an unborn baby?
You Marxists pretend to care about starving children yet you won’t donate your own money or time to do so. You have to use the government to steal the money of taxpayers to pay for your causes.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:34amVerce – You’re just another idiotic Marxist who knows nothing about the Constitution. You‘re just making up terms that don’t actually exist in the Constitution.
Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:53amGIT-R-DONE — under the current understanding of the Constitution, this current understanding being the supreme law of the land, no one has the power to make it their business.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 1:07amBruce – In other words, you need some left wing tyrant to tell you what the Constitution means instead of going out and reading it for yourself and thinking for yourself.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:18pm…
Report Post »Teach abstinence and birth control.
The murdering of Babies must end.
NJBarFly
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:46pmUnfortunately, your fellow Christians don’t want to teach birth control. They want abstinence only. Heck, many Christian groups, like the Catholic church, are actively against any and all birth control. Better sex ed would reduce the number of abortions.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:58pmA fetus is not a baby.
Report Post »wakeus_com
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:02amThe embrace of evil goes on. Baby killers make up all kinds of excuses to justify the slaughter.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:35amNJBarfly – That’s b/c sickos like you want to teach kids that it‘s ok for them to have sex and you’ll use any excuse such as “they’re just going to do it anyway” to justify your position. I‘ll bet you don’t use that excuse with tobacco.
Dde13
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:53am@VERCEOFREASON
Report Post »Why is it, if a women’s fetus is killed as a result of a crime that person can be charged with murder?
LeadNotFollow
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:15pm…
Report Post »Shut down ALL abortion clinics in the U.S.
STOP killing Babies!
Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:02amHospitals and private doctors also perform this legal LEGAL medical procedure.
Report Post »Don’t want one? Don’t get one.
What’s your problem?
Have YOU fed a hungry, homeless child today?
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:04amPray to your God to stop giving babies to women who he knows will get an abortion.
Problem solved, right?
Or is the old saying, “with God, anything possible” just another feel good motto that religion says to delude themselves?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:37amVerce – But you Marxists have no problem with stealing my taxpayer money and funding all of these welfare bums b/c they claim to “need” it.
Why is it the job of the responsible people to take care of those who are irresponsible? Why shouldn’t the irresponsible be forced to grow up and take care of themselves?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 3:04amVReason,
Reason, logic, education, Science……. Where would you be today if your mother decided to get a “medical procedure” called an abortion?
I have a feeling that instead of answering that question you are going to be logical and let the crickets answer for you.
Report Post »TJexcite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:55pmJust tax Abortion and/or unprotected sex. It is in the tax code and constitutional.
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:57pmTax tax tax,… are you nuts.. and where does it say in the constitution its okay to kill unborn babies. Please enlighten us.. We’re waiting!
Report Post »Bowlz
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:39pmMMMMARILY- Apparently, you’re missing a lot. Do you understand the Constitution? Life, Liberty the Pursuit of happiness and all that other BS that you liberals like to tweak with your intellectual superiority. Do you respect life? Yes or No? It’s that simple. It’s not nuanced, European or whatever you have to do to justify killing innocent children. Libs/Progs are the first to hate it during a war, but Love it when it’s done by a Dr.! States Rights???? How does one judge overthrow the will of the people who elected the legislators that made the law? How does another judge (who claims to understand the Constitution hands Obama a gift without merit???). Life really is much simpler even after all of the elitist machinations. Hope you don‘t get sick because you will get’ voted off the island‘ by a bunch of other idiots that think they’re God, no differently than the others who are not providing for society and the elitists see fit. Wake up and get some courage.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:32pmBecause we are not a democracy, we are a Republic based on laws. Those laws rule, not the whim of the majority. The law of the land for 39 years, whether you like it or not, is that a woman has the Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. If the intent of the Mississippi law is to restrict that right, then the presiding judge has the duty to block the law, based on the current rule of the Constitution.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:22pmBruce – Where does it say in the Constitution that you have the right to murder your unborn baby?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:27pmBruce – A court ruling doesn’t make something Constitutional in case you missed it.
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:38pmActually it does. It was ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion falls under a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:40pmGit-R-Done – The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and rules on it accordingly. So in effect, yes, the Supreme Court does get to decide what is Constitutional or not. Like it, or not, abortion has been ruled Constitutional.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:52pmBowlz – Despite your attempts to sensationalize it, nobody is killing any innocent children. They are aborting unborn fetuses. These fetuses are not thinking, self aware, sentient beings yet. Just because you believe that you become a person at conception, doesn’t mean that everyone else agrees with that.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:00amNo one is killing children.
Report Post »what your VALID argument.
Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:02amLife begins at BIRTH.
Report Post »wakeus_com
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:04amI hate when people use cute or substitute terms for killing a baby.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:14am@WAKEUS_COM
I hate it when people feel self righteous while trying to strip other people’s rights.
I hate it when people use sappy terms like “pro-life” to try to trample on other people’s constitutional rights.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:20amWakeus – “I hate when people use cute or substitute terms for killing a baby.”
By substitute, you mean the actual scientific terms? A fetus is not a baby and you know it. A fetus can not live on it’s own. It cannot think on it’s own. It isn’t a baby.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:38amNJ – That’s b/c people like you are idiots who need to make up your own terms in order to justify your positions. You don’t have the actual Constitution to go by.
And fetus means child in Latin. An unborn baby is far more advanced than just a clump of cells in case you’ve ever studied science (which you haven‘t or else you’d know that).
Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:43amModeration – There is no Constitutional right to murder an unborn baby.
NJ – Apparently you‘ve never studied the development of an unborn baby or else you’d know that they’re far more developed than you leftists are in terms of thought process.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:59amGit-R-Done, i.e. Idiot – No, these aren’t my terms, these are scientific terms. I know you religious types don’t like things like science. The Supreme Court rules what is constitutional and they ruled that abortion is. This makes your opinion on the matter irrelevant.
I don’t care what the definition of child is in Latin. I don’t speak Latin, I speak English. I never said a fetus is just a cluster of cells. I said it isn’t a baby. It isn’t a sentient, self aware being. And just fyi, I’ve probably studied more science than you or anyone else on the Blaze.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:12amNJ – If anybody hates science, it’s you atheists. Anybody who has studied the development of unborn babies knows that they have more self awareness that what you Marxists are trying to falsely claim they don’t have. At least the unborn have more self awareness than you Marxists do.
I doubt that you’ve studied any actual science. All you know is what your idiotic Marxist professors spewed out to you and you accept what they say as fact.
Funny how you claim that I need an education when here you don’t even care what the translation from Latin means.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:24am@NJBARFLY
Notice that this person can’t get through a sentence without calling someone he disagrees with a Marxist?
It’s flat out hilarious.
He says Atheists hate science, yet he knows nothing about science and has in the past called me “insane” for accepting evolution. It’s down right hilarious how being a religious person now claims expertise in
Constitutional law
Biology
History
Astronomy
Astro-physics
Chemistry
Oh and even better? They don’t even need evidence!
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:29am“At least the unborn have more self awareness than you Marxists do.”
So instead of arguing anything I’ve said, you are resorting to the tactics of a 6 year old.
“I doubt that you’ve studied any actual science. All you know is what your idiotic Marxist professors spewed out to you and you accept what they say as fact.”
Yes, all physics professors are Marxists/communists with a clear agenda to oppress Christians and creationists. I am only a pawn in their game.
“Funny how you claim that I need an education when here you don’t even care what the translation from Latin means.”
I don’t care because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion or debate. We are debating whether or not a fetus is a sentient, self aware being. We are not debating or learning about Latin. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the difference.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:12amGIT-R-DONE — remember Proverbs 6:16-19 and Romans 12:17-21.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:18amBARFLY/MODERATION — It is a common tactic of his. I would ignore it; it reflects more on his thinking process and intelligence than it does on anyone or anything else. He has claimed in discussion (well, other people discuss, he rages) that either one is a “true Christian” (anyone that agrees with him 100%) or a Marxist, there is no middle ground. Yet, for all his claims of being a “true Christian” he often bears false witness, and engages in spite and fits of anger, despite Biblical prohibitions against them.
And he should be careful accusing people of not understanding Latin…he might run into someone who does…
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:04pmAntitheist – Your pathetic invention of rights isn’t cutting it. But you Marxists try to invent new rights that don’t exist in the Constitution and toss out the actual rights that exist in the Constitution.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:07pmModeration – This is why you‘re not fooling anybody into believing that you’re an actual moderate. You’re bigoted against religious people.
NJ – Funny how you‘re accusing me of acting like a six year old when that’s what you’re doing. And you don’t have scientific evidence on your side. You’re just cherry picking evidence to support your Marxist agenda.
Bruce – Don‘t be pointing fingers at me when you’ve got even dirtier hands than I do. You can‘t prove that I’ve lied or thrown fits. That would be you who’s projecting onto others. Excuse me if your tolerance and shades of gray BS statements aren’t going to cut it.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:39pmYet another post from Git-R-Troll with no substance. Just, more with the Marxist nonsense and something about scientific evidence and cherry picking. How about some examples? How about actually refuting something as opposed to just calling people names or making overly broad statements?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 1:12am@GIT-R-DONE
Yup I’m SO bigoted against religious people that all of my close friends are evangelical Christians.
I’m so bigoted, that I was a groomsmen in my friends wedding, and during the prayer I was respectful and bowed my head to not ruin any pictures(though I didn’t pay attention to them speaking to their sky daddy). That sounds like the textbook definition of a bigot if I’ve ever seen one.
Unlike you, my friends who are Christians are actually nice, educated and don’t come off sounding like a moron every time they to hold a dialogue.
Go ahead, call me a Marxist again. That’s the only tool you have left.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:31pm“Mississippi would be the only state without an abortion clinic.”
Oh darn.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:25pmSo it is constitutional for the federal government to make us all buy health insurance, but it is not constitutional for a state to require local doctor?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:34pmThe law does not say the procedure requires a licensed doctor. It says the procedure requires a doctor with the ability to admit to a local hospital.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:30pmBruce – So what? It’s so awful that doctors have to have permission to access a local hospital since no women have ever died from having legal abortions.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:35amGIT-R-DONE — a doctor need not have admitting power at a hospital in order for a woman to go to an ER in case of life-threatening complications.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:17pmBruce – Excuse me that if doctors who perform abortions should actually have to be OB-GYN specialists.
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:42pmThey are all OB-GYN’s. This isn’t the issue at all and nobody in this thread has said it is. Stop making things up and lying. It makes baby Jesus cry.
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:13pmA perfectly legal medical procedure for women.
Report Post »The SCOTUS has determined,
What am I missing?
Steelhead
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:31pmit’s mississippi
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:55pmYes it is Mississippi. We value life here and believe in Jesus Christ of the Bible. We will eventually get rid of the clinic. Maybe other states could follow our lead.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:37pmThe Bible is not the Law of the Land. The Constitution is. And, as of right now, the Constitution provides the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:11pmMississippi isnt trying to make it harder for abortion clinics to stay open nationwide. Just state wide.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:23pmMarilyn – Where does it say that states can’t tax and regulate abortion clinics out of business?
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:58pmBut marrying your brother is ok down there.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:05amMy religion PRECLUDES me from embracing Jesus Christ.
That’s my right as an American citizen.
So what do YOUR beliefs have to do with me and tens of millions of other Americans.
What is SO difficult for you holy rollers to understand?
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:08am“the Constitution provides the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.)
Really?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:42amVerce – And here you whine about how marriage is a right when you’re whining about incest marriage. Typical Marxist atheist hypocrite.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:45amVerce – Since when is not allowing someone to murder their unborn baby making them be forced to believe in Jesus? Are you forced to believe in Jesus when murder and stealing are illegal? Typical dumb atheist who’s trying to pretend to have morals.
castuslonginus
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:51amSteelhead and verce,If you got stranded in Mississippi and needed help and assistance, you would get it with no problem.What about Detroit,Chicago,NYC,.I’ve lived in Mississippi all my life and have never heard of brother marrying sister,uncle marrying neice. that may be commom where you‘re from but I’ve never heard of it here.What are you a placist? Here a solution for both of you:DRIVE AROUND.
Report Post »castuslonginus
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:19amI’m just wondering do you get blisters from walking on your hands,because you’re upside down.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:07pmWhat are you missing?
SCOTUS determined that slavery was legal too. Precedence is not everything. But if you want you can put it on a table & worship it.
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:07pmhttp://brandonvogt.com/2012/06/1flesh-org-the-revolt-against-artificial-contraception.html
Report Post »Find out why artificial contraception is NG
Bruce P.
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:40pmYou have proven what the end goal here is — total and complete control of a woman’s reproductive health.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:24pmBruce – It’s so controlling for adults to actually be responsible with their sex lives instead of just getting to screw around and then kill your baby or have taxpayers pay for your STDs or birth control.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:29pmBruce – Oh yes it‘s so controlling to expect that women can’t murder their unborn babies if they get pregnant or expect them to pay for their own birth control, STD treatments, and child care.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:01amNo one said anything about abortion or STDs or making tax-payers pay for birth-control. I was very specific. The social conservatives wish to regulate and restrict a woman’s access and right to be on birth control. Again, this is not the same as seeking an abortion or asking tax-payers to pay for it but the right to be on birth control in the first place.
It is not only single people who are on birth control — most married couples of breeding age use it as well. Nor is the only function of sex procreation but helps couples bound (through the release of certain hormones). Sex is considered a fundamental part of a married or committed couple’s life together. So, do not cast it as the only people seeking birth control are “screwing around.” The end game of social conservatives is (not talking about abortion or forcing tax-payers to pay for birth control) the complete prohibition of birth control.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:08pmBruce – Keep your paranoia about social conservatives wanting to outlaw birth control to yourself. And the issue is about the government forcing others to pay for birth control in case you missed Obamacare and Sandra Fluke.
Report Post »