Woman Dies After Planned Parenthood Botched Her Abortion, Congress to Investigate

Jul 28, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Townhall

The negligence of Planned Parenthood appears to be a contributing factor in the tragic death of 24 year old Tonya Reaves.

Comments (Page 31)

Showing posts 601 - 620 of892
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#635
Sep 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Your little oath has no bearing on anyone else's rights. There's the KKK coming out--a fascist view that YOU know what is best for everyone else. The fact is that you have no more say in my rights than I have in yours. A woman may keep or abort a pregnancy according to HER beliefs and desires; your beliefs and desires are totally irrelevant.

And many of us will not rest until your attacks on peoples' rights are finished. This is not YOUR country; it is OUR country. You have no say in our lives.

No matter how you try to gussy it up, the KKK is still a bunch of self-righteous, pseudo-christian thugs.
Virginia Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, it is my business. I am sworn by oath in the presence of our government, my fellow soldiers and of Almighty God to protect and defend against all enemies and threats, whether foreign or domestic. This oath does not have an expiration date, and there is no threat greater than the intentional killing of the innocent.
These unborn children will be protected by the Constitution, and people like myself will not cease until it is done. That is the reality. So grow up before you engage in sex, learn to be responsible for your own choices, and get over your selfishness.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636
Sep 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"When the woman consented to sex, she had made her choice."\\

Really? Under what constitutional or legal precept? Or is it just what YOU think?

(Hint: it's #3.)

Do you know how hard it is to get a constitutional amendment passed? Even if you did, it still could not be used to take away a woman's autonomy. You cannot diminish established rights by amending the conwtitution.
Virginia Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
You might be older than me.(I'm in my mid 40's). However, I fail to see the relevance of age in this discussion.
The fetus will gain civil and constitutional rights just as the negro, woman and others have done. It is already in the works to amend the Constitution to reflect this, and already there is a majority in favor of such an amendment than that is opposed.
When the woman consented to sex, she had made her choice. It may be her uterus and his seed, but the body of the child belongs to the child.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#637
Sep 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Virginia Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
The negro was considered property of their master just as the fetus is considered as the property of the woman's body today. And just as the negro eventually gained the right to be considered as a person and a citizen in 1868, so will the unborn child be given the same recognition very soon. And then you will have to take responsibility for your own choices and actions.
You must have been homeschooled on a diet of verbal vomit from some really closed minded individuals. Blacks had rights and were considered as a person before the Civil War. Contrary to what you were programmed to believe,Blacks were planters,merchants,right along side the other members of the communities. Many owned slaves,both white and black and thousands fought for the Confederacy against their Black Northern "brothers". http:/southernloyalists.tripod .com/documents/id12.html

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#638
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mehh wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't like the guy but, you are incorrect, U.S. citizenry are involved in the creation and maintaining of U.S. law, anything having to do with U.S. law, whether you like it or not, is EVERYBODY'S business, and for the record, there are already laws on the books dictating what one can, and cannot do, with their own body. That said, I agree with some current abortion law, and disagree with some.
Our civil rights are not up for popular vote.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#639
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your call to "grow up". And yes, I am older than you are. I'm also menopausal, and will not be getting pregnant, even having sex.
Black people and women are born, they get civil rights. A fetus never will.
Consent to have sex is not consent to carry a pregnancy to term. That's a different choice altogether.
Nope it's part of the woman's body so long as it's using her organ systems to sustain it's life. When born, civil rights kick in.
I am not arguing with you whether the unborn child will gain their civil rights; i am simply informing you that they will. Raving and ranting against me here on Topix will have no affect on it
Enlightten Me

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#640
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
Don't complain about a word if you don't understand it and are too frigging lazy to look it up.
Rice is, in fact, a perfect example of how cons are being squeezed out of the GOP in favor of neocons. You honestly think ryan is a better choice than she is? He is there because romney is not rabid enough against the religious-right's pet crusades. He's an idiot, whereas rice is an intelligent MODERATE. Moderates are persona non grata in the new regime.
<quoted text>
You can reconstruct the debate to an issue not being discussed to avoid the obvious objection to your stated positions, but your postions here goes wanting. Have you ever tried just responding to what a poster comment actually stated? What word? Where did I express any comments about Romeny and Ryan, pet crusaders, or questioned Ms. Rice's political profile?
I am a moderate to conservative on each individual issue I may consider, or be confronted with, but I don't feel "persona non grata",(unwelcomed), in this new regime you invented. Maybe you feel the way you do because you are so unwelcomed in society as a result of you choosing the gay life style, and this feeling of low self-esteem and social rejection has wrongly colored your thought processes of the real, majority, world? Is so, your mental instability is certainly not my fault.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#641
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Virginia Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not arguing with you whether the unborn child will gain their civil rights; i am simply informing you that they will. Raving and ranting against me here on Topix will have no affect on it
LOL, I'm neither "raving", nor "ranting". That you have to lie, and pretend I am, indicates that you are the one who needs to grow up. I'm simply telling YOU that a fetus will never have civil rights.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642
Sep 3, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I'm neither "raving", nor "ranting". That you have to lie, and pretend I am, indicates that you are the one who needs to grow up. I'm simply telling YOU that a fetus will never have civil rights.
I love how these "soldier-types", who have no problem killing whole people - fathers, brothers, sons, even sisters and mothers and daughters - whine about how they *must* "protect" a fetus from it's own "mother."

Double standard, much?

Too funny, really.
Enlightten Me

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#643
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
My affirmation is sufficient; I don't need other peoples'.
<quoted text>
Not one, serious, intelligent poster on this thread, or nay poster who sees through your sad facade, affirms anything you represent. You may be getting raves in the gay community, but that is a far as your influence extends. Your comment "I don't need other peoples'" affirmation demonstrates your attitude towards yourself and the self-esteem issues you have developed. I see a pattern of hypocritical pronouncements of needing the 'gay community' to assert your gay agenda, but not needing them for 'affirmation'. How you manage to come back to an issue, over and over again, with this blatant desire to argue just for the sake of argument, even making subtile changes to your position to satisfy the need to keep your eroding argument viable raises serious questions about your mental state. Get help!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#644
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cpeter1313 wrote:
edited for space

<quoted text>
>Both liberals and conservatives recognize that the founders allowed for interpretation, because our founders knew that times and society would change. They never intended us to exist like flies in amber.<

Amendment 10-"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As you can clearly read, anything that is not directly addressed by the Constitution is reserved for the State or the People therein to decide.

> At the time of the founding, abortion was legal in every state.<

Medical abortion (performed by a doctor rather than kicking the stomach of a woman or drinking poison,etc...) did not begin until 1879, nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written. And both the man and woman was charged for murder if they ended a pregnancy in such a manner, which they would be hanged. In 1881, abortions became a "medical proceedure" which took some time for the Government to pass legislation concerning, but by 1900 abortion was illegal in all States. In 1965, many States revised their abortion laws so that instances of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life would be exempt. New York was the first State to truly allow abortion in 1970.

>Where is your legal authority to change that?<

Article 1, Section 8 part 14- Article 5 and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

>I'm sure every klan member is vigilant about abuse.<

Yes, always have been, always will be. It is why we were founded.

>Drugs and alcohol can affect others, but the laws concerning them for the most part CREATE far more damage than they prevent.<

Only for those who breaks the law. And they are punished for it.

>Pregnancy is a medical situation that can be cured<

Abortion does not make you unpregnant, it makes you the parent of a dead child.

>Where does the constitution guarantee gestation?<

It's the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

>This country was NOT founded on christianity; the founders even said so in the treaty of tripoli.<

Yes, our Country and our laws are founded upon Christanity.(Even the freedom to choose one's religion is built on the foundation of Christanity). The Teaty of Tripoli Article 11 of that treaty does not even exist in the Arabic version as it was snuck in by Joel Barlow, and when it was rewritten it was removed.
PATRIOT

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#645
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, BTW, your statement that the Consitution "did not consider the negro as a person", is incorrect. Neither it, nor any law, ever said anything of the kind.
Please don't give me the Dred Scott Decision, or the 3/5ths Compromise, because THEY didn't say that. In fact, do us both a favor, and go read them before you even think to use them in a reply.
Wrong!
"When the Civil War ended, nineteen of the 24 Northern states did not allow Blacks to vote." Race in Wisconsin.

"Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor". Race in Illinois.

"The runaway law of 1714 penalized ferryman who carried any slave out of the colony,(Rhode Island), without a certificate from their mastyers." Slavery in Rhode Island.

"The continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and..." Robert Dale Owen, Illinois State Legislature, 1850.

"It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is now other way to get rid of them...." Fellow legislator, 1850.

It is a fact that the early colonial Probate Court records reflect hundreds of early wills leaving slaves to heirs as "property in perpetuity" from the early 1600's until 1780, the 1780 time frame being the era of the framing of the Contitution, and going beyond the end of the Civil War in 1864 in some states, both North and South. In fact, all states who recognized slavery, both North and South, enacted early satutes,(laws), regarding the status of slaves, and all the states expressed written views that slaves, both black and white, were chattel, property, and did not meet the
definition of "freedmen". While the Declaration of Independence may have stated that all men were created equal, the Bill of Rights and U.S. States Constitution omitted 'black slaves' from the consideration that was given to both white and black "freedmen'.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#646
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
The woman's BODY is her property; nothing in the constitution even hints st anything otherwise.
Born humans cannot force a second party to sustain their lives against that party's will; you cannot give a fetus MORE rights than born humans.
As usual, you just want to punish women for enjoying a healthy sex life.
<quoted text>
At any given time, 65 million Americans have a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and it is now at an epidemic rate as there are 19 million new cases in the US each year (with 50% being between 15-24 years of age). 30,000 Americans die from the two top STDs in the US every year. 25% of high school students have an incurable STD already. Even with a condom properly used, it does not prevent Genital warts and genital herpes.$17 Billion a year is spent on treatment, with nearly $10 Billion of that is by tax payer money. This means that if you had just 3 sexual partners, you have most likely been exposed to an STD. You may be unaware that you or your partner even have the disease as 40% do not until irreversible damage has been done.

This is not a "healthy sex life".

It is true that you can not give the unborn child more rights than any other person. However, you can provide them with the same equal rights. The child did not crawl up inside the womb. The child is not a parasite.
PATRIOT

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#647
Sep 3, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The slave was considered property, yes. But that's not what you said. You said they were not considered persons, and that is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the decision was clear that even though the WERE "persons" born in this country, that they would not have civil rights. Try to be a bit more precise.
The fetus will never have civil rights. The situation is not even comparable. A slave was not physically hooked into the bodily systems of their owner, using the owner's organs to sustain life. The fetus is, and as such is part of the woman's property, her uterus. Not the same thing at all.
In fact, the very same amendment to the Constitution that guarantees you cannot own the body of another person, means that you cannot own the uterus of any woman. Deal with it.
What and who's decision?
PATRIOT

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#648
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Mehh wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil rights are NEVER dependent upon modern technology, it's a ridiculous notion.
Good point. To go one step further, Civil Rights is mostly a 20th. century law concept of individual rights. In other words, Civil Rights is modern law.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#649
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>You must have been homeschooled on a diet of verbal vomit from some really closed minded individuals. Blacks had rights and were considered as a person before the Civil War. Contrary to what you were programmed to believe,Blacks were planters,merchants,right along side the other members of the communities. Many owned slaves,both white and black and thousands fought for the Confederacy against their Black Northern "brothers". http:/southernloyalists.tripod .com/documents/id12.html
If you want to get into the details, slavery for life for the negro began in 1654 by a wealthy land owner named Anthony Johnson when he didn't want to release his slaves after 6 years of servitude. He sued in the House of Burgundees (SCOTUS did not yet exist) that since the negro was spared death by their own African government for exchange of servitude, that they were no longer people but property and therefore may be owned for life. He won the case. BTW: Anthony Johnson was black.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#650
Sep 3, 2012
 
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how these "soldier-types", who have no problem killing whole people - fathers, brothers, sons, even sisters and mothers and daughters - whine about how they *must* "protect" a fetus from it's own "mother."
Double standard, much?
Too funny, really.
Not at all. No more than how most people who support abortion also cry out against Capital Punishment.

I believe in punishing the person for the crime they committed whereas you believe in punishing the innocent for being the victim.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#651
Sep 3, 2012
 
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how these "soldier-types", who have no problem killing whole people - fathers, brothers, sons, even sisters and mothers and daughters - whine about how they *must* "protect" a fetus from it's own "mother."
Double standard, much?
Too funny, really.
I know. I also love how he's "not arguing" with me, lol.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#652
Sep 3, 2012
 
PATRIOT wrote:
<quoted text>
What and who's decision?
I was referring the the Dred Scott decision that people like to pretend said that slaves weren't people. Often erroneously combined with the 3/5ths Compromise as though they are the same thing. And it ALSO didn't say the slave weren't people. I was answering the claim that the law didn't consider them people. This is untrue. Property, yes, but no law ever said they weren't people.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#653
Sep 3, 2012
 
PATRIOT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!
"When the Civil War ended, nineteen of the 24 Northern states did not allow Blacks to vote." Race in Wisconsin.
"Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor". Race in Illinois.
"The runaway law of 1714 penalized ferryman who carried any slave out of the colony,(Rhode Island), without a certificate from their mastyers." Slavery in Rhode Island.
"The continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and..." Robert Dale Owen, Illinois State Legislature, 1850.
"It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is now other way to get rid of them...." Fellow legislator, 1850.
It is a fact that the early colonial Probate Court records reflect hundreds of early wills leaving slaves to heirs as "property in perpetuity" from the early 1600's until 1780, the 1780 time frame being the era of the framing of the Contitution, and going beyond the end of the Civil War in 1864 in some states, both North and South. In fact, all states who recognized slavery, both North and South, enacted early satutes,(laws), regarding the status of slaves, and all the states expressed written views that slaves, both black and white, were chattel, property, and did not meet the
definition of "freedmen". While the Declaration of Independence may have stated that all men were created equal, the Bill of Rights and U.S. States Constitution omitted 'black slaves' from the consideration that was given to both white and black "freedmen'.
None of which refutes what I said. No law ever said they weren't "people".

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#654
Sep 3, 2012
 
Virginia Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. No more than how most people who support abortion also cry out against Capital Punishment.
I believe in punishing the person for the crime they committed whereas you believe in punishing the innocent for being the victim.
Baloney.

I am against capital punishment and I do NOT "support" abortion.

I don't believe in "punishing" anyone who is "innocent", dear. People in battle haven't committed a "crime," the last time I checked. Unless they are war crimes, which is another subject entirely.

The reality is is that you have the blood of hundreds of "non-criminals" on your hands, yet try to invoke "G-d" in your rationale for protesting abortion.

It's hypocritical and a double-standard.

Own it.

Or don't.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 601 - 620 of892
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••