Does a Women Have a Right to Terminate the Life of Her Unborn Child?

[Keith Broaders]

Does a woman have a right to terminate the life of her unborn baby?

What do you think?

What would have been the position of our  founding fathers?

Does an abortion violate the Constitution?

Please leave your opinion in the comment section below.

[Erin Lea]

Totally agree Daniel! Thank you for your input and wisdom.

[Ivonne]

No, she does not! The Lord knew us in our mother's womb, it is not her right to choose to kill an unborn baby!

[Byron Dale]

Duane
It is clear that you do not believe in the laws of God, the laws of man or common sense. A woman might or might not have the right of free agency. I will not argue that with you. It is clear that as soon as a woman is pregnant there is another person involved. the laws of God and the laws a man do.if the right to kill another person, with maybe exception of the right of self-defense to stop someone from killing you.

we all know that from the moment of conception that baby is alive. It it grows it kicks it feels pain and it has a memory.

You Can make up anything and you can believe it but it does not change the facts.

[294a1bgdsijbf]

With respect your right, but you still cant put yourself in the equation and make the choice for someone else, just like making a choice to obey God and to not obey or believe. 

The person of a private matter shall have the free choice to do as they want.   that does not mean its the choice but they are to choose, that's why its free agency or freedom to choose.

  One cant put there self in the mater and then make a choice for the other, or make a law that makes someone choose a certain way.  life is life when it begins , but the free agency to choose is that individual person choice . 

I pray and hope the one individual will make the right choice, but we as individuals have no right to violate another's choice, but our own. 

regardless how you see it , it is wrong to make someone do something by force or by a law. God has given us the free agency to choose, in all life situations, and everyone has different situations.  But sometimes some one makes bad choices. 

I say lets pray plant the seed of Gods law in the individual by kindness and love and guidance , and then Maby the free choice the individual  has , may make the right choice.  I pray they do .  I do not say to murder life, but individuals might have a personal reason of that bad choice , but who are we to judge as we are to follow Gods rule of law. 

[294a1bgdsijbf]

https://www.facebook.com/Constituional/posts/242944089494824

love what you say , you are a good teacher thank you , love you brother........... 

[Keith Broaders]

If you or I break an eagle's egg and the chick dies we have commited a crime, but if a woman elects to terminate the of her unborn child she is exercising her right to choose. If a man kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of murder, but it is OK for a woman to kill her unborn baby.

[Darl Easton]

As many of stated, and biology and logic clearly proves, a human life begins at conception.  While there are many natural causes that may end the life, the unnatural act of intentionally killing through abortion, should be treated as an assault against another person.  The Creator, or nature, if you like, created a safe place for the growth of the child for the first nine months of it's life.  Modern immorality has lead to the culture of death as so many do not feel that they shouldn't be held accountable for they life that is the result of their actions. 

[294a1bgdsijbf]

Free agency...... freedom to choose-  are we really free. 

There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.

Every person has free choice. Free to obey or disobey the Natural Laws. Your choice determines the consequences. Nobody ever did, or ever will, escape the consequences of his choices.

The criterion for free choice can never be an absolute one, but neither is it entirely relative.

We need to teach the next generation of children from day one that they are responsible for their lives. Mankind's greatest gift, also its greatest curse, is that we have free choice. We can make our choices built from love or from fear.

All of us should have free choice when it comes to patriotic displays... a government wisely acting within its bounds ill earn loyalty and respect from its citizens. A government dare not demand the same.

There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.

Today I choose life. Every morning when I wake up I can choose joy, happiness, negativity, pain... To feel the freedom that comes from being able to continue to make mistakes and choices - today I choose to feel life, not to deny my humanity but embrace it.

[Jim Robinett]

the termination of life at any stage is akin to murdering a human.  However, the circumstances must be considered in making a determination. What factors may be considered in making such a determination?  The Declaration of Independence states humans are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It may be apparent that certain conditions may warrant such a taking of one of the God's creations, those conditions may not be taken lightly as a devotion to life, liberty and happiness is given to us by our Creator.

[Mike]

Very interesting discussion. I would like to take our attention in another direction for a brief moment. Many should be very familiar with this topic. The Birth Certificate!

When any of us are speaking of laws, we need to be aware of WHERE these laws will be ENFORCED. In this instance, it's in our present day "legal" system. It's obvious that our legal system and laws are NOT always aligned with God's Laws, or even ethics or common sense.

Here's how this applies to abortion. The courts DO NOT recognize abortion as murder. In order to murder someone, they must be a person first. Our Birth Certificates are the "legal" document that makes one an official "person". (The same document that makes one a Citizen, or not). You know, that fictitious Legal Strawman Person! One does not receive a Certificate of Live Birth until "delivered" by a doctor. Remember that doctors must receive a "license" from government to practice. The doctor is the one who signs the Birth Certificate that makes one a fictitious Strawman Person. Legally speaking, there is no murder if there is no "legal person" to be harmed. We can't murder a non-person! However, we can be convicted for breaking endangered species eggs. It's the LAW!

According to today's laws, abortion is just another medical procedure for the woman patient. The courts might view it as simple as removing a wart! Sounds unpleasant, but it's that simple, legally speaking.

In order to change this upsidedown legal game, we must have "legal" documentation for conception. Only then will abortion be murder. Our discussion needs to remove ourselves from the procedures the doctors are "practicing", and place our attention on WHAT our courts are "defining". Once again, the BAR lawyers and corporate courts are in our disagreements with US Law and God's Law.

Here's when this abortion revelation came to me. During this past election campaign, NBC News asked Hillary Clinton her views on abortion. She was briefly caught off-guard but recovered cunningly, like most lawyers. She stumbled over the "legal" language when asked "specifically" about the Constitutional Rights of the "unborn CHILD". She didn't answer the exact question, and instead rephrased it. Just like ALL lawyer/politicians do.

Prior to answering, she referenced the LAW and courts. She replied in legalese about the "unborn PERSON". She never recognized the word CHILD, which was the topic in question. She was flustered by that term. Listen to her sentence tempo and uneasy emphasis on the word "person", where she was expected to say CHILD. She had to stop herself and substitute the legal language. As usual, she didn't lie. She just pivoted and changed the question she was answering.

She is very good at this. Only what she SAYS will be on her transcript and scrutinized. However, HOW she said it, discloses an entirely different perspective. Watch the video. The critical portion begins along at the 1:00 minute mark.

<iframe width="475" height="267" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZCgmq0xXPWE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This interview was replayed on the MSM for days. The topic was debated heatedly. Not one network picked-up on what we heard and just witnessed. It's only because of our discussions on these threads that I was prepared to hear the intentional misleading double-speak. Certain WORDS cause my mind to listen carefully and insert the decoding program. Answers are usually prefaced with a legal deflection to allow the answers to be "legally' truthful, but lies, none the less.

For those that haven't tried it yet. Find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and look up some common words. They aren't the same as Webster's dictionary. The Supreme Court ruling about "Corporations ARE Persons" was my first exposure to this deception. I had to ask myself, 'why is this important'? Those terms lead right to the discussion of our corporate court system and the Strawman. And now it has repercussions with abortions! This tangled web of deception will never be fixed. It needs to be exposed for what it is.

[daniel allan:pendergast]

Wordsmiths, they are!

When does a child take on a legal personality? Upon delivery. Most of us think of the term 'delivery' as meaning the expulsion of the child from the womb and realistically, this is true as the child is delivered to the control of the mother. Legalistically, delivery is somewhat different. Delivery acquires when the mother signs the application for the birth certificate and that instrument [basically a bill of lading describing the chattel being delivered, ie., 8 pound 3 oz. girl named Sarah Smith] is sent to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, whereupon the creation of the artificial person is created and bonded.

Delivery: the conveyance of the res or thing to the control of another.

The state being a fictional entity itself is only capable of recognizing like entities. It does not have cognizance of the living child nor does it have authority over it until it acquires legal [fictional] status.

Legally speaking, the Hildebeast was correct as she merely stated the state's position as to the entity upon delivery to the State.

[Mike]

BINGO!!!

The courts are all about commerce or Admiralty law. A "product" has been manufactured and is now shipped, if you will, or "delivered" to port through the "canal", and we get a business receipt with a description of the product transferred.

Do hospitals still place inked footprints on certificates? This procedure documents that a child has NOT YET stepped on the soil of their Birth. He stepped onto a "contract" first. There's a legal issue when children are born outside of hospitals and are true sovereigns. The courts can't touch them, unless duped into admitting themselves into jurisdiction. They aren't property of the contract holder. Sorry, entire different discussion!

Abortion is a mere "damaged product" which holds no value and can't be sold. I guess we should have "purchased" shipping insurance on our precious cargo! (I just made-up this pun. Maybe it's worth a new discussion.)

The question remains, "Does a Women Have a Right to Terminate the Life of Her Unborn Child"? If it's a child and not a person, it's murder! Children have Rights.

I've heard of parents naming their children prior to birth. But where's the paperwork? Anyone contemplating abortion would never name the child. That would be far too emotionally painful to imagine.