Quoted from Box A Rox

Terri Schiavo was a human being... and as you just posted... we are discussing a "FETUS" not
a human being.

Yes, I know.  I was responding to your lame a** analogy, comparing DNR's of 270 lb HUMAN BEINGS to killing 7 pound fetus'.  I had to remind you that 270 lb HUMAN BEINGS are protected by the constitution.  A doctor or family member can't just carry out end of life wishes without LEGAL oversight.

See lame a** analogy below:

Quoted from Box A Rox

So... anyone with advanced directives  can request a DNR (do not resuscitate) even if they are actually
a HUMAN and not a fetus.
That decision is between the patient (or the family) and the DOCTOR.
I wonder if Cissy would be as rabidly against the death of a 270 pound HUMAN?
The HUMAN is unconscious and can't make those decisions on his own...
BUT A DOCTOR CAN.  
Your blind rage against Debbie must have made you miss her actual statement:
The decision between a woman and a DOCTOR... just like a DNR.

Quoted from CICERO

LOL - Boxy went into full rhetorical rant mode!!!  LMAO

Hey...I told you Debbie Deathermann screwed the pooch on this one.  Keep the spin going.  I'm sure ads will be coming out soon to help clarify Debbie's position on ending the lives of 7 pound fetus'.  I don't think she's done answering this one for a while.  

LMAO!  
This may be the beginning of (yet another) Rand Paul "wish I kept my mouth shut" moment!

Again... you won't answer this question... I've asked many times...
Does Randy Paul allow an exception for rape, incest or life of the mom for his
"anti abortion" bill????
If you don't know, just say so.  As yet, I can't find his opinion on that subject.  He seems
to be hiding, hoping the question will just go away.

Quoted from Box A Rox

LMAO!  
This may be the beginning of (yet another) Rand Paul "wish I kept my mouth shut" moment!

Again... you won't answer this question... I've asked many times...
Does Randy Paul allow an exception for rape, incest or life of the mom for his
"anti abortion" bill????
If you don't know, just say so.  As yet, I can't find his opinion on that subject.  He seems
to be hiding, hoping the question will just go away.

You are asking a question with a false premise.  Rand Paul didn't sponsor an "anti abortion" bill.  He sponsored a bill that provides constitutionally protected right to life to include the fetus.  So if you want to ask a question about the bill, make sure the premise is accurate.  The bill doesn't even mention abortion.  An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  Paul's bill makes no mention to that.

The real and accurate question about the sponsored bill is - do fetus' deserve constitution protection to their right to life?

Randy Paul will need women voters and he will need Democrats to have any chance
at winning the US Presidency.

So with his anti abortion bill  with no exceptions...(so far)
How will Paul do with Democrats and Women???

78% favor legal or legal in some cases abortion.  21% against.
Rand Paul's Bogus "anti abortion bill" will likely impact those voters.

Quoted from CICERO

You are asking a question with a false premise.  Rand Paul didn't sponsor an "anti abortion" bill.  He sponsored a bill that provides constitutionally protected right to life to include the fetus.  So if you want to ask a question about the bill, make sure the premise is accurate.  The bill doesn't even mention abortion.  An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  Paul's bill makes no mention to that.

The real and accurate question about the sponsored bill is - do fetus' deserve constitution protection to their right to life?

Cissy loves to play with words... he's not very good at it but he persists anyway.

If I sponsored a fish "person hood bill" which classified FISH as PEOPLE... I wouldn't be banning
fishing.  It's just a "person hood bill".  The end result would be (of course) to ban killing fish.

So continue with your phony... Rand isn't banning abortion, because if the bill passes, abortion will
be banned.  (And, of course, you already know that.)

Quoted from Box A Rox

78% favor legal or legal in some cases abortion.  21% against.
Rand Paul's Bogus "anti abortion bill" will likely impact those voters.

Debbie and the democrats do not believe fetus' have any legal protection to their rights to life.  So democrats stand with the 28% that believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance with no government involvement - PERIOD...END OF STORY.

Quoted from CICERO

Debbie and the democrats do not believe fetus' have any legal protection to their rights to life.  So democrats stand with the 28% that believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance with no government involvement - PERIOD...END OF STORY.

God Cissy... Try a little logic, just for once.  It may work for you.

If 78% favor abortion... and those people were to vote for a pro choice candidate... how do you think
they would vote in the case of a Debbie candidate.
She agrees with them or she mostly agrees with them... while Candidate Paul disagrees with
the 78% totally.

Quoted from CICERO

So your position is that a 7 pound fetus is not a human life?  Or that governments have no business stopping one person from taking another persons life?

If you are suggesting I am the opposition and looking to ban abortion, you are wrong.  The position is granting the protected right to life for the fetus, in this case it' a 7 pound fetus.  Like I've said before, there are legitimate reason one person can take the life of another.  Most times it is for self defense.  I'm just in favor of granting those natural rights to life, not only to the baby that took its first breath on the delivery table, but to that same baby that was in the womb just seconds before.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that a fetus is likely to become a person.

I am 100% pro-life.

I don't feel a woman should abort on demand.

I don't think that the government should be playing any role whatsoever, unless to try to save the lives of the fetus.

But the government can't be allowed to take up arms to defend all fetuses from termination.

Are you suggesting the government should be allowed to incarcerate/execute people for not reproducing?

I simply feel that abortion should be a hands off  issue for the government.

Families should be working to solve the problems, not the government.

Your viewpoint is a moral issue.

Using guns to legislate morality upon others is not something that I could support.

If people choose to abort, they are the ones who's morality and viewpoints will disappear from existence through attrition.

The entire issue will self correct.

If people choose to end their family tree, who am I to judge them?

You know that passing legislation will not stop abortions any more than drug laws stopped drug use.

To me it's more of a live your own life and let others live or die off as they see fit issue, as long as they don't use force against other living people.

You may not be the polar extreme of box, but you seem to be leaning towards government legislation to use force, including deadly force on others.

Legislation will not change behavior.

Even if you threatened people with execution for having an abortion, they would just accidentally fall down the stairs landing on the fetus.

Both sides feel compelled to save live through legislating morality.

It has never worked and it never will.

Now, if someone killed your wife's fetus, the issue would be clear cut.

People with other morals and beliefs may feel that reproduction is simply an extension of their own self through a new host; that their own life force is shared and transferred to the fetus, and until birth the fetus is not a separate government recognized person.

I completely disagree that it is solely a woman's right to choose to terminate the creation that is a shared life form of 2 persons, and that requiring both party consent would cut the abortion rates in half. This would be a step towards saving lives.

What right does a woman have to abort my passed on life force?

She should have passed on the sex with me, not looked to do it retroactively.

A child is a continuation of the lives of 2 people, not just a woman.

I would not object to a law requiring two party consent.

Infanticide occurs in nature throughout many different species.

Other members of the species don't put them in cages or pass laws forbidding it.

Read this link on the many variations and methods of pruning the family trees in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_%28zoology%29

Absolutely this is a serious issue, but legislation and threatening arrest or violence is no solution.

In England, abortion after birth is allowed, as long as certain criteria is met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_Act

Quoted from Box A Rox

God Cissy... Try a little logic, just for once.  It may work for you.

If 78% favor abortion... and those people were to vote for a pro choice candidate... how do you think
they would vote in the case of a Debbie candidate.
She agrees with them or she mostly agrees with them... while Candidate Paul disagrees with
the 78% totally.

So the 50% that only support abortion under certain circumstances will vote for Debbie that doesn't even believe a 7 pound fetus has any constitutional rights and says there are absolutely no circumstances or exceptions  that will make an abortion illegal?  All Rand Paul proposed was a recognition of a fetus' constitutionally protected right to life.

For your sake, I hope you're right.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that a fetus is likely to become a person.

I am 100% pro-life.

I don't feel a woman should abort on demand.

I don't think that the government should be playing any role whatsoever, unless to try to save the lives of the fetus.

But the government can't be allowed to take up arms to defend all fetuses from termination.

Are you suggesting the government should be allowed to incarcerate/execute people for not reproducing?

I simply feel that abortion should be a hands off  issue for the government.

Families should be working to solve the problems, not the government.

Your viewpoint is a moral issue.

Using guns to legislate morality upon others is not something that I could support.

If people choose to abort, they are the ones who's morality and viewpoints will disappear from existence through attrition.

The entire issue will self correct.

If people choose to end their family tree, who am I to judge them?

You know that passing legislation will not stop abortions any more than drug laws stopped drug use.

To me it's more of a live your own life and let others live or die off as they see fit issue, as long as they don't use force against other living people.

You may not be the polar extreme of box, but you seem to be leaning towards government legislation to use force, including deadly force on others.

Legislation will not change behavior.

Even if you threatened people with execution for having an abortion, they would just accidentally fall down the stairs landing on the fetus.

Both sides feel compelled to save live through legislating morality.

It has never worked and it never will.

Now, if someone killed your wife's fetus, the issue would be clear cut.

People with other morals and beliefs may feel that reproduction is simply an extension of their own self through a new host; that their own life force is shared and transferred to the fetus, and until birth the fetus is not a separate government recognized person.

I completely disagree that it is solely a woman's right to choose to terminate the creation that is a shared life form of 2 persons, and that requiring both party consent would cut the abortion rates in half. This would be a step towards saving lives.

What right does a woman have to abort my passed on life force?

She should have passed on the sex with me, not looked to do it retroactively.

A child is a continuation of the lives of 2 people, not just a woman.

I would not object to a law requiring two party consent.

Infanticide occurs in nature throughout many different species.

Other members of the species don't put them in cages or pass laws forbidding it.

Read this link on the many variations and methods of pruning the family trees in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_%28zoology%29

Absolutely this is a serious issue, but legislation and threatening arrest or violence is no solution.

In England, abortion after birth is allowed, as long as certain criteria is met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_Act

The only thing I support is the legal recognition of the fetus as a human life.  I don't support anything that has to do with banning abortion or enforcement of a ban.  The first step is to recognize the fetus has a natural right to life.  

This is why Debbie and box cannot answer the question directly whether a 7 pound fetus should be legally recognized as a person.  They continue to talk about abortion.  Abortion is about the right to end a pregnancy and not about terminating a viable and legally recognized human life.  Legally, it's two separate conversations.  

You can legally recognize the fetus and still have legal abortion.  A fetus would just become a victim of a justifiable homicide, or assisted infanticide based on however the abortion laws are written in each state.  But now the fetus would be legally recognized, and it wouldn't just be a pregnancy aborted, but rather a human life was ended.

Democrats are going to have to answer, is a 7 pound fetus a viable human life, and if so, should its natural rights be protected.

Quoted from CICERO

This is why Debbie and box cannot answer the question directly whether a 7 pound fetus should be legally recognized as a person.  They continue to talk about abortion.

I cannot answer??? LMAO!  I've answered a dozen times.  A fetus is a human being at birth.  Just like it
says in the bible... when a fetus takes a breath, its a human being.
Really Cissy... you're even going to lie about this???
You have no shame!  

Legal Restrictions On Abortion That Cicero Denies Exist:
 42 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
 21 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.
 3 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.
 18 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks; 10 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.
 The circumstances under which later abortions are permitted vary from state to state.
 26 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.
 12 states unconstitutionally ban later abortions, except those performed to save the life or physical health of the woman.
 4 states unconstitutionally limit later abortions to those performed to save the life of the woman.
 Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
 13 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.
 9 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cissy loves to play with words... he's not very good at it but he persists anyway.

If I sponsored a fish "person hood bill" which classified FISH as PEOPLE... I wouldn't be banning
fishing.  It's just a "person hood bill".  The end result would be (of course) to ban killing fish.

So continue with your phony... Rand isn't banning abortion, because if the bill passes, abortion will
be banned.  (And, of course, you already know that.)

That's funny box.  You just gave me an example of a 270 pound person with a DNR and a doctor carrying out those wishes.  So if the the doctor withheld medical treatment to the 270 pound person knowing it would lead to his death, then why wasn't the doctor arrest?  Healthcare proxy takes a loved on off life support, results in death - nope must be banned.  Since in your theory, personhood mean that ALL deaths at the hand of another person is banned.  Somebody breaks into your house, tries to harm a family member, you shoot and kill the person to save a life.  Is that banned too?

Quoted from Box A Rox

Legal Restrictions On Abortion That Cicero Denies Exist:
 42 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
 21 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.
 3 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.
 18 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks; 10 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.
 The circumstances under which later abortions are permitted vary from state to state.
 26 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.
 12 states unconstitutionally ban later abortions, except those performed to save the life or physical health of the woman.
 4 states unconstitutionally limit later abortions to those performed to save the life of the woman.
 Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
 13 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.
 9 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.

None recognize the fetus as a person.  Remember, Paul's legislation isn't about abortion.  It's about expanding constitutional protection to the fetus.

OK CISSY...
You can continue to believe Rand Paul's PERSONHOOD Bill is NOT an abortion ban.
You can continue to believe it... But then you would disagree with it's author RAND PAUL:

Rand Paul's own words:
"Will you help me in a bold and aggressive campaign to
end abortion on demand once and for all."
Yes Cicero.  Rand Paul Said That.  (So stop lying by saying Paul's Personhood BS Bill
isn't an anti abortion bill)

"Congress has the power to legislatively overturn Roe V Wade and end
all abortion on demand."

We have Rand Paul's words, then we have Cicero's lies about Rand Paul's words.
You decide if Cicero is telling the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=102&v=9-0qPVwKRdc