Overturn Roe v. Wade?

[minsue]

I've read your posts and from what I can tell your ranting is typically Minimal. And I didn't say you shouldn't expect any, just that it's a bit unreasonable.

~lucky

 

[Pure]

Mindy, I wonder if you could give more of an overall map, on some 'life' issues. When I say 'able' I mean, staying within morality and the law:

Should you be able to issue a binding DNR order for yourself while in a hospital?

Should you, lacking such an order from your spouse, be able to issue a binding such order for, or 'pull the plug' on him or her, if they are near death and in pain, and not lucid enough to decide--i.e., you figure that's what they 'would' want if they could think it over now, given what they said previously?

Should you be able to walk to the drugstore and buy a lethal pill or injection for yourself? A bit like 'Final Exit.' (Should a note from your dr. saying youre sane and lucid be required?)

For a friend?

Administer it to a sane, lucid friend at his/her request? esp. if s/he is unable to?

Should a parent be able to euthanize a child who's in a degenerative slowly terminal, painful state? (Latimer case, in Canada; Mr. Latimer in prison for 'mercy killing' of daughter with carbon monoxide; she had a form of cerebral palsy disease.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/index.html

J.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Is there such a (valid) moral position as *general* respect for life [for all living creatures]? What would it entail?

How about not executing anyone? Religions and secular folks alike proclaim 'allegiance to life', but what's entailed: blocking suicide attempts? jailing Kevorkian?

Are they consistent in efforts legally to ensure respect for life across some of the activities mentioned?

For starters, why'd you have to single out Minsue? Two people responded alike, directly after her. Sigh.

To your first question:

Of course there's a general respect for life. What the heck do you think is causing all the trouble? Pro-choice supporters don't believe it's fair to allow an unwanted child to be born into a world that won't take care of it. Pro-life supporters don't believe it's fair to deny the child the chance at life. Either way, both sides are generally respecting life. Unless, I took one too many hits on my crack pipe this evening.

To your second question:

Obviously there are countless inconsistencies in the question of legally ensuring respect for life. I've known many pro-life supporters that were all for capital punishment. When asked why, their simple but vehement response was, some people just deserve to die. So now it's a matter of deserving. Well, I think that's just damn convenient.

Makes me want to ask, "What kind of life does a newborn deserve?" (probably moot to you, but it interests me)

Legally speaking, if you want to get down to it we'll wind up right back at the beginning of this tired-ass thread debating about when life starts and if a full bill of rights is due that life the instant the sperm and the egg begin stroking one another.

{These are all mine (experiences/observations), so don't go making out like I'm speaking for all Pro-life folks or all Pro-choice folks}

Pro-life
Abortion=Murder
Capital Punishment=Payment
Mercy Killing=Murder
Blocking Suicide Attempts=Oxymoron!
Beef Eating=Supper

Pro-choice
Abortion=Sparing Pain and Suffering
Capital Punishment=Murder
Mercy Killing=Sparing Pain and Suffering
Blocking Suicide Attempts=Oxymoron!
Beef Eating=Supper

I may be totally misunderstanding the question, but it seems as though you're just having a good time poking this dead horse and as far as I can see it's all been discussed in some fashion (direct or indirect) right here before.

~lucky

"Valid." He asks...isn't that what the hell this is all about? Whose final word dictates what is a 'valid' moral argument? Again, running in circles...I'm an idiot.



Now, I'm really irritated. Just spent my un'lucky' 1300th post bitching. Ironic? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

 

[amicus]

taking a life

for Shereads...I should not respond, and I know that...like West Wing and all the glorious liberals who so glibly disguise their arguments....you have a faith, as deep as any southern babtist, a faith that basically denies the absolutes of reality...

Those opposed to destroying a life in utero are not only religious fanatics....there are those who have reason and ethics as a base.

I give you only this: for there to be any 'values' at all, in a logical, ethical system of morality, the primary value must be, 'life', human life.

If human life is the ultimate, and the fundamental value, upon which all other ethical considerations are based, then the protection of that 'human' life, from the moment of conception forward, is the one and only means of perceiving and realizing a rational system of ethics that involves all human activity.

This is not an argument, it is an axiomatic statement of, "if this, then that" and you are smart enough to recognize the logic.

regards...amicus

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: taking a life

for Shereads...I should not respond, and I know that...like West Wing and all the glorious liberals who so glibly disguise their arguments....you have a faith, as deep as any southern babtist, a faith that basically denies the absolutes of reality...

Those opposed to destroying a life in utero are not only religious fanatics....there are those who have reason and ethics as a base.

I give you only this: for there to be any 'values' at all, in a logical, ethical system of morality, the primary value must be, 'life', human life.

If human life is the ultimate, and the fundamental value, upon which all other ethical considerations are based, then the protection of that 'human' life, from the moment of conception forward, is the one and only means of perceiving and realizing a rational system of ethics that involves all human activity.

This is not an argument, it is an axiomatic statement of, "if this, then that" and you are smart enough to recognize the logic.

regards...amicus

Amicus,

Shereads is currently out of town, but I'm sure she'll be happy to respond to your post when she returns next week.

~lucky

 

[Somme]

Re: taking a life

for Shereads...I should not respond, and I know that...like West Wing and all the glorious liberals who so glibly disguise their arguments....you have a faith, as deep as any southern babtist, a faith that basically denies the absolutes of reality...

Those opposed to destroying a life in utero are not only religious fanatics....there are those who have reason and ethics as a base.

I give you only this: for there to be any 'values' at all, in a logical, ethical system of morality, the primary value must be, 'life', human life.

If human life is the ultimate, and the fundamental value, upon which all other ethical considerations are based, then the protection of that 'human' life, from the moment of conception forward, is the one and only means of perceiving and realizing a rational system of ethics that involves all human activity.

This is not an argument, it is an axiomatic statement of, "if this, then that" and you are smart enough to recognize the logic.

regards...amicus

Bollix.
Sounds good but is so damn flawed I freely give up my status as a glib, glorious liberal.

My main bone of contention is your premise of 'moment of conception'. Frankly, I find it a damn cheek that you or anybody else could have the nerve to dare to comment on what is not their buisness.

Your 'rational system of ethics' might have been a little less leaky had you made provision for those already alive, in straitened circumstances, impoverished, ignored, left to rot on the streets and in the ghettos that we so easily create......good lord, another 'bring the children to me to be used, abused, ignored and shat on', despite the 'free will' of the parents.....with apologies to the original.
<.................wanders off muttering inchoherently.........>
Axiomatic? S'cuse me, mate! Keep flawed philosophy out

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colly, I seriously want to know why you changed here. If you don't want to say it on this thread, I would appreciate a PM, if you want.

As long as I'm here, I'm pro-choice and anti-capital punishment too (which, btw, I see as a PC term; I call it "murder by the state").

Perdita

In the thread on politics capital punishment was discussed at length. I don't think a rehash is neccessary, but I think it can be stated that I was, if not the lone supporter then the most vocal supporter of capital punishment. I held and still hold the deeply seated belief that justice can not be done if the state does not hold the right to take the ultimate sanction and no one had any argument I found even mildly convincing that I was wrong there.

The most compelling arguments against capital punishment were those that argue about the application of it. Not only pointing out the fact that mistakes can and are made, but also showing possible racial bias and perhaps the strongest of all, you can't undo it if new techniques can prove that you were wrong. A post humous pardon dosen't do anything for the person wrongly executed.

At that point I accepted that I could see no way out for me, I still believed some crimes deserved the death penalty but agreed in principal that its application was possibly seriously flawed. Then I came to this thread.

I only supported the death penalty in a very narrow spectrum of crimes, first degree premeditated murder without extinuating circumstances, to be exact. A basic assumption on my part is that we all knew what murder was. That we all understood the seriousness of the charge and that we all understood that in light of the seriousness of the charge we must apply the most stringent standards of proof and reasonable doubt.

Then I came here and saw how lightly some people are willing to throw that charge at people and on what "evidence" they are prepared to make that charge. It shocked me to the core when I realized if they were willing to make the charge on such evidence, they would be willing to convict on such evidence. Evidence that I can only equate in my mind to the "spectral evidence" used in the Salem Witch trials.

After gathering my thoughts I had to ask myself some brutal questions. The most basic being would people who hold these views be automatically excluded from a jury in the selection process? My answer is no, they don't seem like fanatics, some don't even claim deep religious conviction as a validation for their beliefs. While religious convictions are not universal to all religions a deep conviction in your religion's precepts is usually excusatory grounds in the jury selection process.

So the question came down to this. If I can not guarentee that the 12 people sitting in the jury box agree on the definition of murder and hold it to be so serious that they are applying the same stringent demand for proof, how can I support capital punishment? I can't. When the stakes are a person's life they are just too high.

I have known for years our justice system is imperfect. I am aware that mistakes have been made. But when it became apparent to me that I cannot even promise a person in a capital case that the 12 jurors hold the same definition of murder and hold the same definition of proof and reasonable doubt, then I just can't stand solidly on the idea that the trial is fair and even. Without that faith I can no longer condone taking someone's life as punishment. Not because I don't believe in theory that some people deserve it, but because my faith in the application is now totally shot.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Should you be able to issue a binding DNR order for yourself while in a hospital?

Yes, absolutely. I believe wholeheartedly in the right to die.

Should you, lacking such an order from your spouse, be able to issue a binding such order for, or 'pull the plug' on him or her, if they are near death and in pain, and not lucid enough to decide--i.e., you figure that's what they 'would' want if they could think it over now, given what they said previously?

Again, yes. To me that is not a right so much as a responsibility

Should you be able to walk to the drugstore and buy a lethal pill or injection for yourself? A bit like 'Final Exit.' (Should a note from your dr. saying youre sane and lucid be required?)

I'm a bit torn on this one considering the number of people there are, including myself, who have failed at suicide attempts and choose not to try again. Of course, you can currently walk into a drugstore and purchase a lethal amount of pills so I'm just not sure. I'll have to think on this more.

For a friend?
Administer it to a sane, lucid friend at his/her request? esp. if s/he is unable to?

Again, this one will take more thought. I believe that doctor-assisted suicide should be legal, but I am torn on 'friend-assisted'. I see too many possiblities for that to be abused.

Should a parent be able to euthanize a child who's in a degenerative slowly terminal, painful state? (Latimer case, in Canada; Mr. Latimer in prison for 'mercy killing' of daughter with carbon monoxide; she had a form of cerebral palsy disease.)

I don't have an answer for this one, either. My heart went out to Mr Latimer, but it also goes out to the people with degenerative diseases who protested their right to live.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: taking a life

for Shereads...I should not respond, and I know that...like West Wing and all the glorious liberals who so glibly disguise their arguments....you have a faith, as deep as any southern babtist, a faith that basically denies the absolutes of reality...

Those opposed to destroying a life in utero are not only religious fanatics....there are those who have reason and ethics as a base.

I give you only this: for there to be any 'values' at all, in a logical, ethical system of morality, the primary value must be, 'life', human life.

If human life is the ultimate, and the fundamental value, upon which all other ethical considerations are based, then the protection of that 'human' life, from the moment of conception forward, is the one and only means of perceiving and realizing a rational system of ethics that involves all human activity.

This is not an argument, it is an axiomatic statement of, "if this, then that" and you are smart enough to recognize the logic.

regards...amicus

At least you were right on one thing, that was no argument. That however, is the only statement you made I would be willing to conceed to you.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Thank you very much, Colly for your reply about capital punishment. I empathize with your struggle and how you came to change your mind, but more so I admire your thinking, regard for justice and others, and a fine integrity to yourself.

with great affection, Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you very much, Colly for your reply about capital punishment. I empathize with your struggle and how you came to change your mind, but more so I admire your thinking, regard for justice and others, and a fine integrity to yourself.

with great affection, Perdita

Thank you Dita. Arguments can never be won, but open honest debate can make you change your mind, if you enter into it with an open mind and willingness to challenge your own assumptions. You, Sher, Mindy, Lauren and others presented very strong reasons to make me challenge mine.

In the spirit of seeking to know myself better and to know the world better, I didn't stop questioning myself or my asumptions when that debate ended. I took a very big step forward in knowing myself and I owe that insight to all of you, in particular Sher who articulated the anti side so well. I have already thanked her privately, but will do so here publiclly since the capital punishment issue was brought up by someone else. I would not have attempted a thread hijack otherwise.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi Lucky,

You said, in part,

To your first question:[what would 'respect for life' morality and practice look like?]

Of course there's a general respect for life. What the heck do you think is causing all the trouble? Pro-choice supporters don't believe it's fair to allow an unwanted child to be born into a world that won't take care of it. Pro-life supporters don't believe it's fair to deny the child the chance at life. Either way, both sides are generally respecting life. Unless, I took one too many hits on my crack pipe this evening.

I want to distinguish 'talk' from reality. Heck, those that want to nuke Moscow, or pave Vietnam talk of 'respect for life.... Yes, that crack is gonna kill that fine brain!!! . Indeed the doctrines of 'just war' and of killing heretics in droves were thought of a pro life. If a person is a Christian zealot, the 'afterlife' comes in, in a big way; BUT pro eternal life (freeing the heretics soul after a tortured confession) may equal anti- real life.




To your second question: [are various proposed 'mixes' of stands, e.g., those of the Christian right, 'prolife' and 'pro capital' punishment, consistent?]

Obviously there are countless inconsistencies in the question of legally ensuring respect for life. I've known many pro-life supporters that were all for capital punishment. When asked why, their simple but vehement response was, some people just deserve to die. So now it's a matter of deserving. Well, I think that's just damn convenient.

I believe it's an inconsistency as is the 'pro life' and 'anti condom' position (the latter just denounced publicly by a Belgian cardinal, in respect of AIDS esp.).

Makes me want to ask, "What kind of life does a newborn deserve?" (probably moot to you, but it interests me)

I'm not sure why it would be 'moot' for me??? It seems that a newborn, esp. if one's committed to 'life' deserves the best chance its society can offer; starting with adequate medical care, which for new borns and moms should be available for the asking, free (publicly funded). To give Weird Harold a smidgeon of credit, he noted quite clearly the hypocrisy of a 'rescue', or compulsory pregnancy, when the objector is indifferent to the fate of the newborn.

Best,

J.

 

[Somme]

Thank you very much, Colly for your reply about capital punishment. I empathize with your struggle and how you came to change your mind, but more so I admire your thinking, regard for justice and others, and a fine integrity to yourself.

with great affection, Perdita

Amen. Me too.

 

[minsue]

Amen. Me too.

Ditto

 

[Pure]

Lest we forget:

1 Kings 23: 7 "And the LORD said 'Jehosophat, thou shalt not cover thy virile member while thou hast congress with the concubine Zilbah, for thy seed shall not be deflected from its course to her womb.' "

New York Times.

College for the Home-Schooled Is Shaping Leaders for the Right

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: March 8, 2004

URCELLVILLE, Va. — As one of 12 siblings taught at home by their parents in St. Croix Falls, Wis., Abram Olmstead knew he would fit right in at Patrick Henry College, the first college primarily for evangelical Christian home-schoolers. But what really sold him was the school's pipeline into conservative politics.



Of the nearly 100 interns working in the White House this semester, 7 are from the roughly 240 students enrolled in the four-year-old Patrick Henry College, in Purcellville. An eighth intern works for the president's re-election campaign. A former Patrick Henry intern now works on the paid staff of the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove. Over the last four years, 22 conservative members of Congress have employed one or more Patrick Henry interns in their offices or on their campaigns, according to the school's records.

[...]

The college's knack for political job placement testifies to the increasing influence that Christian home-schooling families are building within the conservative movement. Only about half a million families around the country home-school their children and only about two-thirds identify themselves as evangelical Christians, home-schooling advocates say. But they have passionate political views, a close-knit grass-roots network and the financial support of a handful of wealthy patrons. For all those reasons, home-schoolers have captured the attention of a wide swath of conservative politicians, many of whom are eager to hire Patrick Henry students.

When President Bush signed legislation last fall banning the procedure it calls partial-birth abortion, Michael Farris, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and the president of Patrick Henry, was one of just five prominent Christian conservatives invited to the Oval Office for the occasion.

Patrick Henry College is the centerpiece of an effort to extend the home-schooling movement's influence beyond education to a broad range of conservative Christian issues like opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and obscenity in the media. The legal defense association, located on the Patrick Henry campus, established the college as a forward base camp in the culture war, with the stated goal of training home-schooled Christian men and women "who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values."

"We are not home-schooling our kids just so they can read," Mr. Farris said. "The most common thing I hear is parents telling me they want their kids to be on the Supreme Court. And if we put enough kids in the farm system, some may get to the major leagues."

That is an alarming prospect to some on the left.

"Mike Farris is trying to train young people to get on a very right-wing political agenda," said Nancy Keenan, the education policy director at People for the American Way, [...]

Mingling in the corridors of the White House and Congress is also a long way from the sense of retreat at the heart of the Christian home-schooling movement. It began in the early 1980's as a few thousand evangelical Christians began teaching their children at home in disgust at what they considered the increasingly secular, relativistic and irreligious culture ascendant around them — exemplified by the ban on prayer, the teaching of evolution and the promotion of contraception in the public schools.

[end excerpts]

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,
A nice exercize in logic. Can you back it up? Clarify?

I give you only this: for there to be any 'values' at all, in a logical, ethical system of morality, the primary value must be, 'life', human life.

If human life is the ultimate, and the fundamental value, upon which all other ethical considerations are based, then the protection of that 'human' life, from the moment of conception forward, is the one and only means of perceiving and realizing a rational system of ethics that involves all human activity.

This is not an argument, it is an axiomatic statement of, "if this, then that" and you are smart enough to recognize the logic.

It seems to have some obvious holes, since it begins with 'human life' and then talks about "that human life" just conceived. Assuming for the sake of argument that the moment of conception marks the start of A human life (which most theologians and moralists did not, for thousands of years), there is still the case of a threat to the life of the mother (another human life). This pits one human life against another, hence your principle can't settle the matter of what to do in that case.

Show how, according to your principle, one decides, for instance, to sacrifice the mother, for the fetus. Or to allow both to die, rather than abort the fetus.

But leaving those tired topics aside, I asked if 'respect for life' could generate answers to a number of hard questions, and since you seem to suggest it's pretty straightforward, please post your answers to the following:

When I say 'able' , below, I mean, staying within morality and the law:

1)Should you be able to issue a binding DNR order for yourself while in a hospital?

2)Should you, lacking such an order from your spouse, be able to issue a binding such order for, or 'pull the plug' on him or her, if they are near death and in pain, and not lucid enough to decide--i.e., you figure that's what they 'would' want if they could think it over now, given what they said previously?

3)Should you be able to walk to the drugstore and buy a lethal pill or injection for yourself? A bit like 'Final Exit.' (Should a note from your dr. saying youre sane and lucid be required?)

4)For a friend?

5)Administer it to a sane, lucid friend at his/her request? esp. if s/he is unable to?

6)Should a parent be able to euthanize a child who's in a degenerative slowly terminal, painful state? (Latimer case, in Canada; Mr. Latimer in prison for 'mercy killing' of daughter with carbon monoxide; she had a form of cerebral palsy disease.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/index.html

Best,
J.

 

[Pure]

www.salon.com

Justice Dept. drops abortion record hunt


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Curt Anderson



March 9, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is dropping its effort to subpoena abortion records from six Planned Parenthood affiliates as part of the government's defense of a new law barring certain late-term abortions, officials said Tuesday.

Government lawyers said they were forced to withdraw the subpoenas because of U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling in San Francisco last week that the records could not be introduced in a trial of a challenge to the law brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.


The Justice Department still is pursuing abortion records -- with names, addresses and other personal information edited out -- to defend the law against similar lawsuits brought by abortion providers in New York and Lincoln, Neb.

The lawsuits seek to invalidate a law signed by President Bush last year that bans a procedure referred to by critics as partial-birth abortion and by medical organizations as "intact dilation and extraction." In these late-term abortions, a fetus' legs and torso are pulled from the uterus and its skull is punctured.


Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the abortion records are considered central to the claims by the law's challengers that the procedure is medically necessary. But, she added, the Justice Department notified the six Planned Parenthood affiliates it would not seek to enforce subpoenas seeking the records because of the San Francisco judge's order.

The Justice Department has come under heavy criticism for its subpoenas of abortion records from many abortion rights and privacy groups, who contend that they violate women's expectations of medical privacy and could cause a chilling effect on a woman's right to an abortion.

"I am glad the department has decided to back off its subpoena for now, but it should never have attempted such as violation of women's medical records and lives in the first place," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "These subpoenas were just the latest example of this administration's willingness to go to any length to restrict a woman's right to choose."

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that all the records would be edited before they are given to government lawyers to remove all information that would identify a specific patient. [end excerpts]

 

[PDumbledore]

Freedom of choice

After reading through some of the posts, skimming through others, I felt like I should say something on this subject.

All of this boils from an argument between pro-choice and pro-life groups which has been dicussed in past posts. But everyone needs to remember one thing, and that is a piece of paper that was written more than 200 years ago by our founding fathers.

This country was built on religion. When the founding fathers of this country wrote out the ten amendments to our Bill of Rights, they based the ten on religion. Those amendments not only give use freedom of speech, but also freedom of choice.

If a female wants to spread her legs and birth ten children, that is her choice. If a female gets pregnant, and then wants to abort the child, that is her choice. The only people she would have to answer to later in life, is a higher power and herself.

I believe that this country we live in has buried itself under numerous laws, that are unnecessary, and basiclly unconstitutional. I think that we should strike all the laws from the books, and go back to our original constitution, and what it stood for when it was ratified. Our basic rights. If this country keeps going on the path that it is now, we will implode from within and destroy ourselves.

Please don't get me wrong, nor read me wrong. I love this country and would die for it.

 

[Pure]

PDumb said,

I think that we should strike all the laws from the books, and go back to our original constitution, and what it stood for when it was ratified.

Yup. Democracy hasn't been the same since those fucking cunts started voting! And where the hell are ya supposed ta find a good slave these days??? My last little Latina basement dweller finally ran off and-- can ya believe this-- applied for refugee status! Fucking Jew Commie liberal bleeding heart lawmakers.

Back to the original I say.

This country was built on religion.

White male Christian religion, too, I might add.

 

[PDumbledore]

PDumb said,

I think that we should strike all the laws from the books, and go back to our original constitution, and what it stood for when it was ratified.

Yup. Democracy hasn't been the same since those fucking cunts started voting! And where the hell are ya supposed ta find a good slave these days??? My last little Latina basement dweller finally ran off and-- can ya believe this-- applied for refugee status! Fucking Jew Commie liberal bleeding heart lawmakers.

Back to the original I say.

This country was built on religion.

White male Christian religion, too, I might add.

"All men are created equal."

This encludes every American citizen. Yes, women are inculded in that. Notice I said, "citizen."

 

[Pure]

P Dumb,

As you read the fifth and sixth amendments, do their provisions for indictment, speedy and fair trials, etc. apply to *citizens* only , or to anyone accused within the US.

As to 'citizens' rights of equality, what the f*** should we do with all them wetbacks.???

As to "All men are created equal" referring to citizens both men and women: I take it you believe the 19th amendment, providing for women's votes (ca 1920) was unnecessary.

It's funny too that folks thought the 13, 14, and 15 th amendments necessary-- for obviously 'all men' included Black people and/or slaves, right? or did it?

J.

 

[PDumbledore]

Pure,

The way you are with words, you must be either a lawyer, politician or extremist.

I have read and studied the amendments as well as you have and probable just about everyone else. We all can read it and come up with a completely different meaning. I do not wish to get into an argument with you about politics at this time. I have my beliefs, and you have yours.

That is what is great about this country we live in. We all have freedom of speech, and freedom of choice.

This post started out as a discussion of Roe v. Wade, so lets please keep it that way.

 

[Pure]

I think your remarks and mine are quite connected to the topic.

If constitutional change after 1820 is pretty much wasted or unnecessary, (and the passing of related laws), then women's rights would never have become an issue in the early 20th century. I see a line from women voting--not envisioned by the founding fathers-- and women securing rights of thier bodies, e.g., to abort in the first trimester, as per Roe b. Wade.

Now I suppose laws about abortion weren't around in the founding days of the US. In that sense I see your point. However it's hard to believe 'choice' is implicit, when the vote wasn't-- in the view of the framers.

J/.

 

[kellycummings]

Re: Freedom of choice

After reading through some of the posts, skimming through others, I felt like I should say something on this subject.

All of this boils from an argument between pro-choice and pro-life groups which has been dicussed in past posts. But everyone needs to remember one thing, and that is a piece of paper that was written more than 200 years ago by our founding fathers.

This country was built on religion. When the founding fathers of this country wrote out the ten amendments to our Bill of Rights, they based the ten on religion. Those amendments not only give use freedom of speech, but also freedom of choice.

If a female wants to spread her legs and birth ten children, that is her choice. If a female gets pregnant, and then wants to abort the child, that is her choice. The only people she would have to answer to later in life, is a higher power and herself.

I believe that this country we live in has buried itself under numerous laws, that are unnecessary, and basiclly unconstitutional. I think that we should strike all the laws from the books, and go back to our original constitution, and what it stood for when it was ratified. Our basic rights. If this country keeps going on the path that it is now, we will implode from within and destroy ourselves.

Please don't get me wrong, nor read me wrong. I love this country and would die for it.

That makes no sense? How can it be based on religion? I don't remember the Bible saying anything about the right to bear arms or the right of free speech, must less the seperation of church and state. The bible says no soldier shall be quartered in a home? It says there can't be illegal search and seizures? It says we can't be tried twice for the same crime? It says we get a speedy trial and one by jury? It says there can't be cruel and unusual punishment?
The first amendment alone says that it can't be based on religion.

 

[PDumbledore]

Re: Re: Freedom of choice

That makes no sense? How can it be based on religion? I don't remember the Bible saying anything about the right to bear arms or the right of free speech, must less the seperation of church and state. The bible says no soldier shall be quartered in a home? It says there can't be illegal search and seizures? It says we can't be tried twice for the same crime? It says we get a speedy trial and one by jury? It says there can't be cruel and unusual punishment?
The first amendment alone says that it can't be based on religion.

Kelly,

It does sound crazy, and I often find myself thinking about it in my studies. Religion was a big factor was when this country was founded, but if it was, why do we have the laws we have now? It is confusing, and it will be a debateable subject for years to come.

What I say is of my own opinion. I have always believed that if someone wants to do something, such as abortions, let them. They can only answer to themselves for what they did.