 |
|

02-08-2008, 03:17 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,615
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Again. There is no right to privacy. You can not do whatever you want in the privacy of your home and an implied right to privacy does not suggest that you may kill another human being in order to maintain your privacy.
|
That's not the way the Supreme Court saw it ruling laws banning abortion violated an implied right to privacy in the United States Constitution.
It gets down to this, until the court rules otherwise abortion is a legal medical procedure. Get used to it.
|

02-08-2008, 03:25 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,252
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
An implied right to privacy does not trump an explicit right to live.
Show me anywhere in the 4th amendment where there is either an implied, or an explicit right for a woman to kill her child without legal consequence for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.
|
A right to privacy, as interpreted by our courts, means that a woman has the right to make choices with her own body, it is her personal property.
Read the case law for yourself.
|

02-08-2008, 03:32 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,501
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Again. There is no right to privacy.
|
Yes, there is.
Quote:
|
You can not do whatever you want in the privacy of your home
|
No, you can not.
Quote:
|
and an implied right to privacy does not suggest that you may kill another human being in order to maintain your privacy.
|
No, it does not....certainly not....and I never said that it did. No rights are absolute, Pale...but, that does not mean those rights do not exist.
__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...
|

02-08-2008, 05:15 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 3,153
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Again. There is no right to privacy. You can not do whatever you want in the privacy of your home and an implied right to privacy does not suggest that you may kill another human being in order to maintain your privacy.
|
Privacy from Government is covered under the bill of rights. Abortion is not, all powers not given to Congress shall be delegated to the Individual States.
Hope that clarifies.
__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman
|

02-08-2008, 05:59 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,627
|
|
a fetus is not a live human being. not legally and not medically.
it can't think, feel, or sustain itself.
if people are so concerned about it being alive than fine, I have a compromise- instead of abortion we will just induce labor and have it be born during the first trimester (considering most abortions take place during the first 12 weeks).
why don't we worry about living people?
once people are out of the womb they no longer matter?
|

02-08-2008, 06:14 PM
|
|
Political Novice
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 20
|
|
A fucking joke. A child is conceived and all of a sudden it's inherent humanity is decided by a panel of judges? Get real. Boo fucking Hoo. So a woman gets pregnant. It's her decision to murder? It's my body... I hear the child saying the same thing. You people don't realize that life is not in your hands... I'm tired of this argument. Oops, I made a mistake while drinking one night... It's my choice to have this child. I will kill it and stand up for my rights of morality.
__________________
"Why should my freedom be judged by another man's conscience?"
|

02-08-2008, 06:14 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,195
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturemomma
A right to privacy, as interpreted by our courts, means that a woman has the right to make choices with her own body, it is her personal property.
Read the case law for yourself.
|
To her own body yes but that should include something that depends on her for the chance of life that came about by her decision. At inception the egg is the begining of the creation of life(fertilization ie the spark of life if you will). A baby at 15 weeks or hell 6 months can not live on its own outside of its mom that does not make it anyless alive or human. How about the right for women to be responsable for their decisions especialy when it come to the creation of life. If it is rape or the health of the mother is in danger then there is a clear cut undersanding that it is a choice of the woman for something that was out of her control and she will have to live with the results so ya it should be her choice. But just because she decided to have sex and got pregnant and she now does not want it hell no. She should have thought of that before she spread her legs. Abortion for understandable reasons like the date rape pill etc. moraly understandable, abortion as a form of birth control not moraly understandable., How clear cut does it have to get.
__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow
|

02-08-2008, 06:17 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Show me a right to privacy in the constitution. Hell, show me the word "privacy" in the constitution. You have no right to privacy. And there are any number of laws that tell you what you can and can not do with, put into, or take out of your body so any suggestion that abortion is a unique attempt for government to tell you what you can do with your body is inherently dishonest.
|
Yeah and those laws are more of an issue than abortion is. They need to be abolished. Do you think any of the writers of the constitution would agree with those laws? I doubt it.
|

02-08-2008, 06:30 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
An implied right to privacy does not trump an explicit right to live. Your obviously an idiot. Abortion is an issue that only a fool would take up. Do you really think abortion is one of the most serious issues of our time?
Show me anywhere in the 4th amendment they didn't write about it because it was commonplace, it happened everyday. Back then there were not so many educated idiots like yourself where there is either an implied, or an explicit right for a woman to kill her child without legal consequence for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.
|
What is so fucking great about this life anyways? You assume most unborn children would want to come experience the misery of this world. Not everybody is born with a silver spoon in their mouth like u. Most peoples lives are miserable and you are fighting to extend their misery because you assume everyone is as fortunate as yourself
|

02-08-2008, 10:54 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,252
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 36shadow
To her own body yes but that should include something that depends on her for the chance of life that came about by her decision. At inception the egg is the begining of the creation of life(fertilization ie the spark of life if you will). A baby at 15 weeks or hell 6 months can not live on its own outside of its mom that does not make it anyless alive or human. How about the right for women to be responsable for their decisions especialy when it come to the creation of life. If it is rape or the health of the mother is in danger then there is a clear cut undersanding that it is a choice of the woman for something that was out of her control and she will have to live with the results so ya it should be her choice. But just because she decided to have sex and got pregnant and she now does not want it hell no. She should have thought of that before she spread her legs. Abortion for understandable reasons like the date rape pill etc. moraly understandable, abortion as a form of birth control not moraly understandable., How clear cut does it have to get.
|
So bascially your point is that some life is more valuable than other life.!?
Life conceived from a bar mishap has far greater weight than life conceived from rape?
I think you should examine your beliefs. Really what you are saying is that a woman should be held accountable, it has nothing to do with the fetus. It has everything to do with "that bitch should pay" - thanks for making my point that no one should have control over anothers reproductive organs. You my friend, are a woman hater.
I believe, and I have said this so many times, that a woman has the right to choose in the first trimester - only. Also, at six months a child can live outside the womb. Medicine has come quite a long way.
I also don't believe that abortion should be used as a form control. However, a woman has the right to choose - she may not choose wisely, but she has a choice nonetheless.
As far as her thinking before she spreads her legs - perhaps men should also think before tripping and letting their dick fall in. Men bear no responsibility in the consequence - should they so CHOOSE - they have a CHOICE to walk away, why should a woman not be afforded the same opportunity? Oh, because you and yours claim murder? Oh please. Science says differently. If men got pregnant this wouldn't even be an issue.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|