Roe is unconstitutional

noneof yourbusiness · #31 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 04:59 AM

Liek i say the more somebody calls otehrs stupid they more they are masking their own.

You religous fanatic terroists will not get to controla womens body. NO matter what.

naturemomma · #32 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye_Am

My point exactly. A panel of judges. A few people say it's so, so it is? Are you that ignorant. There are over 300 million people in this country alone. Over 7 billion in this world. Who gives under a dozen people the right to condone murder while turning around and condeming those guilty to death? What a fucking hypocrisy. Get real. Noone gives a shit about your fake ass morals.

We live in AMERICA, perhaps if you don't like laws and judges to decide you fate then you should live somewhere else, that is your right.

naturemomma · #33 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowonapost

Let's see...

Kenya's Death Toll Surpasses 1,000, Violence From Disputed December Elections Continues; Talks Between Political Rivals Resume - CBS News

BBC NEWS | Africa | UN's Darfur death estimate soars

Iraq Body Count

Global Challenges | Number of Adult Deaths in South Africa Up 44% Over Past Six Years; Researchers Attribute Rise to HIV/AIDS, Study Says - Kaisernetwork.org

Death.

Um I call it fake pre-vaginal canal morals or the real fake morals.

Worry about the unborn but the living......

F'm.

Ya that's Moral.

Moral bankruptcy.

Why because it's easier to defend a non opinion (not born yet)...but an actual opinion...let's see.

First suppress.
2nd ridicule
3rd kill.

ya moral.

Bullshit.

Repulicans want live fetus's so they can grow up to be dead soldiers.

marmalade6 · #34 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:30 AM

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.

PaleRider,

you use the terms of a Born-again. Privacy has nothing to do with the abortion issue. And, nowhere in the Constitution is the 'unborn' a recognized entity, much less one with rights.

Since Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion has been Federalized. A MOMAN UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. It is considered a MEDICAL PROCEDURE (as Upton informed you ealier inthe thread) in the courts - along the lines that everyone has the right to make their own MEDICAL DECISIONS.

The Pro-life movement began in the 1970s, abhoring the FREElove movement as morally indefensible, they moved to get congress to pass a HumanLife Amendment to the Constitution so RvW could be overturned. The amendment never came to a vote. Pro-life next went to the states to protect the Right to Life, with the intention to ultimately overturn RvW, but again they were unsuccessful.

In the controversies that occationally pop-up, Right to Life states try to regulate or limit the circumstancs and instances in which abortion takes place. In these cases, the Fed. courts are forced to weigh the rights of the mother v. the rights of the STATE.

Posted 1/14/08, in thread: A REAL LOOK AT ROE V. WADE

As long as our courts remain free of influence peddling from religious organizations, we as women will have the right to self-determination.

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #35 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

Repulicans want live fetus's so they can grow up to be dead soldiers.

That is not true

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #36 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

PaleRider,

you use the terms of a Born-again. Privacy has nothing to do with the abortion issue. And, nowhere in the Constitution is the 'unborn' a recognized entity, much less one with rights.

Since Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion has been Federalized. A MOMAN UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. It is considered a MEDICAL PROCEDURE (as Upton informed you ealier inthe thread) in the courts - along the lines that everyone has the right to make their own MEDICAL DECISIONS.

The Pro-life movement began in the 1970s, abhoring the FREElove movement as morally indefensible, they moved to get congress to pass a HumanLife Amendment to the Constitution so RvW could be overturned. The amendment never came to a vote. Pro-life next went to the states to protect the Right to Life, with the intention to ultimately overturn RvW, but again they were unsuccessful.

In the controversies that occationally pop-up, Right to Life states try to regulate or limit the circumstancs and instances in which abortion takes place. In these cases, the Fed. courts are forced to weigh the rights of the mother v. the rights of the STATE.

Posted 1/14/08, in thread: A REAL LOOK AT ROE V. WADE

As long as our courts remain free of influence peddling from religious organizations, we as women will have the right to self-determination.

don't you mean fetal-termination???

36shadow · #37 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:41 AM

Oh so momma you rather kill them up front so they don't have a choice right off the bat. hmmmmmmmmmm that makes about as much sense as right to lifers killing those going into abortion clinics. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm here is a plan lets spew out shit just to get a reaction lets forget about any facts to back it up. hmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmm

wolf_22 · #38 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye_Am

What? I have no idea about what you are saying. Your post is so eclectic, as to be almost unreadable. You make no sense. Seriously. Your post is mish mash. The parts I do understand... Sure, lets compare abortion to 911 or Afghanistan. Are you serious? I'm sure you will come back with a response. But seriously, a normal person is not going to understand, (Quote) "Not just the fact that we can Jerry Springer fuck shit & it randomly comes to life....& say God did it." Huh? For a political forum where I expect a little intelligence beyond the norm, it is so far, lacking.

let me make it simple-
its easy to talk about defending fetuses. its hard to talk about saving people who are alive now. its hard to deal with the problems we already have and much simpler to think about hypothetical solutions to an issue that for many isn't an issue.
if someone says they are 'pro-life' I'm fine with that- but that means you have to worry about all life- especially the ones that exist now!

36shadow · #39 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_22

let me make it simple-
its easy to talk about defending fetuses. its hard to talk about saving people who are alive now. its hard to deal with the problems we already have and much simpler to think about hypothetical solutions to an issue that for many isn't an issue.
if someone says they are 'pro-life' I'm fine with that- but that means you have to worry about all life- especially the ones that exist now!

Now we are both on the same page, being such a great country it is a disgrace how we treat many and our attitude of the old, homless etc. I use to go down once a month and take a person to lunch at random and talk to them and try to help them get a job wich many jumped on the chance. You would be amazed just how Not possable it is to get work with out a home address. Not all of them are there because they are dumb or lazy.

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #40 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 01:25 AM

No no sorry wolf, the demonizing of pro-lifers by throwing the homeless & the poor in our faces won’t work. These are American problem, not a pro-lifers. So reward the baby slayer for a good deed & the pro-lifers are scum.

Killing a baby to prevent homelessness, poverty, wars etc…is irresponsible. Like I have said before; all these things will exist without abortions as abortion serves no greater purpose other than personal convenience.