Roe is unconstitutional

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #51 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

Ya know, that's true. Personal convenience. Completely true. But a womans right nonetheless.

Wolf, Shadow and go right, we have been arguing about this for days, and the thing that gets me is that in some ways we are all saying the same thing. All 4 of us value life. I don't personally agree w/ abortion, and I whink wolf has said the same. I believe however that a woman should be able to choose.

I have 2 daughters, yes, said this before but i am going to say it again. I don't give a shit if they make a stupid decision, I don't want them to pay for it for the rest of their lives - and screw up their entire future, because of your, or my morality! Anytime anyone gives up personal freedom - they become slaves - end of argument.

Agreed we have,

but.....

there is a clear difference in our personal freedom ideologies....& I say it enslaves them

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #52 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturemomma

As soon as I posted that I thought of you

(in a good funny ha ha way)

lol,

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #53 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 03:38 AM

You know another thing that I have mentioned before, is the lack there of from the pro-choicers. Why are there so many? How many are having multiple (non medical related) abortions? Why Isn’t there some kind of ‘reform” underway? The responsible thing is to make it your mission to prove beyond science, religion, etc…that the right to choice on this issue is & has been a responsible one?

Come be honest, some of you say you are pro-choice “with exceptions”, but what if you personally knew someone that has had multiple abortions, like 3-4? Non medical related. Would it not somehow kick you in the gut? Make you wonder when enough is enough? Make you doubt the whole right to choice, because of that one irresponsible person?

Just a thought...???...

George O Well · #54 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenianforever1689

penumbras and emanations my ass.

>>>When Constitutionalists stop having abortions, I'll agree with you.

wolf_22 · #55 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong

You know another thing that I have mentioned before, is the lack there of from the pro-choicers. Why are there so many? How many are having multiple (non medical related) abortions? Why Isn’t there some kind of ‘reform” underway? The responsible thing is to make it your mission to prove beyond science, religion, etc…that the right to choice on this issue is & has been a responsible one?

Come be honest, some of you say you are pro-choice “with exceptions”, but what if you personally knew someone that has had multiple abortions, like 3-4? Non medical related. Would it not somehow kick you in the gut? Make you wonder when enough is enough? Make you doubt the whole right to choice, because of that one irresponsible person?

Just a thought...???...

naturally I don't want anyone using abortion as birthcontrol- but it happens (I think it is a fairely rare occurance though).
as I said before- you reap what you sow.
abortion carrys risks and side effects- the more of them you have the more risk and the great the side effects.
there is no such thing as doing anything in life with out a consequence.

yes part of responcibilty is to prevent pregnancy. but if a person fails than they must take the responcibilty for their future, their partner's future, their family, and the possibilty of a child's future.
being responcible is choosing the best option and handling all of its consequences- both negative and positive.

marmalade6 · #56 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong

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.

Yes, you think you heighten your arguement by calling a fetus, even a group of unfeeling cells, a baby. Control is your motive. Misbegotten, vengeful, how dare she, control. Unfeeling cells are just that, unfeeling. We destroy litters of kittens and puppies without a backward thought, in the name of responsible care. At this stage, your Baby is nothing more than a litter.

So, the thought is the Soul is what makes us different from that litter. Do you really think a Soul worth it's beans will invest itself in a body that is not yet viable? You bet it wont.

You see you bornagain creaures, one myth is as valid as another. Numbers don't make it any more so.

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #57 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_22

naturally I don't want anyone using abortion as birthcontrol- but it happens (I think it is a fairely rare occurance though).
as I said before- you reap what you sow.
abortion carrys risks and side effects- the more of them you have the more risk and the great the side effects.
there is no such thing as doing anything in life with out a consequence.

yes part of responcibilty is to prevent pregnancy. but if a person fails than they must take the responcibilty for their future, their partner's future, their family, and the possibilty of a child's future.
being responcible is choosing the best option and handling all of its consequences- both negative and positive.

This a thoughtful answer but it doesn't address the issues as a whole.

If one reeps then the entire group reeps, right???

And be honest, some of you say you are pro-choice “with exceptions”, but what if you personally knew someone that has had multiple abortions, like 3-4? Non medical related. Would it not somehow kick you in the gut? Make you wonder when enough is enough? Make you doubt the whole right to choice, because of that one irresponsible person?

I'd like to know your answer to the above question? This is not for battle purposes, it's a genuine interest.

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #58 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Yes, you think you heighten your arguement by calling a fetus, even a group of unfeeling cells, a baby. Control is your motive. Misbegotten, vengeful, how dare she, control. Unfeeling cells are just that, unfeeling. We destroy litters of kittens and puppies without a backward thought, in the name of responsible care. At this stage, your Baby is nothing more than a litter.

So, the thought is the Soul is what makes us different from that litter. Do you really think a Soul worth it's beans will invest itself in a body that is not yet viable? You bet it wont.

You see you bornagain creaures, one myth is as valid as another. Numbers don't make it any more so.

Control has nothing to do with this argument nor does religion. This debate has finally turned civil, so unless you have somehting productive to add, then don't address me.

Cookie Parker · #59 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 07:05 PM

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.

Here is the decision on Roe v. Wade in a nutshell..the privacy issue is a strawman from the anti-choice people to discredit the constitutional amendment...

Supreme Court Decision on Privacy & Abortion: Roe v. Wade

Quote:

As to whether or not this general right to privacy should encompass pregnancy, the Court said:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

The Court did not, however, agree with the plaintiffs' argument that a woman therefore had a right to have an abortion any time and for any reason. Instead, they agreed that the State does have some valid interest in regulating abortion, so long as such regulation does not make abortion impossible. Thus, the State may restrict abortions in the second and especially third trimester in the interest of protecting the health of the mother.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Stewart noted that earlier decisions in Griswold and Eisenstadt led logically to this one:

...we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Significance

With this decision, abortions became legal for all women across the United States. Even today, the decision is hotly debated - both by people who believe that life begins at conception and by people who do not think that any rights beyond those expressed by the plain text of the Constitution should be judicially recognized and protected.
-->

Those people who disagree with the right to have constitutional amendments added, the pure federalists, would have women go back to being incapable of owning property and blacks back to slavery.

36shadow · #60 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_22

naturally I don't want anyone using abortion as birthcontrol- but it happens (I think it is a fairely rare occurance though).
as I said before- you reap what you sow.
abortion carrys risks and side effects- the more of them you have the more risk and the great the side effects.
there is no such thing as doing anything in life with out a consequence.

yes part of responcibilty is to prevent pregnancy. but if a person fails than they must take the responcibilty for their future, their partner's future, their family, and the possibilty of a child's future.
being responcible is choosing the best option and handling all of its consequences- both negative and positive.

Well if I were you I would check the statistics. Someone put them up before and it showed that in fact statisticly most abortions are performed on unwanted pregnancy (birth control) not rape victims or those that endanger the womans life. So revs the arguement and concern. Anytime someone wants to hold people responsable for there actions these days they are automaticly racist , or haters of some kind or control freaks. Well if that were so then it would be no compromise and it would be a no abortion at all under any cercumstances. This is mearly taking a stance on abortion as a form of birth control period.