yea, but according to the way that thomas jefferson would have found opinions and liberties of voicing opinions, he would have found that as the right way.

dangerous thinking?/ be proud that i am thinking hehe.

Backup?

Plus, I believe the mental anguish you refer to is only brought on by society and people like you who call these mother's murderers when you have no reference and no way of knowing what it is like to be them.

OH YEA!! good point to bring up JAAAMAN i always wondered wat the mental effects were on the would have been mother.

Yes sir it is. That is the sort of thinking that sparks facism.

i was just making a theory is all...

That's a liberal ruling. Why should the courts grant the right? It's an over-reaching federal ruling, which should be overturned, imho. I support abortion, but it's a state issue more than a federal one. Texas should not be forced to allow abortions because Massachusetts does.

The simply fact that Texas is forced to defeats the point of a democracy. No one voted to make abortion nationally legal. It completes the legislature out of the picture. Texas should decide as a state if it wants abortion legal or not. Let the people decide. Same with Massachusetts. I live in Mass and as such, am not worried about abortion becoming illegal. It's a state's decision, not a court's.


I can't think of any conservative rulings off the top of my head that are scary. If anyone could bring to my attention one that is scary (and is still active...meaning no "segregation is legal" from the 40s or anything like that, please), cite the case(s) and I'll form my stance on them.

Try it from a Constitutional aspect (I've posted this before)...

The V and XIV Amendments specifically protect LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY from deprivations "WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW". This is embodied by the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE principle "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The operative principle is rooted in our Constitution in the fundemental principles of JUSTICE, "innocent until proven guilty" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". These principles are designed to "err on the safe side" so as to prevent wrongful removal of LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY without "DUE PROCESS OF LAW". If these, as I have shown, are our fundamental principles of "DUE PROCESS" then the Court must also adhere to these principles under "LIFE AT CONCEPTION UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE".

The Constitution isn't flawless, there will always be exceptions. I think abortion is one of them; protect the woman's interests, or protect the fetus? I say leave it up to the woman, because no matter what it says on ANY document, be it the Constitution or the Bible, nobody has the right to eliminate a woman's choices, even if they are bad choices. I personally am against abortion, but I'm not against women being able to make their own choices. It's one of the major downsides to living in a white, heterosexist, male dominated society--they think their say should be followed by everyone.

LIFE is specifically covered within the Constitution, the Founding Fathers understood they may have left a thing or two out and thus included the X Amendment (Which makes it just about as perfect a document as you can get). In other words, if the Constitution doesn't cover it, then it is left to the people and the States, not to some unelected Supreme Court Justice.

To your point of the womans rights. Keep in mind that our rights end when they impede on the rights of another. Then refer back to my above post concerning the V and XIV Amendments, focusing most of all on "DUE PROCESS".

You're missing the point, it's a decision that should be left to the individual. The law shouldn't have any say in what a woman does with her fetus, if she chooses to receive an abortion, she should have that option, if she thinks it's wrong and immoral, then she can have her baby and set it up for adoption. It's ridiculous to fight for the 'rights' of a fetus--not a baby, not a person, but a fetus--belonging to someone totally unrelated to you.

I believe what people should be thinking about when they jump up on their soapbox about how wrong it is to take the life of a child [that isn't actually a child], is how cruel and disgusting the notion of 'consumer freedom' can be when most of the meat on the market today is produced under torturous conditions ( nearly 40% of it ends up going to waste anyway) and half the hygeneial products, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals are distributed by companies that subject animals to awfully cruel tests.

Does this mean there can't be exceptions? Of course not, some people need meat, it's in their genetics. We can depend on nature to provide us with hygenial products, cosmetics and treatments for many ailments. But what I'm saying is that no one is reaping profits from preforming abortions, no one is driving home from the clinic feeling happy or satisfied with what they've done, and people are being faced with decisions that are hard to make. The guilt is punishment enough for having an abortion.

The law can't account for everything, but individual choice can, instead of outlawing abortion so that women will go to greater lengths to get rid of their baby, let them do it in a healthy matter. The option needs to be there for women because there are many that are stuck in situations I'm sure no one would ever like to be in, but above all it is NO ONE ELSE'S RIGHT to dictate what a woman can or can't do with her body. Next to that, it's none of your business, and it sure as hell isn't any of the State's business.

Teach safe sex, not abstinence; teenagers are horny, that's a fact of nature. No one's going to stop Johnny from having unprotected sex with Sally if they're ready to do it. Provide condoms and information, not rules and distrust.