U.S. Supreme Court gets it right on thwarting tyranny and gun control.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by nwagner

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment."

If that were truly the case you would think that after 35 years the supposed mistake in the court's judgment would have somehow been corrected.

I look back at the 8 years of Ronald Reagan and the 8 years of Bush... If it were truly a priority something would have happened to dismantle Roe by now.

No, I believe the neo-cons are quite happy with the way things are, as the abortion issue can always be used to rally the troops for a future unnamed cause that is really near & dear to their heart.

[Andrew Shick]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

God gave the woman a womb to bring life into the world. When she destroys
that life, for her own convenience, she also destroys something within herself. The
majority of women are deeply troubled after an abortion, no matter how many
times they try to call their dead baby a fetus.

Mothers become so bonded with their child, even before birth, they are part
of each other for life. The joy and love in Motherhood is a part of the law of
nature and was given as a gift from the God of nature. We do well to
get back to basics. Our society has become wise in it's own conceit and many
a woman has been cheated from the joys of Motherhood by philosophy of
educated fools. All of us were a fetus at one time and had a Mother who chose
life.

Now... it's your turn to "pay it forward".

An argument based solely on the belief in God.

[Michael Larson]

A belief in God is totally unnecessary to to argue against abortion "rights"
Besides it gets too many people's panties in a wad:

The only way the that an pro abortionist can support abortion "rights" is to declare the unborn child little more than a lump of excess tissue even if it's been there 9 months.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

If that were truly the case you would think that after 35 years the supposed mistake in the court's judgment would have somehow been corrected.

As John pointed out, the court took far longer than 35 years to rule against slavery and racial discrimination. Plus your assumption that the court holds itself accountable for its bad decisions is akin to believing that the politicians aren't influenced by the special interests that fund their campaigns.

I look back at the 8 years of Ronald Reagan and the 8 years of Bush... If it were truly a priority something would have happened to dismantle Roe by now.

The supreme court doesn't answer to the excutive branch. All the presidents can do is nominate justices when seats become vacant. They can't force them to hear cases and rule a certain way. And there is that nasty little thing called precedence ...

No, I believe the neo-cons are quite happy with the way things are, as the abortion issue can always be used to rally the troops for a future unnamed cause that is really near & dear to their heart.

Just like many other issues that both sides of the isle exploit every election cycle.

Joe, the thing I think that should worry you about Roe V Wade is how the Supreme Court blatantly legislated from the bench by bastardizing the 9th and 14th Ammendments. I fail to see where in the constitution, especially in these ammendments, that an abortion is an unalienable right.

Pregnancy, except in the case of rape, is the consequence of a choice and this consequence is not the result of government action, hence the government is not depriving a woman her life and liberty when an abortion is denied when her life is not endangered by the pregnacy and is not the result of rape.

[klott]

Originally Posted by rmaday

When does the baby get due process?

When it is old enough to vote!

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by klott

When it is old enough to vote!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are being facetious.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Joe, the thing I think that should worry you about Roe V Wade is how the Supreme Court blatantly legislated from the bench by bastardizing the 9th and 14th Ammendments. I fail to see where in the constitution, especially in these ammendments, that an abortion is an unalienable right.

I am convinced that abortion like slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage & equality for gays is something that if left to the people would have remained unchanged. Sometimes the Courts have to come in and make hard unpopular choices.

Taken to its logical roots those who oppose abortion should really be against birth control in all of its forms and masturbation should be considered murder too. Just where does life begin?

[Andrew Shick]

Originally Posted by klott

When it is old enough to vote!

Voting age doesn't have anything to do with the kind of rights we're discussing.
Being viable without having to be attached to it's mother does (as far as I'm concerned).
Although this:

Pregnancy, except in the case of rape, is the consequence of a choice and this consequence is not the result of government action, hence the government is not depriving a woman her life and liberty when an abortion is denied when her life is not endangered by the pregnacy and is not the result of rape.

Is a pretty good arguement.
The other thing that makes my position a little lacking is the fact that a human baby can't live without care from an adult, so the whole "viable" thing kinda goes out the window. See, I can't even agree with myself.

I didn't do a very good job of not starting a big debate about it did I?

Originally Posted by bkelly2

That being said I still believe that some sort of regulation is necessary to slow down the criminal element from getting firearms that are considered military equipment.

The problem is where does one reasonably draw the line? And then how does it get enforced?

No line needs to be drawn, and the only enforcement needed is if it's used as a threat to someone elses freedom (you know, kinda like the gubment uses them). I couldn't care less if my neighbor has a Howitzer, as long as he doesn't point it at me, and he lets me shoot it once in a while!

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Just where does life begin?

Fantastic question Joe.

It safe to say that it's sometime before T-minus exiting the birth canal.

[Nick Gromicko]

I know this sounds crazy but the recent 2nd amendment ruling regarding gun rights has a direct effect on repealing Roe v Wade.

[John McKenna]

"...it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks
after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not." -
James D. Agresti

This debate is very hard for people to change their mind on. If they are
pro abortion, then they would have to admit they have endorsed, and
perhaps assisted in the murder of a helpless baby. There is a huge investment
of ego and shame that will not allow these people to let go of their abortion
view. It forces them into a state of denial because it is so traumatic to
consider, plus the modern phylosphy of casual sex is greatly hindered by the
side affects (babies).

But the pro life people cannot change their view because they cannot accept
murder as something to agree with.

Consider the roots of the abortion mind set....

"The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.1 Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:

"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2

Margaret Sanger also continued to advocate for her racial prejudices in her magazine, Birth Control Review. In six successive issues of that magazine, she advocated limiting the racial quotas of immigration of "Slavs, Hebrews, and Latins,"7 because of their lower intelligence! Although Ms. Sanger was the editor of the magazine, she shared its pages with the racist co-founders of the American Birth Control League. Board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the racist book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World- Supremacy 8, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review.9 Co- founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference. He advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.10

Margaret Sanger was also strongly anti-Semitic. She started a similar birth control organization with a man named Henry Pratt Fairchild, who wrote The Melting Pot Mistake, in which he accused "the Jews" of diluting the true American stock.11 In his book, Race and Nationality, (1947), Fairchild blamed anti-Semitism and the holocaust in part on "the Jews."12

Finally, Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of eugenics during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WWII in order to disguise her racist past.13 Today, her organization, Planned Parenthood, is still in the forefront of advocating abortion as a means of eliminating the unwanted and "unfit." Not only does the organization perform thousands abortions each year, it also receives 100's of millions of tax dollars each year through Federal and State Governments.14 And rather than being in the forefront of a woman's right to choose, International Planned Parenthood is a primary advocate for the Chinese Government's policy of forcing women to have abortions against their will, and it also advocates for the sterilization of Third World non-Whites across the globe.15 It seems that PP is "pro-choice" when trying to impress the U.S. media, but anti-choice in the actual implementation of its world-wide agenda.

But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader… we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission… abortion is only the tip of the iceberg."16

One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems:..."

http://www.scholarscorner.com/ethics/Anti-Semitism.html

[nwagner]

Abortion is legal, so please refrain from improperly using the term murder ...

Originally Posted by American Heritage Dictionary

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

This debate is very hard for people to change their mind on.

Nice try, no cigar. Most people have had no direct experience in regards to abortion and to the majority it is simply another in a vast universe of open-ended philosophical/political questions.

I have wrestled with the abortion issue and when all is said & done I could not, would not trust the government to protect a womans right to her own body thus leaving me with no choice but to choose to become pro-choice.

The religious right has poisoned the well for themselves and others in matters like this and can no longer be trusted regarding social norms, to them everything is rooted in sin and needs to be controlled and or banned.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Abortion is legal, so please refrain from improperly using the term murder ...

A bad law does not change the truth or a mans conscience.

That's why the word "murder" stings the most in this discussion.
It is indeed the crux of the matter and why the vast majority
of women are traumatized for years after an abortion. Of coarse
no one bothers to tell them about this small side affect, while
selling them the 'embryo not a baby' scam.

I will let real life abortion providers tell you their story... in them
you will find the path of forgiveness.

Read the Testimonies

Testimonies by the courageous former abortion providers below are available for you to read.

Carol Everett had an abortion in 1973, starting her down the path to operating a group of abortion clinics in the Dallas area.
[Read Ms. Everett's Story]

Dr. Beverly McMillan was an abortionist and radical feminist until increasing anxiety over abortion led to her Christian conversion.
[Read Dr. McMillan's STORY]

Joan Appleton was the head nurse at Commonwealth Women’s Clinic in Wasthington, D.C., where she was befriended by a sidewalk counselor.
[Read Ms. Appleton's Story]

Joy Davis ran six regional abortion clinics for abortionist Tommy Tucker, who taught her to perform abortions herself without formal medical training.
[Read Ms. Davis's Story]

Dr. McArthur Hill performed abortions as an Air Force surgeon, many of them before the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision.
[Read Dr. Hill's Story]

Dr. Anthony Levatino performed hundreds of abortions as an OB/Gyn. The tragic death of his adopted daughter helped him quit abortion.
[Read Dr. Levatino's Story]

"I remember getting called down to my chairman's office because a young lady that I had done an abortion on showed up, and the abortion had been incomplete. I had not done my job right, and she passed an arm or a leg and she freaked out because she didn't realize what had happened."

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

I am convinced that abortion like slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage & equality for gays is something that if left to the people would have remained unchanged. Sometimes the Courts have to come in and make hard unpopular choices.

The Court's purpose is to ensure the proper application of the constitution, not to create laws and ammendments that a minority cannot force upon the majority through legislative means. Slavery and racially discriminatory laws blatantly violated the will of the constitution and were rightfully repealed, despite popular opinion. Abortion rights are a grey area and the 9th and 14th ammendment assertions are illogical.

Taken to its logical roots those who oppose abortion should really be against birth control in all of its forms and masturbation should be considered murder too.

No, it depends on when you define life begins. Personally, I find it to difficult to make that judgment. IMO though, sperm and eggs are not human lives by themselves and therefore forms of birth control that prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg are not abortion. From fertilization to birth is gray area to me.