I Don't Hate Babies

[Conservative65]

No, it's murder.

When a woman knows that lying on her back and spreading her legs can produce pregnancy, she's already made the choice. What you advocate is the same as someone because they no longer want to make a payment on a house or car can simply walk away from it without anyone saying anything or nothing happening.

There's no such thing as an unwanted child. If you know how it works to get pregnant and take that action, you can't say it's unwanted. If I don't want something, I don't take the steps that have the potential of producing that result.

I bet you're one of those who thinks taxpayers should fund birth control and believe so because you believe that's cheaper than supporting a child. The problem there is you also believe that what a woman does with her body is her choice without having the same level of belief that anything related to that choice is her responsibility. In other words, you don't care what she chooses to do and believe when she can't afford it, others should be forced to pay for it on her behalf. Tell you what. A woman can have all the abortions she wants or all the kids she wants. However, when it comes to medical problems she has or an inability to support the children she chose to birth, tough shit. I'm willing to do what she wants with her body as long as she's willing to return the favor with MY money.

Deal?

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that abortion is not 'murder.'

Otherwise, this post is yet another example of the authoritarian social right and the contempt most conservatives have for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Your view is yet another example of someone making a choice then killing the result they don't like as a result of that choice.

It's a fact that you being aborted would have done the world a favor.

You, sir, are disgusting.

Add yourself to the list. Anyone that would support the killing of unborn babies because the mattress back that didn't like the results of doing so wanted to rid herself of it deserves the same treatment.

That's quite a pro-LIFE stance. Wishing anyone dead who has a different opinion from you, even Mr. Constitution, who doesn't like abortion, either. I think there's a name for that....

According to you had you been aborted, the meaning of add yourself to the list, you were't really a life and it really wasn't murder.

 

[OldLady]

Oh how noble! Humans are no different than plants to you. The ones that don't seem promising to you don't deserve to live. Pull them up by the roots, or stomp out the seedlings before they can sprout. What a fucking humanitarian you are.

You got it. Quality above quantity. Plants, people, whatever.

Guess what? You ARE a nazi-eque eugenicist. Become something closer to a decent human being.

Like you? I prefer not to be an intolerant, judgmental boor, thank you very much.

 

[Unkotare]

Oh how noble! Humans are no different than plants to you. The ones that don't seem promising to you don't deserve to live. Pull them up by the roots, or stomp out the seedlings before they can sprout. What a fucking humanitarian you are.

You got it. Quality above quantity. Plants, people, whatever.

Guess what? You ARE a nazi-eque eugenicist. Become something closer to a decent human being.

Like you? I prefer not to be an intolerant, judgmental boor, thank you very much.

You love to be judgmental, just not of yourself.

 

[rcfieldz]

I'm looking for a woman who wants to have a family. Not a horny woman who wants to kill my offspring. Celibacy is not a cruel word. But Abortion is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm looking for a woman who wants to have a family. Not a horny woman who wants to kill my offspring. Celibacy is not a cruel word. But Abortion is.

Abortion is a medical procedure.

 

[Dana7360]

The Supreme Court gave themselves the power to strike down laws in Marbury v. Madison:

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

When they use that power to declare a law unconstitutional on grounds that aren't really in the Constitution, then it is tyranny.

You might want to look up the part in the constitution about judicial review.

Then get back to me.

Meanwhile you certainly aren't a very good American if you don't follow the constitution.

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you are a lawyer or a Constitutional law professor, with knowledge of the Constitution.

However, you are wrong.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it up out of nowhere.

If you can find "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please let me know where it is.

Also, there was no Constitutional basis for the decision to strike down state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court just whipped that out of it's ass.

So where did you get your law degree? Wherever you got it, you should return it. You didn't learn the basics of our constitution and government.

Look up the 4th Amendment.

It clearly says everyone has a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

Privacy in their persons doesn't only apply to men. Nor does it apply to only things you agree with.

Yes the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that everyone must be treated equal under the law. Which is what homosexual marriage was argued under.

The supreme court sided with the constitution and me on both issues. Not you.

Just saying something doesn't make it true nor legal.

So you're wrong.

Stop trying to be cute. You're only making a fool of yourself.

 

[Dana7360]

My mother told me and my brother if abortions were legal I wouldn't be here. Guess where I stand.

So that explains why you're so full of hate.

Your mother didn't want you and was forced to have you against her will.

Now your posts make sense to me.

I'm sorry you had to grow up that way. Every child should be wanted and loved.

I never said I was full of hate. I regularly call you and idiot ...because you are one and think you know what you're talking about. I'm not the one that needs to escape reality and smoke dope like a religion, you are so take your sanctimonious shit and stuff it.

I never said you said you were full of hate.

I said you were full of hate.

Every post from you to anyone who doesn't agree with your views is nothing but hate.

I understand why now. You weren't wanted or loved by your mother. She probably treated you horribly. Anyone who would look at their child and say that if abortion was legal they would have aborted them is a very bad mother and clearly shouldn't have given birth to any children.

You didn't deserve to be raised that way. Not all parents are like that. Most parents love their children. At least those parents who wanted and planned their children.

Obviously your mother and maybe father didn't want you and had no problem telling you. You grew up in hate with out the proper love so you became the hateful person you are now.

My heart goes out to you. No one deserves what you went through.

Everyone deserves loving parents who don't tell their child that they were unwanted and wished they aborted the child.

At least now I understand why you're the way you are.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh how noble! Humans are no different than plants to you. The ones that don't seem promising to you don't deserve to live. Pull them up by the roots, or stomp out the seedlings before they can sprout. What a fucking humanitarian you are.

You got it. Quality above quantity. Plants, people, whatever.

Guess what? You ARE a nazi-eque eugenicist. Become something closer to a decent human being.

Like you? I prefer not to be an intolerant, judgmental boor, thank you very much.

You failed if that's the case.

 

[Iceweasel]

My mother told me and my brother if abortions were legal I wouldn't be here. Guess where I stand.

So that explains why you're so full of hate.

Your mother didn't want you and was forced to have you against her will.

Now your posts make sense to me.

I'm sorry you had to grow up that way. Every child should be wanted and loved.

I never said I was full of hate. I regularly call you and idiot ...because you are one and think you know what you're talking about. I'm not the one that needs to escape reality and smoke dope like a religion, you are so take your sanctimonious shit and stuff it.

I never said you said you were full of hate.

I said you were full of hate.

Every post from you to anyone who doesn't agree with your views is nothing but hate.

I understand why now. You weren't wanted or loved by your mother. She probably treated you horribly. Anyone who would look at their child and say that if abortion was legal they would have aborted them is a very bad mother and clearly shouldn't have given birth to any children.

You didn't deserve to be raised that way. Not all parents are like that. Most parents love their children. At least those parents who wanted and planned their children.

Obviously your mother and maybe father didn't want you and had no problem telling you. You grew up in hate with out the proper love so you became the hateful person you are now.

My heart goes out to you. No one deserves what you went through.

Everyone deserves loving parents who don't tell their child that they were unwanted and wished they aborted the child.

At least now I understand why you're the way you are.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're close to getting banned. I personally don't give a fuck what your hollowed out brain conjures up, you are an idiot. You are the one that stays stoned on pot to escape reality, I have no problem with it. You want to kill babies, not me. Your priorities are all fucked up. You are all fucked up. Trying to hide it with calling me hateful is transparent.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Supreme Court gave themselves the power to strike down laws in Marbury v. Madison:

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

When they use that power to declare a law unconstitutional on grounds that aren't really in the Constitution, then it is tyranny.

You might want to look up the part in the constitution about judicial review.

Then get back to me.

Meanwhile you certainly aren't a very good American if you don't follow the constitution.

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you are a lawyer or a Constitutional law professor, with knowledge of the Constitution.

However, you are wrong.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it up out of nowhere.

If you can find "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please let me know where it is.

Also, there was no Constitutional basis for the decision to strike down state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court just whipped that out of it's ass.

So where did you get your law degree? Wherever you got it, you should return it. You didn't learn the basics of our constitution and government.

Look up the 4th Amendment.

It clearly says everyone has a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

Privacy in their persons doesn't only apply to men. Nor does it apply to only things you agree with.

Yes the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that everyone must be treated equal under the law. Which is what homosexual marriage was argued under.

The supreme court sided with the constitution and me on both issues. Not you.

Just saying something doesn't make it true nor legal.

So you're wrong.

Stop trying to be cute. You're only making a fool of yourself.

You know zip about the law, you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. A political decision by the court doesn't make it good law so save your sanctimonious horseshit for the playgrounds. Relationships are not all equal. How have we managed to get this far in our country without realizing relationships between people had the rights of an individual. Can two brothers marry? If not you're theory is bullshit.

And privacy does not mean no one can interfere if it comes to another human life.

 

[Blackrook]

The Supreme Court gave themselves the power to strike down laws in Marbury v. Madison:

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

When they use that power to declare a law unconstitutional on grounds that aren't really in the Constitution, then it is tyranny.

You might want to look up the part in the constitution about judicial review.

Then get back to me.

Meanwhile you certainly aren't a very good American if you don't follow the constitution.

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you are a lawyer or a Constitutional law professor, with knowledge of the Constitution.

However, you are wrong.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it up out of nowhere.

If you can find "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please let me know where it is.

Also, there was no Constitutional basis for the decision to strike down state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court just whipped that out of it's ass.

So where did you get your law degree? Wherever you got it, you should return it. You didn't learn the basics of our constitution and government.

Look up the 4th Amendment.

It clearly says everyone has a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

Privacy in their persons doesn't only apply to men. Nor does it apply to only things you agree with.

Yes the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that everyone must be treated equal under the law. Which is what homosexual marriage was argued under.

The supreme court sided with the constitution and me on both issues. Not you.

Just saying something doesn't make it true nor legal.

So you're wrong.

Stop trying to be cute. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Well, you are basing your arguments based on the erroneous notion that the Supreme Court is always right when it interprets the Constitution.

However, I can point to two cases where the Supremes ruled erroneously, and later reversed themselves:

Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionalityof state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.
"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[2] After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[3]
Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held thatAfrican Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time to that point in its history, the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the height of foolishness for liberals to think the abortion issue will ever be settled based on case of the Supreme Court.

 

[Blackrook]

No response from the guy who thinks the Supreme Court never makes a mistake.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the same folks who find such “rights” hidden in the Constitution to murder innocent children and to hold sick, immoral sexual perversions as equal to normal, proper marriage and family; are those who deny the right explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, and are increasingly attacking the freedoms of religion and expression explicitly stated in the First Amendment along with the freedom of association that is very strongly implied therein.

Modern liberalism truly is madness.

 

[Blackrook]

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the same folks who find such “rights” hidden in the Constitution to murder innocent children and to hold sick, immoral sexual perversions as equal to normal, proper marriage and family; are those who deny the right explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, and are increasingly attacking the freedoms of religion and expression explicitly stated in the First Amendment along with the freedom of association that is very strongly implied therein.

Modern liberalism truly is madness.

That is correct. And don't forget this. The liberals at the ACLU has just won a lawsuit that reigns in NYPD efforts to stop terrorism.

Landmark Settlement in Challenge to NYPD Surveillance of New York Muslims: What You Need to Know

 

[Iceweasel]

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the same folks who find such “rights” hidden in the Constitution to murder innocent children and to hold sick, immoral sexual perversions as equal to normal, proper marriage and family; are those who deny the right explicitly stated in the Second Amendment, and are increasingly attacking the freedoms of religion and expression explicitly stated in the First Amendment along with the freedom of association that is very strongly implied therein.

Modern liberalism truly is madness.

Good point. The right of free association, religion and pursuit of happiness is thrown out in the liberal mind to forward their progressive agenda. When they get a favorable political court decision, even if it's 5/4, they act like it came down from God. Otherwise, the Constitution is a living breathing document.

The truth is it's a power grab by central government trampling state rights. If things like abortion or gay marriage aren't clear in the Constitution it should be up to the states. I think ALL decisions need to be unanimous for law to take effect. The fact that Supreme Court justices can disagree means it is not clear. Decisions come down to being personal opinion, not legal analysis.

 

[Dana7360]

You might want to look up the part in the constitution about judicial review.

Then get back to me.

Meanwhile you certainly aren't a very good American if you don't follow the constitution.

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you are a lawyer or a Constitutional law professor, with knowledge of the Constitution.

However, you are wrong.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it up out of nowhere.

If you can find "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please let me know where it is.

Also, there was no Constitutional basis for the decision to strike down state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court just whipped that out of it's ass.

So where did you get your law degree? Wherever you got it, you should return it. You didn't learn the basics of our constitution and government.

Look up the 4th Amendment.

It clearly says everyone has a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

Privacy in their persons doesn't only apply to men. Nor does it apply to only things you agree with.

Yes the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that everyone must be treated equal under the law. Which is what homosexual marriage was argued under.

The supreme court sided with the constitution and me on both issues. Not you.

Just saying something doesn't make it true nor legal.

So you're wrong.

Stop trying to be cute. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Well, you are basing your arguments based on the erroneous notion that the Supreme Court is always right when it interprets the Constitution.

However, I can point to two cases where the Supremes ruled erroneously, and later reversed themselves:

Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionalityof state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.
"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[2] After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[3]
Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held thatAfrican Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time to that point in its history, the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the height of foolishness for liberals to think the abortion issue will ever be settled based on case of the Supreme Court.

I won't read your words anymore.

All those words mean nothing.

You can type them all day long for the rest of your life and they sill will mean nothing.

Here's reality for you, what you think or what you type or what you say means absolutely NOTHING. Your anti freedom and constitutional views mean NOTHING.

I keep telling you the honest facts. What actually happened. What is the law of the land and will be the law of the land forever.

The supreme court ruled in favor of the constitution and the same way I would have ruled.

So every single word you typed means nothing. The reality is that abortion is legal in America. It's been legal for something like 43 years. It's going to stay legal no matter what you want or think.

The reality is that gay marriage is legal. It will stay legal no matter what you think or want.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

Bigotry lost. Anti freedom of choice lost.

Both will continue to lose and you will continue to have to accept it.

 

[Iceweasel]

The supreme court ruled in favor of the constitution and the same way I would have ruled.

In other words, a political decision, as we knew. Since two brothers can't marry then people are still not all being treated the same. Not all relationships are equal. Poof, there goes your argument.

 

[Spinster]

I am pro using protection and contraception if you do not want a baby , HIV, or any of the many VD's.

If your church and religious upbringing can't keep you from having an unwanted pregnancy, who says the Gov. can. Oh I see Jesus is forgiving, so we need a law that also prohibits abortions. Abortions should not be necessary in this day and age.

Abortions will always be necessary, as long as women can still get pregnant. It's the unnecessary ones that should be as few as possible.

What would a necessary abortion be?

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

"There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says."
Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives

Abstenance is much better.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't hate babies

I believe in women's right to choose whether to carry on with a pregnancy, but not because I hate babies. Actually, I'm pro-choice because I AM thinking of the babies.

When a women knows that she is not in a position to bring a child into this world, cannot give it the security and support it deserves, either financially or emotionally, why force that potential life to fruition? To me, that seems the responsible decision, and no one I know who has made that choice found it easy. I don't believe we need to bring unwanted children into this world any longer. It's the baby that suffers for being unwanted or born to parents unprepared/unable to care for it. Until the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, it is not a "baby," although us moms start emotionally bonding with the life in our bellies as soon as we discover we're pregnant.

Third trimester abortions? I'm not so sure about that unless the mother is going to die, because we can frequently save premies. Not always, and not always without serious complications, but sometimes.
Birth control is better than abortion. Those who want to shut down Planned Parenthood are making a huge mistake, imo, since PP helps prevent abortion through birth control for women.

Groups that help potential moms get the support they need to care for the baby or put it up for adoption, bless them. But they can't possibly handle them all.

If I'm a baby killer for my beliefs, it's euthanasia, not murder.

When a women knows that she is not in a position to bring a child into this world, cannot give it the security and support it deserves, either financially or emotionally, is not an excuse to kill the baby.

 

[Blackrook]

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

The right to privacy is in the constitution and that's what Roe V Wade argued. The judges agreed. The government has no right to intrude on a woman's privacy with her doctor. We have further laws for privacy with medical issues. Look up the HIPAA laws.

As for marriage equality, there is a the right to be treated equally under the law. If straight people can get married and have all the benefits of marriage then homosexual people have a constitutional right to marry and those same benefits.

I'm not surprised that you don't believe those parts of the constitution applies to women and homosexuals. You believe the constitution only applies to you and those who agree with your views.

Guess what? That's not freedom for all or what America is all about.

Stop whining that the constitution applies to everyone. If you don't like it then leave. I'm sure you would be much happier in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you are a lawyer or a Constitutional law professor, with knowledge of the Constitution.

However, you are wrong.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it up out of nowhere.

If you can find "right of privacy" in the Constitution, please let me know where it is.

Also, there was no Constitutional basis for the decision to strike down state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court just whipped that out of it's ass.

So where did you get your law degree? Wherever you got it, you should return it. You didn't learn the basics of our constitution and government.

Look up the 4th Amendment.

It clearly says everyone has a right to privacy in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

Privacy in their persons doesn't only apply to men. Nor does it apply to only things you agree with.

Yes the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that everyone must be treated equal under the law. Which is what homosexual marriage was argued under.

The supreme court sided with the constitution and me on both issues. Not you.

Just saying something doesn't make it true nor legal.

So you're wrong.

Stop trying to be cute. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Well, you are basing your arguments based on the erroneous notion that the Supreme Court is always right when it interprets the Constitution.

However, I can point to two cases where the Supremes ruled erroneously, and later reversed themselves:

Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionalityof state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.
"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[2] After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[3]
Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held thatAfrican Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time to that point in its history, the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the height of foolishness for liberals to think the abortion issue will ever be settled based on case of the Supreme Court.

I won't read your words anymore.

All those words mean nothing.

You can type them all day long for the rest of your life and they sill will mean nothing.

Here's reality for you, what you think or what you type or what you say means absolutely NOTHING. Your anti freedom and constitutional views mean NOTHING.

I keep telling you the honest facts. What actually happened. What is the law of the land and will be the law of the land forever.

The supreme court ruled in favor of the constitution and the same way I would have ruled.

So every single word you typed means nothing. The reality is that abortion is legal in America. It's been legal for something like 43 years. It's going to stay legal no matter what you want or think.

The reality is that gay marriage is legal. It will stay legal no matter what you think or want.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

Bigotry lost. Anti freedom of choice lost.

Both will continue to lose and you will continue to have to accept it.

You're wrong on all counts. The Supreme Court isn't God, and we don't have to accept it when the Supreme Court renders decisions that have no basis in the Constitution, and nullify the state laws passed by elected representatives.

And you will lose, because the millennials are more pro-life than the generations before them.

Abortions rates are down. Abortion clinics are going out of business. Young people are more likely to oppose abortion, because all of them know they are survivors of abortion.

American millennials rethink abortion, for good reasons - The Boston Globe